At 8/31/16 11:38 AM, kanef wrote: only american prod baptists do this anyways and the rest of christianity gets blamed

That is true. The Baptists are trying to make all the Christians look bad.

At 8/31/16 09:42 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: if they wanted to help, they could just donate. this was a statement, a jab at religion using needy children as the pawn.

I don't think you realize how common this is. Organizations and groups are always donating to non-profits and then being credited as a sponsor. If McDonald's had done this, they would have gotten credit.

it was a donation out of spite. not apples to apples there.

It's not out of spite. A group of atheists got together to donate money to a charity. Why do you assume that the actions of atheists are immoral and the actions of theists are moral?

At 8/31/16 09:46 PM, Brandon wrote:

At 8/31/16 09:23 PM, Bit wrote: Please do tell us how uncomfortable you are about men touching their penises together in the privacy of their own homes. I'm sure you have a really good argument for why they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

Because it's icky nd gooey and mommy Im scared stop making me have gay thoughts

Don't worry, Monstie. I'll hold you tight until the gay throughts subside. :3

At 8/31/16 01:45 PM, satanbrain wrote: Atheist money is worse than blood money.

I wonder if they have that phrase on a T shirt?

At 8/31/16 01:50 PM, CiviLies wrote: tbh I'm too broke at the moment to care. I need books for college, and I'm trying to stay within the lanes of my own beliefs of avoiding robbing, stealing, selling drugs, etc, but if I don't get some money soon, uggggh, I may as well start selling meth or something fml

Being broke and having bills and obligations is a terrible thing. You have to get that money somehow.

At 8/31/16 09:54 PM, Bit wrote: Don't worry, Monstie. I'll hold you tight until the gay throughts subside. :3

Thank you Bit. Salam. Remember, what would Mohammed PBUH do?

At 8/31/16 10:10 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

At 8/31/16 01:45 PM, satanbrain wrote: Atheist money is worse than blood money.

I wonder if they have that phrase on a T shirt?

A T-shirt is a shirt that is shaped like the letter T.

At 8/31/16 01:52 PM, MrPercie wrote: Better to be faithfully dead, than alive.

That sounds like something they would say for the Emperor.

At 8/31/16 02:48 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: something like that. if it was truly about donating, they'd just donate, wouldn't have to make a statement too.

That is correct. A donation should not have any strings attached.

At 8/31/16 09:51 PM, Bit wrote:

At 8/31/16 09:42 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: if they wanted to help, they could just donate. this was a statement, a jab at religion using needy children as the pawn.

I don't think you realize how common this is. Organizations and groups are always donating to non-profits and then being credited as a sponsor. If McDonald's had done this, they would have gotten credit.

obviously, but mcdonalds donating towards a wheel chair ramp at the park isn't the same situation.

it was a donation out of spite. not apples to apples there.

It's not out of spite. A group of atheists got together to donate money to a charity. Why do you assume that the actions of atheists are immoral and the actions of theists are moral?

you honestly believe there is no motive here except aid for children? none? you earlier displayed a distaste for this type of religious institution, one where children are "indoctrinated", there's no motive in atheists donating to such a place?

i dgaf who has what religion or perceived morality of either, this just seems to me an unwarranted way of being abrasive.

At 8/31/16 04:02 PM, Bit wrote: "What? You want to give money to native orphans? Sorry, buddy. We won't take your money to help these native orphans because we don't want people to think that atheists are just as charitable as us.

The orphans would not care where the money is coming from.

Now please excuse me while I go force my beliefs upon these orphans and then I'm scheduled to beat my son within an inch of his life because he dishonored Jesus by masturbating. God bless!"

It is true that some of what they do is sending mixed messages.

At 8/31/16 04:06 PM, Xenomit wrote: "Innocent muslims"

https://youtu.be/z6EjyL-l60Y

Xenomit, thinks that innocent muslims is just laughable. How many share his point of view?

At 8/31/16 10:10 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

At 8/31/16 01:45 PM, satanbrain wrote: Atheist money is worse than blood money.

I wonder if they have that phrase on a T shirt?

They do now.

At 8/31/16 04:59 PM, Moblin wrote: I think it's kind of selfish, now it sounds like the organisation's run by christians is more important than the organisation being a charity. If you're called a hypocrite then I don't understand, this is not about religion it's about helping these children and these two groups want to do the same thing so why not be happy with having a common ideal. .

They should both compromise and help the orphans together. That is the most important thing.

At 8/31/16 06:54 PM, Omegeist wrote: It is more about the big picture. First of all good Christians are not relativists. According to its followers Christianity is the absolute truth. Of course they don't want another religion putting an advertisement up especially one as self-righteous and politically charged as atheism.

The Christians did feel slighted. They should of turned the other cheek.

At 8/31/16 09:42 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: if they wanted to help, they could just donate. this was a statement, a jab at religion using needy children as the pawn.

Yes, donations should have nothing to do with religious attacks.

it was a donation out of spite. not apples to apples there.

Donations should only be about love and sharing.

At 8/31/16 09:46 PM, Brandon wrote: Because it's icky nd gooey and mommy Im scared stop making me have gay thoughts

Church and gay thoughts should be totally separate.

At 8/30/16 11:05 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: http://www.fox23.com/news/muskogee-childrens-home-refuses-donations-from-atheist-group/429129483

I guess some people will not accept money if it goes against their beliefs. I don't know if I should call these people brave for not being hypocrites or stupid for not taking donated money?

Either way they lose, huh?
What's with you people and shunning someone's beliefs, what does it do to hurt you so badly? Remind you of your embarrassing parents that are so old fashioned? That's many Atheist's hang ups is that Christianity isn't on par with being hip and trendy.

I'll never understand why atheism has to hate on religion when it should just not give a shit about it like it pathetically claims it does.

:Inb4 u christ fag

At 8/31/16 10:19 PM, Bit wrote: A T-shirt is a shirt that is shaped like the letter T.

Yes, it is. Good job. Would you like a cookie?

At 8/31/16 10:32 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: obviously, but mcdonalds donating towards a wheel chair ramp at the park isn't the same situation.

McDonalds has nothing to do with religion.

you honestly believe there is no motive here except aid for children? none? you earlier displayed a distaste for this type of religious institution, one where children are "indoctrinated", there's no motive in atheists donating to such a place?

Atheists have never come out and announced beliefs, if they wrote an atheists bible it would be easier to understand their motivation.

At 9/1/16 02:22 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

At 8/31/16 04:59 PM, Moblin wrote: I think it's kind of selfish, now it sounds like the organisation's run by christians is more important than the organisation being a charity. If you're called a hypocrite then I don't understand, this is not about religion it's about helping these children and these two groups want to do the same thing so why not be happy with having a common ideal. .

They should both compromise and help the orphans together. That is the most important thing.

Exactly, even if these atheists were clearly testing them to see how they would react, I'd still take the money.

At 9/1/16 12:15 PM, Omegeist wrote: Would you mind backing that claim up?
Atheism is the belief and assumption that we live in Godless world and as an un-provable belief it requires a certain degree of faith. Therefore it is its own religion.

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. There are no assumptions to make. When there's lack of evidence to support a claim, and in fact much evidence to the contrary, rejecting said claim is not an "assumption" but a logical conclusion. If atheism is a religion then not believing in bigfoot is also a religion.

Atheism claims many converts for political reasons. For example many people have rejected belief in God because Christianity condemns homosexuality and abortion. Whenever I argue about atheism the conversation usually veers away from the philosophical aspect and focuses around politics. So in my experience it is usually politically charged. However giving you some room it doesn't have to be. For example CS Lewis seemed to base his faith more around the philosophical aspect of it.

That's weird because when people talk about Christianity, the discussion also seems to veer into the direction of homosexuality being a sin and other nonsense. Is Christianity "politically-charged", too? Actually, I don't see why homosexuality would be brought up in the context of atheism, rather than Christianity, because to the vast majority of atheists, homosexuality is a complete non-issue because we don't follow bronze-age texts on the matter.

Belief in God was a choice for me just as it is a choice even if you grow up in an orphanage. If you are worried the kids won't get a dose of atheism just remember they can't be there forever. I have certainly gotten my dose. It is also a choice for you but I don't think you were given a very fair chance considering how little you seem to know about Christianity.

Oh, no. I know plenty about Christianity. I have lots of Christian friends. The pattern I noticed is that all of my Christian friends were indoctrinated at a young age. None of them were raised in a secular setting and then decided to become Christians. On the other hand, my atheist friends come from mixed secular and non-secular backgrounds. The obvious thing to take away from this is that, if you aren't force-fed religion from a young age, you're unlikely to believe in it later in life.

What part of the Crusades do you disapprove of? Which one? They are all different. I never argue the Crusades because they are also a mixed bag of political, financial, and reputation based events. They were not entirely religious. So why don't you be more specific? I am assuming you are an expert on the subject since you brought it up. You better get reading on it.

The crusades were mostly slaughters done in the name of Christianity. You're supposed to love thy neighbor unless they're a filthy Muslim.

For violence against witches, and abortion clinic attacks again I will say that Christians are capable of evil just as everyone else is. The core teachings of Christianity instituted by Jesus Christ do not permit such actions. Love thy enemy.

Yet so much of this is done in the name of Christianity -- which is supposed to be a force for good. How "good" are your teachings when they cause people to slaughter each other and blow things up?

Evil is a lot more prevalent in atheists and those who fall away from belief in Jesus's teachings namely because they don't typically believe in it.

Hahahaha holy shit. Talk about [citation needed]. I was being really friendly when addressing the above points because I sort of feel bad for you, but I gotta say... if you really think that atheists are, as a whole, a "more evil" group then you are horribly bigoted and misguided. Even I, one of religion's biggest opponents on the BBS, never argued that Christians are "more evil". Holy shit you are deluded.

I would like to see you defend Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.

I'd like to see you defend the genocides led against American native people by European colonists, the British genocide against Australian natives, the French conquest of Algeria, The Irish Potato Famine, Belgium's Congo, and others. I don't see all of the atheists who must secretly be behind these atrocities.

- I will continue to presume that until you say otherwise. Enlighten me senpai.

I'm not writing a doctoral thesis on morality. You can read the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

TL;DR version: your bible isn't the only source of morality.

- Jesus wasn't bronze age lmao.

But his own morality used the mythology of bronze-age literature as a base, and therefore, still has many of the vestiges.

- So you have no respect for important classical figures like Plato or Archimedes?

Oh, I do, but I don't consider any of them to be the ultimate authority on anything, morality or otherwise. We've learned a lot since then.

Why don't you drop everything and prove me wrong. Go open an atheist orphanage. [snip]

And why don't you? What's your excuse?

Share a story with me of a prominent atheist saint. Someone equivalent to figures like Father Damien of Molokai or Mother Teresa.

Atheist activists:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- "She is a leading opponent of female genital mutilation, and calls for a reformation of Islam."
Richard Carlile -- "for the establishment of universal suffrage and freedom of the press in the United Kingdom."
Saraswathi Gora -- "campaigned against untouchability and the caste system."
Rebecca Hensler -- "founder of Grief Beyond Belief, a support group for grieving people who do not believe in God"
Maryam Namazie -- "is an Iranian-born secularist and human rights activist,"
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar -- "was an Indian pro-independence activist"
Zackie Achmat -- "South African anti-HIV/AIDS activist; founder of the Treatment Action Campaign."
Baba Amte -- "Respected Indian social activist, known for his work with lepers."
Julian Assange -- You know who he is
David D. Friedman -- "Economist, law professor, novelist, and libertarian activist"
Franklin E. Kameny -- "American gay rights activist"
Adam Kokesh -- "American libertarian anti-war activist"
Ingrid Newkirk -- "British-born animal rights activist"
Deng Pufang -- "Chinese handicap people's rights activist"
Henry Stephens Salt -- "English writer and campaigner for social reform in the fields of prisons, schools, economic institutions and the treatment of animals, a noted anti-vivisectionist and pacifist"
Margaret Sanger -- "American birth-control activist"
Marie Souvestre -- "French headmistress, a feminist educator who sought to develop independent minds"
David Suzuki -- "environmental activist."

Secular organizations:
Planned Parenthood USA
Planned Parenthood International
Doctors Without Borders
Donors Choose
The American Red Cross
Direct Relief International
The American Humanist Association
Partners in Health
UNICEF
American Civil Liberties Union
British Humanist Association
Oxfam
Atheist Centre of India
Foundation Beyond Belief
Fellowship of Freethought
International Humanist and Ethical Union
Atheists Helping the Homeless
American Humanist Association
Kiva Lending Team
Humanist Soup Kitchen
Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort
Secular Center USA
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Hivos - People Unlimited

As I said before it wasn't a donation, [snip because running out of characters]

And as I said, this sort of thing is common. Sponsors usually get the name of their group mentioned somewhere. It wasn't one guy's donation, either, it was a group of people. He couldn't take all of the credit. If a company had donated, they would have been mentioned.

At 8/31/16 10:38 PM, FastbootsZA wrote: Well maybe if the group didn't say they are atheists then the christians would give them money.

That would of made everything much easier for everybody.

At 9/1/16 12:28 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 8/31/16 10:10 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: I wonder if they have that phrase on a T shirt?

They do now.

That phrase looks nice on that T shirt.

At 9/1/16 08:10 PM, Omegeist wrote: Believing in bigfoot is not a philosophical practice nor a belief system the way atheism is

Atheism is not a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby. But believing in bigfoot or even ancient aliens could be. Did you know that you're (most likely) a member of the Church of Not Believing in Ancient Aliens?

and this exchange is about religion not false analogies. What is this evidence against Christianity? And please before you respond keep in mind I am a Roman Catholic not a protestant fundamentalist.

The only thing that's needed to disprove Christianity is evolution. Humans evolved from early apes, and were not made from mud and ribs. The pope can make whatever claim he wants about evolution being "not inconsistent with the notion of creation", but we both know that's bullshit. The bible clearly mentions mud, ribs, Adam, and Eve. The catholic church just happens to be fighting to remain relevant, and the easiest way to do that is to pretend that the most egregious errors in the bible aren't really part of the bible.

When Christians converse about their faith with one another the discussion is usually about prayer, theology, and liturgy. When Christians converse with atheists like the orphanage with the "donor" it is usually something political like "gay marriage"

That's weird because I hear my Christian friends talk about how immoral homosexuality is all the time. One of them even made a comment to another that transsexuals should be killed. I guess they suddenly become much gentler when I leave the room.

Tell your "Christian friends" to educate you more on the subject. You could clearly use it. I brought up CS Lewis earlier.

That's the exception rather than the rule. Most who are raised atheist do not become religious, but many who are religious become atheists. See below.

Religion isn't force fed. You either practice it or you don't.

But that's wrong. Children are force-fed religion from a young age and they believe it without question. They're trained NOT to question it. The same thing is being done with the orphans.

That isn't exactly true. You gave me a Wikipedia article to read through so why don't you read one for me.

What am I looking for? The article confirms that The Crusades were mainly to garner power for the church.

Evils done in the name of Christianity are not based on the teachings of Jesus Christ nor are they actually Christian. You are like a broken record. Trying to use that argument over and over again expecting a different response isn't going to change anything.

You can't just pretend that actions done in the name of Christianity are not Christian. You can't seriously believe that abortion clinic bombings are "not Christian" just because they give you a bad reputation. The abortion clinic bombings are triggered by things taught in the bible.

Alright relax we are all friends here on the BBS. Don't get butthurt. As evidence of my claim I gave you a list of the worst human beings in history who all happened to be atheists and you shrugged it off.

I never shrugged it off. None of those people did what they did FOR atheism. They weren't even done in the name of atheism, nor would they have been different if done by a Christian. I even gave you a list of atrocities committed by theists.

argument stemmed from the idea that Christianity is worse than atheism. Maybe you should re-read your first post senpai stop being so hypocritical.

Oh, yes. Christianity is most definitely worse than atheism. But I never claimed that Christians were, as a group, more evil than atheists. Only a bigot such as yourself would generalize people like that. Christianity is bullshit, but its followers are mostly just misguided. I wouldn't call them evil.

Mao Zedong was responsible for the deaths of over 50 million people. A pillar of his communist regime was atheism. [snip]

And the Europeans colonists who arrived in the Americas were good Christians who caused the deaths of 40-90 million natives through disease, murder, and genocide. And what do you mean the numbers aren't there? If you add up the genocides committed by religious groups without history, they'd be pretty comparable to the ones you mentioned. Atheism was not the cause.

BTW we have a Wikipedia page for that, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

Morality and religion are not synonymous (You can read about it in the page you so generously shared with me). This proves my point further that atheists do in fact base their morals off of subjective feeling because the religion doesn't actually endorse any particular morals.

Atheism is not a religion, and the point of the article was to show that morals can be based on many things. Some of it is subjective, but other parts are learned through parents, and also social feedback.

Going back to our good atheist friend Mao Zedong it can be seen that he thought it was moral to murder millions of people because he felt like it and it was in his line of interest.

And Christians stole the Americas from the natives, murdered them, and spread disease which nearly wiped them out. Those are some good Christian morals.

I don't think you are a full believer of atheism. I detect strains of relativism in you which would explain your irritation in my inquiry on where your morals come from.

I am an atheist.

Again I feel like I am dealing with a broken record with you. Jesus pioneered the importance of compassion in a world that rejected it as a weakness. Read about it or look at my older post, I feel like you are just trolling me at this point. Compassion isn't something we should abandon. If you don't agree with that then maybe you are bronze age lmao.

Actually, it is you who is the broken record. You keep talking about Jesus advocating compassion, but he himself based his new religion on the old testament (aka bronze age morality) which advocated the murder of rape victims, slavery, and pedophilia. Those vestiges are still there, which is why Christianity is used as a justification for horrible actions. Like those friendly Europeans who wanted to teach American natives or African slaves about Jesus. By taking their land and/or enslaving them.

Learned what? Starve Ukraine? Most aspects of our society still reach back to the classical era. It isn't something old that needs to be thrown out. The communists tried to do that and look where they got (inb4 "to space first"). The successes of classical civilization are an evolutionary milestone in our species and a bedrock we have continued to build on.

I never said to throw out what we've learned from classical people. All I said is that we can't hold them as an authority on everything when their views are more than one thousand years out of date. Being a classical figure does not exempt them from scrutiny.

...Because this is about your claim that that everyday atheists are just as charitable as the missionaries who started that orphanage. One day I do hope to spread the message of Christ but right now I am in school learning so I can do the job better. And back to you?

So you don't plan on opening an orphanage, either? I don't really know where you were going with this argument. Neither of us want to open an orphanage.

I want self professed atheists not [snip]

Oh I just lifted that list from Wikipedia. There are a lot of very charitable and good people on that list. All of the people happen to be atheists and all of the organizations happen to be secular. That doesn't make any of them less influential and good. You wanted an example of a "saintly" atheist, and I gave you a few to pick from. You can't seriously believe that all of these people and organizations are evil?

At 9/1/16 12:19 PM, Omegeist wrote: Why don't you re-read what I wrote.

I did. It was very informative.

At 9/1/16 12:20 PM, annefrankfanficfan64 wrote: since atheists are impure their money is of course also impure

Atheists should go ahead and print their own money.

At 9/1/16 01:19 PM, killerjeff wrote: Either way they lose, huh?
That's many Atheist's hang ups is that Christianity isn't on par with being hip and trendy.

That is true. The whole thing seems kinda silly.

I'll never understand why atheism has to hate on religion when it should just not give a shit about it like it pathetically claims it does.

Atheists love to mock and hate on other religions.

At 9/1/16 03:49 PM, Moblin wrote: Exactly, even if these atheists were clearly testing them to see how they would react, I'd still take the money.

Somebody had to had morals and stand up to the atheists.

At 9/2/16 02:24 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:

At 9/1/16 01:19 PM, killerjeff wrote: Either way they lose, huh?
That's many Atheist's hang ups is that Christianity isn't on par with being hip and trendy.

That is true. The whole thing seems kinda silly.

I'll never understand why atheism has to hate on religion when it should just not give a shit about it like it pathetically claims it does.

Atheists love to mock and hate on other religions.

If only people would just tolerate each other's beliefs and disbelief's, but even then thats asking too much, sadly.