Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 6/28/07 07:27 PM, Altarus wrote: Quite honestly, as a casual Internet surfer and forum regular, I see more atheists complaining about religion than all of those combined. And atheists are a much smaller portion of the population.

I can understand that, but, I also think extreme religions people tend to use the internet less, or keep to very closed down forums. Atheist, even if they can be just as extreme, tend to be more open to stuff like that. (The internet isn't the devil's work, ect).

Just complare sites like teens-4-christ.com to the atheists forums and you'll see it a lot diffrent. You'll find really extreme atheist saying all people who belive in God is retarded and shouldn't be allowed to raise children, and you'll find Christians and Muslims who talk about how natural catastopes are God's justice and that the country needs to be "taken back", how gay people needs to be executed, ect ect.

Also, you should know that atheists are usualy a much larger part of the population than in the US. In Sweden, my home country, 80% now identify as "nonbelivers" (not just atheist). And stuff like this does make a diffrence, since not only people from America use the internet.

---

At 6/29/07 05:12 AM, Ravariel wrote:

...absolutely amazing. You actually think that's what I was talking about?

Sure. Why not.

Anyway, what number? 3? 6? Yeah, whooole lot o' lawsuits there! Certainly worth mention!

And 2 wasn't? At least I could count.

Did you happen to see the link I posted about proof by example?

No, I don't feel like giving you that kind of attention.

Have you looked?

Nope.

But they're upholding the moral values that this country was founded on! You're such a hypocrite, claiming to be a christian then not actually standing up for those trying to spread the Word.

If I was upholding the values this nation was founded on, then i'd be out preaching how women should not be able to vote.

Otherwise you're full of it.

Sure.

That's like me giving proof that the government didn't conduct 9/11 and you still saying "well, it still could've happend".

So you think 88% of the population should be registered sex offenders? Gotcha.

Yes.

I've already said it another thread, and maybe here. I want the US to destroy itself.

This is Politics...

That flew right over your head didn't it?

If you hate it so much, fucking leave.

Strange, I tell that to you leftists all of the time and what is the response? "Land of the free".

Like I said. Hypocrite.

I wasn't aware there was a scale...

Maybe we should just then call all cases of killing as murder. It shouldn't matter if you were defending yourself, it's murder.

Anyone want to throw odds on that choice?

100%

Interesting viewpoint from someone who claims to work in an art field. Have you even graduated High School yet?

Video Game Art.

Not that crappy abstract "look what I plastered on this with 3 buckets of paint" art.

We were talking about them, not you. And it completely obliterates your point that religious people aren't offended by religious imagery on public buildings.

I didn't say they weren't.

Still having reading problems I see.

So you're down with paying for pagan imagery on public buildings?

No, not really.

But then again, these people weren't complaining about paying for future buildings with religous symbols. They're complaining about buildings and memorials that have been here for 50+ years.

...fucking retard...

Good. You'll become more like me with every post.

...you only ever heard one carol and didn't sing along? lmao, sure, bub. Bah-fucking-humbug.

I live in a desert.

Well, at least you admit it. Is anything you say ever true?

Are you ever able to read properly?

I'm going to ban you from watching christmas movies? I can DO that? SWEET!

That's what I mean. If you people could, you would. Just like how if I could press a button that would kill everyone like you, I would.

I did? Funny, I don't remember ever trying to ban any phrase.

Just like how I don't remember ever saying that religous people don't complain.

This is because they deal with all legal matters pertaining to the constitution, which is the legal document that says that speech is protected.

The constitution also mentions "the Creator". So because the 10 amendments are endowed on us by a creator I don't believe in, that means the consitution has a religous connotation and I'am therefore capable of choosing not to abide by it.

Or maybe you're just a lying sack of shit.

That's it. Keep up the insults.

And you and your pathetic christians as well.

Really puttin' that genius IQ to the test, I see.

What's IQ worth if you can get paid starting at $60k a year?

So young and naive...

So old and senile.

Naw. Music, art, history, foreign languages, English lit, english comp and Government are pointless for the majority of High School students.

Music and art = Not mandatory.
English: Obviously needed (proof on this BBS)
Government: Obviously needed (the more someone knows about the past, the less likely they become a filthy liberal)

Then why are you arguing HIM about THEIR view? Argue them.

Why did he do it with me?

After all, we agree on the same thing. The only difference is that he keeps trying to come up with excuses for atheists bringing up the majority of lawsuits on religous matters because of them being offended.

You're right, I do believe that presidential candidates should have a firm belief in the validity of science.

Nice to know you also tell the constitution to fuck off.

You're a funny little kid, you know that. I think you actually believe that belittling others makes you better than them. I'm sure your parents are proud.

Not as funny as you.

I'm not belittling anyone. I tell the truth about them and they don't like the facts.

At 6/29/07 03:20 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Which make up a nearly non existent portion of us. We have nothing against religious symbols, but we should not, and will not pay for them.

I'm talking about the ones that are already in place. Not ones we're going to build.

That never happened, so the land transference was not only void, but also illegal, and could be considered fraud and conspiracy.

No, not that.

Heh, I love it when you guy's tell the veterans to fuck off every chance you get. Shows your true colors.

Oh and by the way, the atheist who complained was him self a veteran.

What a traitor.

You have to unless your bias.

k.

Go for it.

I could argue the good things. Tenth commandment anyone? But then I'd be going off on a tangent.

I could argue any one of them.

Oh, but can't forget. Adultry, though wrong, would be one. Have sex with as many people as you can.

It's not just Christianity it's any religion,

No. It's only christianity. It's the only targetted religion.

and yes this includes non-religion i.e. Atheism.

Atheism, a non religion. And that's exactly how you pathetic excuses of human life get away with half the lawsuits you bring up.

No it's really not. Unless you can provide details and specific events.

No, you would.

No you wouldn't. No one is suggesting that we tear down old buildings or rewrite anything, just that all new currency be with out the words “In god we trust”.

And that is why, you and everyone like you is a worthless being.

And no one is suggesting you get rid of them.

It'll get there.

I guarantee it.

And If they did I along with many others atheist would help fight them.

I doubt it. You give people too much credit.

Speaking personally I hear them all the time on my campus. They stand in front of the MU scream and preach about hell fire and damnation.

Maybe you should switch schools.

At my graduation, my school allowed people of different religions to get up and say a prayer.

Even though we had different beliefs, we all got the message.

Which is funny, because they didn't start out as Christian holidays.

It's not my fault that 1 specific church or 1 religion decided to hi-jack it.

---

At 6/29/07 01:12 PM, Memorize wrote:

No you wouldn't. No one is suggesting that we tear down old buildings or rewrite anything, just that all new currency be with out the words “In god we trust”.

And that is why, you and everyone like you is a worthless being.

Look, why do people still respond to anything Memorize says? He doesn't ever actually argue, or give any valid points, he judges and generalizes and then mentions how someone is worthless or an idiot.

If anyone gets upset by anything he's said, they are themselves, as he would put it, idiots. When he says something ignorant, just ignore it, or laugh at it, don't argue or rationalize with it. Reason always fails when combating irrationality, especially when it is relentless, constant, and over 10,000 posts long.

---

At 6/29/07 01:36 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 6/29/07 01:12 PM, Memorize wrote:

No you wouldn't. No one is suggesting that we tear down old buildings or rewrite anything, just that all new currency be with out the words “In god we trust”.

And that is why, you and everyone like you is a worthless being.

Look, why do people still respond to anything Memorize says? He doesn't ever actually argue, or give any valid points, he judges and generalizes and then mentions how someone is worthless or an idiot.

If anyone gets upset by anything he's said, they are themselves, as he would put it, idiots. When he says something ignorant, just ignore it, or laugh at it, don't argue or rationalize with it. Reason always fails when combating irrationality, especially when it is relentless, constant, and over 10,000 posts long.

Yes, finally! Someone that puts it bluntly and clearly. I know I don't have many posts but I've frequented this BBS for quite a while (Politics section especially) and I have to say I agree with Tan.

Why do you do this Mem? All these arguments are pointless and it's just like a constant barrage of insults towards the other person. Nothing is being said. It's an argument entirely based on Ad Hominem. And that seems to be your style...I'm not insulting your intelligence or anything but you insult your own intelligence when you offer nothing valid to an argument other than insults. You can do better than this, and I hope you do.

Also, seriously what are you? You bash atheists but you seem to also bash religious fanatacism (but that I can understand why...). But what exactly is your system of beliefs? Agnostic? Some form of Christian?

---

At 6/29/07 01:50 PM, ReN0 wrote:

Why do you do this Mem? All these arguments are pointless and it's just like a constant barrage of insults towards the other person. Nothing is being said.

And that's exactly why I do it.

You can say numerous things and make some points, but as soon as you throw an insult into it, the whole thing automatically becomes worthless.

I do it because it's funny how it's only worthless to those who have a different view, proving their bias.

Also, seriously what are you? You bash atheists but you seem to also bash religious fanatacism (but that I can understand why...). But what exactly is your system of beliefs? Agnostic? Some form of Christian?

Here's the lo-down.

Christian-Church of Christ.
-Goes to church every week
-Takes the Lord's supper every week
-Believes that someone should be baptized.

Now, the other things.
-Does not believe in holy water.
-Does not condemn people to Hell (pft, as if anyone somehow has that kind of power)
-Believes that you should leave people alone when they say "no" to door knocking
-Does not believe people should care about whether or not Marry remained a Virgin
-Does not care if you have a different religion
-Hates religion in government
-Believes that the main problem with christians are "christians" (I'll go to church today, but i'll beat my wife when I get home-type of people)

At 6/29/07 01:36 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

Look, why do people still respond to anything Memorize says? He doesn't ever actually argue, or give any valid points, he judges and generalizes and then mentions how someone is worthless or an idiot.

You're exactly what I mean by double standard.

---

Well, thank you Memorize at least you cleared a few things up.

Go UCC?! I guess I do have one thing in common with you...

---

At 6/29/07 01:12 PM, Memorize wrote:

Did you happen to see the link I posted about proof by example?

No, I don't feel like giving you that kind of attention.

Have you looked?

Nope.

"This is the way it is, don't confuse me with facts!"

That's like me giving proof that the government didn't conduct 9/11 and you still saying "well, it still could've happend".

No, it's more like saying there are more bees than mosquitos int he world, posting a few pictures of bees as "proof".

This is Politics...

That flew right over your head didn't it?

No, but apparently my pun flew over yours.

Strange, I tell that to you leftists all of the time and what is the response? "Land of the free".

When have I ever said I hated the country?

Like I said. Hypocrite.

How can I be a hypocrite when I've never expressed dislike for this country?

Maybe we should just then call all cases of killing as murder. It shouldn't matter if you were defending yourself, it's murder.

Sigh... not the point. And I'm not about to go through it step-by-step with you, cuz you'll just ignore it anyway and say something about hypocrist or leftists.

Video Game Art.

Not that crappy abstract "look what I plastered on this with 3 buckets of paint" art.

Yeah, there's nothing in between commercial art and abstract art. Michaelangelo, DaVinci, Renoir, Matisse, et al are all just crappy abstractionists.

But then again, these people weren't complaining about paying for future buildings with religous symbols. They're complaining about buildings and memorials that have been here for 50+ years.

Actually some of them were complaining about new additions to buildings. Either way, having religious iconography of any sort on a government building shows "respect" for one religion over another. I wasn't aware that trying to uphold the first amendment was distasteful.

Good. You'll become more like me with every post.

Only towards you. Towards everyone else I'm completely civil.

I live in a desert.

...k.

If you people could, you would. Just like how if I could press a button that would kill everyone like you, I would.

Actually I wouldn't. I'd use my leet banninating powers for other things.

I did? Funny, I don't remember ever trying to ban any phrase.

Just like how I don't remember ever saying that religous people don't complain.

Just that atheists do it more... a claim you've yet to back up with anything.

The constitution also mentions "the Creator". So because the 10 amendments are endowed on us by a creator I don't believe in, that means the consitution has a religous connotation and I'am therefore capable of choosing not to abide by it.

"Creator" is religiously nonspecific, so doesn't violate the first amendment. Your deflection is moot.

Or maybe you're just a lying sack of shit.

That's it. Keep up the insults.

Funny, coming from you.

English: Obviously needed (proof on this BBS)

Not really, most people can and do get away withirs-speak and don't write in any great amount. So rudimentary english learned through the internet is enough.

Government: Obviously needed (the more someone knows about the past, the less likely they become a filthy liberal)

Only time the average person needs to know anything about government is during voting season, and most people don't vote anyway. Or just vote how they've always voted... so having a class on it is pointless.

So we're back to just Shop and Sports.

The only difference is that he keeps trying to come up with excuses for atheists bringing up the majority of lawsuits on religous matters because of them being offended.

Except you have yet to demonstrate that atheists in fact DO bring up the majority of lawsuits.

You're right, I do believe that presidential candidates should have a firm belief in the validity of science.

Nice to know you also tell the constitution to fuck off.

In what way, shape, or form is that sentence telling the constitution to fuck off?

I'm not belittling anyone. I tell the truth about them and they don't like the facts.

Potayto, Potahto.

No. It's only christianity. It's the only targetted religion.

lol.

No you wouldn't. No one is suggesting that we tear down old buildings or rewrite anything, just that all new currency be with out the words “In god we trust”.

And that is why, you and everyone like you is a worthless being.

How is making our currency comply with the first amendment grounds for being "worthless"?

---

At 6/29/07 03:11 PM, Ravariel wrote:

"This is the way it is, don't confuse me with facts!"

I'm hardly denying anything you're saying.

Religous people can be just as annoying.

But the wack job atheists are louder than the wack job religous nuts.

No, it's more like saying there are more bees than mosquitos int he world, posting a few pictures of bees as "proof".

Well, I can only expect excuses.

No, but apparently my pun flew over yours.

Nope.

When have I ever said I hated the country?

I wasn't talking about you.

I was talking about the people you defend.

How can I be a hypocrite when I've never expressed dislike for this country?

Because you don't tell those who share your radical leftist views to leave the country when they say they don't like it.

Sigh... not the point. And I'm not about to go through it step-by-step with you, cuz you'll just ignore it anyway and say something about hypocrist or leftists.

Too late.

Yeah, there's nothing in between commercial art and abstract art. Michaelangelo, DaVinci, Renoir, Matisse, et al are all just crappy abstractionists.

No, because they actually put work into a lot of their art.

But If I see a piece of art with people who are just red blocks drawn with chalk, I could care less about the painting.

Actually some of them were complaining about new additions to buildings.

That's all fine and dandy.

" Either way, having religious iconography of any sort on a government building shows "respect" for one religion over another.

Let's tear down the Supreme Court.

I wasn't aware that trying to uphold the first amendment was distasteful.

Your version is distasteful.

Only towards you. Towards everyone else I'm completely civil.

Heh, doesn't matter.

Keep it up.

Actually I wouldn't. I'd use my leet banninating powers for other things.

Though not as severe, it's the same thing.

Just that atheists do it more... a claim you've yet to back up with anything.

Heh, I gave more cases than you.

I love it when you argue.

Haha, even the other guy acknowledged it.

"Creator" is religiously nonspecific, so doesn't violate the first amendment. Your deflection is moot.

However, you don't believe in one, why should you follow it?

You have no knowledge of History, haha.

Not really, most people can and do get away withirs-speak and don't write in any great amount. So rudimentary english learned through the internet is enough.

And that would be opinion.

Only time the average person needs to know anything about government is during voting season, and most people don't vote anyway. Or just vote how they've always voted... so having a class on it is pointless.

Nope. The clear fact is, there should be less people like you. If you didn't exist, then the world would be a better place.

So we're back to just Shop and Sports.

Nice failure.

Except you have yet to demonstrate that atheists in fact DO bring up the majority of lawsuits.

And you failed to prove me wrong.
And the other atheist who argued with me agreed that the majority of lawsuits are brought about by atheists.

I win.

In what way, shape, or form is that sentence telling the constitution to fuck off?

This is exactly what I meant about you having no historical knowledge.

Before, during and after the constitution was created, there were several states which required someone to be of protestant faith in order to run for that office.

That was later struck down.

So, in the same manner, requiring someone to believe a certain way is also struck down.

How is making our currency comply with the first amendment grounds for being "worthless"?

Because it is.

Why are you trying to waste time trying to change 4 words?

Which brings me back to the "creator" bit. You say it was a non religous specific. Yet many of the buildings during the constitutions birth had religous writings or symbols. Our money having "in God we trust". And before meetings, officials having prayer.

If you knew anything about history, you would know what the word "creator" meant. You would know what their version of seperation of church and state meant.

And this is why you are worthless. You have no historical knowledge and consider it pointless (probly to prevent people from becoming conservative), you cause division in the country, you cause hatred in the country.

When you and others like you band together to cause this destruction, you're worse than a child rapist.

---

At 6/29/07 03:28 PM, Memorize wrote:
But the wack job atheists are louder than the wack job religous nuts.

No they're not. Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, and Al Sharpton are louder than any atheist.

When have I ever said I hated the country?

I wasn't talking about you.

Then don't say "you" when you talk. Say who you're talking about.

Because you don't tell those who share your radical leftist views to leave the country when they say they don't like it.

I'm a radical leftist? lmao. Ok, bub. Much like to Begoner I'm a radical rightist, I suppose. So because I don't tell people to leave if the don't like it in conversations I never have with them, and I do in a conversation I'm having with you I'm a hypocrite? You have a loose interpretation of the word. By that definition, you're a hypocrite when you don't lay into JakeHero, WolvenBear, or cellar when they say stupid shit.

Takes one to know one, I suppose.

No, because they actually put work into a lot of their art.

Oh, so the value of art is dependant on the amount of effort put into it, gotcha.

" Either way, having religious iconography of any sort on a government building shows "respect" for one religion over another.

Let's tear down the Supreme Court.

Just remodel it. Cheaper that way.

I wasn't aware that trying to uphold the first amendment was distasteful.

Your version is distasteful.

I'm sorry if actually upholding the entire text is distasteful, rather than just the parts you like. For one so bent on legalities, that's a rather hypocritical stance for you to take.

Just that atheists do it more... a claim you've yet to back up with anything.

Heh, I gave more cases than you.

Proof by example (also known as inappropriate generalisation) is a logical fallacy whereby one or more examples are claimed as "proof" for a more general statement.

This fallacy has the following argument form:

I know that x \in X has the property P.
Therefore, all other elements of X have the property P.

The following example demonstrates why this is a logical fallacy:

I've seen a person shoot someone.
Therefore, all people are murderers.

That argument is obviously bad, but arguments of the same form can sometimes seem superficially convincing, as in the following example:

I've seen John's brother steal something.
Therefore, all John's family are thieves.

Show me actual comparison studies or your argument is false.

However, you don't believe in one, why should you follow it?

Because I acknowledge the possibility that one does exist, thus stating as such is not offensive to me.

And that would be opinion.

Well, when with you fact is opinion and opinion is fact, everything counts equally so I win.

Nope. The clear fact is, there should be less people like you. If you didn't exist, then the world would be a better place.

Funny, I feel the same way about you.

Except you have yet to demonstrate that atheists in fact DO bring up the majority of lawsuits.

And you failed to prove me wrong.

You're the one making the claim. The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

And the other atheist who argued with me agreed that the majority of lawsuits are brought about by atheists.

Weird, I didn't see any such admission. but then again you and reality have a tenuous relationship at best.

I win.

Congratulations.

So, in the same manner, requiring someone to believe a certain way is also struck down.

Where in that sentence did I say a belief should be required?

Why are you trying to waste time trying to change 4 words?

Because they are in direct opposition to the highest law of the land. You're the one who's always yelling about constitutionality. Funny how when it doesn't offend you, it's perfectly fine.

Which brings me back to the "creator" bit. You say it was a non religous specific. Yet many of the buildings during the constitutions birth had religous writings or symbols. Our money having "in God we trust". And before meetings, officials having prayer.

We're not talking about buildings in the 18th century, we're talking about government buildings now.

If you knew anything about history, you would know what the word "creator" meant. You would know what their version of seperation of church and state meant.

They used the word Creator instead of God for a reason.

And this is why you are worthless. You have no historical knowledge and consider it pointless (probly to prevent people from becoming conservative), you cause division in the country, you cause hatred in the country.

IU only cause your hatred... which is perfectly fine with me. And if the government would follow its own rules, there would be no division, either, so that's hardly my fault.

When you and others like you band together to cause this destruction, you're worse than a child rapist.

So wanting to remove religious iconography from government buildings and money is worse than raping a child.

Well at least we now know where you stand.

---

At 6/29/07 04:11 PM, Ravariel wrote:

No they're not. Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, and Al Sharpton are louder than any atheist.

Yep.

I didn't know we were talking about specific, famous people.

Yet... where are their lawsuits?

You also cannot forget dear miss Engel who whined about prayer in school. Years later, one of her sons ended up being a baptist minister while she and her other son were found dead.

I'm a radical leftist?

Considering you wish that in order to run for office, there must be a required belief.

lmao. Ok, bub. Much like to Begoner I'm a radical rightist, I suppose.

Yeah, and i'm a radical righty.

So because I don't tell people to leave if the don't like it in conversations I never have with them, and I do in a conversation I'm having with you I'm a hypocrite?

Nope.

You have a loose interpretation of the word. By that definition, you're a hypocrite when you don't lay into JakeHero, WolvenBear, or cellar when they say stupid shit.

What about Drakim? Demosthenez? Or Tancrisism?

Oh, so the value of art is dependant on the amount of effort put into it, gotcha.

Yeah. I don't like seeing a line of red or blue moving around to look like to a blood splotch. That's not art.

Then again, Andy Warhol once filmed the Empire State for 8 hours and called it art.

Just remodel it. Cheaper that way.

That's exactly what I mean.

I'm sorry if actually upholding the entire text is distasteful, rather than just the parts you like. For one so bent on legalities, that's a rather hypocritical stance for you to take.

Really? It says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of Religion". Now, if I do as you say and take it purely by text, then that means government buildings can have religous symbols on them as they are not a law by Congress.

I've seen John's brother steal something.
Therefore, all John's family are thieves.

That, in no way, is different.

Show me actual comparison studies or your argument is false.

Tell me how to find one.

Until you at least match my number, i'm not going to try.

Because I acknowledge the possibility that one does exist, thus stating as such is not offensive to me.

Just like a filthy atheist. Exploiting loopholes.

Well, when with you fact is opinion and opinion is fact, everything counts equally so I win.

Heh, nice try.

Funny, I feel the same way about you.

And yet... it's people like you who cause crime to rise.
More unwanted pregnancies.
More abortions.
Lesser sentences on murderers, rapists.

ect..

You're the one making the claim. The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

And I told you to match my number. Then I will.

See, I bet you can't even name 3 other than the one I mentioned.

Where in that sentence did I say a belief should be required?

"You're right, I do believe that presidential candidates should have a firm belief in the validity of science."

That's a belief. You want this certain belief to be a qualification to run for an office where this will never be an issue.

Because they are in direct opposition to the highest law of the land.

You living is a direction violation of human decency.

You're the one who's always yelling about constitutionality. Funny how when it doesn't offend you, it's perfectly fine.

Funny how you'll say that when people like you will twist the constitution's words to fit your own view.

"In God we Trust" on currency does not affect your lifestyle or any decisions in your life. Neither is it a law by Congress.

I win.

Besides, if you guys want to ban guns, despite the constitution, then I should be able to say that since Congress has not made a law, then it is perfectly legal.

We're not talking about buildings in the 18th century, we're talking about government buildings now.

And yet our currency...

They used the word Creator instead of God for a reason.

Prove it.

IU only cause your hatred... which is perfectly fine with me. And if the government would follow its own rules, there would be no division, either, so that's hardly my fault.

If you had any historical knowledge at all, we wouldn't be having this coversation.

So wanting to remove religious iconography from government buildings and money is worse than raping a child.

Actually, I meant to put you on par with Hitler in that when it comes to degrading society, you guys are pretty quick.

Well at least we now know where you stand.

Yeah, I might be an ass. I might even get slight enjoyment out of seeing someone like you, die. But at least i'm not so offended by a small ring that it looks like I just got a spear shoved up my ass. And at least I don't care what a person's belief is in order for him/her to run for office.

At least with me, when someone says "merry christmas" or "happy hannukah" to me, I smile and wave back.

---

Atheists aren't crying about anything. I don't know whens the last time I've heard one whining. So stop whining about something that hasn't been happening(the last time I checked).

---

done more good than bad? you have got to be fucking kidding me. since when was religions needed for the survival of mankind and what good has it EVER done besides reducing the fucking world population by millions?

---

At 6/29/07 11:01 PM, csst wrote: done more good than bad? you have got to be fucking kidding me. since when was religions needed for the survival of mankind and what good has it EVER done besides reducing the fucking world population by millions?

;
Religion has done a GREAT job of keeping people in line.
Of giving them 'the devine right' to massacre millions who are non believers of {please insert any religion here}
Of scaring them into belief's that are total fabrications.
For keeping millions on their knees.
Like it or lump it
RELIGION IS A FORM OF SLAVERY !

is there anything more terrifying than a bozo without the ability to think for himself, but willing to kill in the 'name of god'. {please insert name of god here}

---

At 6/29/07 04:11 PM, Ravariel wrote:

And the other atheist who argued with me agreed that the majority of lawsuits are brought about by atheists.

Weird, I didn't see any such admission. but then again you and reality have a tenuous relationship at best.

Largely because I didn't make one. I merely stated a possible reason for why there would be. I personally doubt it but lack the effot (and, frankly, am too damn apathetic besides) to unearth statistical data on the matter.

If I were you (and I was in your position for awhile there) I would simply refuse to waste any more time. Memorize has, I have to say, the strength of his convictions. The same caliber of strength, in fact, that would allow a man to starve to death waiting for a rabbit to collide with a tree stump and die simply because he had seen one do the same before. So unless somehow this fruitless bantering amuses you I'd simply drop it and move on to more rational pastures.

---

I'm 17, and I think I should be able to. My arguement: People used to get married at 13.

Counterargument: Those same people used to die at age 40.

---

At 7/5/07 09:12 PM, Pontificate wrote: If I were you (and I was in your position for awhile there) I would simply refuse to waste any more time.

'S exactly why I haven't posted in theis topic for almost a week now. Waiting for other issues to come up worth debating.

---

RELIGION IS A FORM OF SLAVERY !

War=peace
Ignorance-=strength
SLAVERY= FREEDOM

I do it because it's funny how it's only worthless to those who have a different view, proving their bias.

I'm Christian, and you make all of us look like dipshits when you blatantly insult others.

And yes, when you have to verbally assault someone instead of arguing the issue, your view IS worthless.

That's not bias, that's common sense; the message doesn't get through if it's covered in dirt.....

Memorize, check Rav's sig. I'd like you to go to that Heathenry thread, and following our example of how a debate SHOULD run, post your religious opinions on some of the topics we've discussed in there. That or start your own.

Remember, it's a non-idiot thread, so phrase your post carefully as to avoid flame wars and idiot replies. If you're as smart as you say you are, then you should have no problem hanging with the big boys talking Theology.

---

At 7/6/07 12:15 AM, Imperator wrote:

Counterargument: Those same people used to die at age 40.

Counter arguement: Dying at an older age doesn't change maturity.

---

At 7/6/07 12:56 AM, Memorize wrote:
Counter arguement: Dying at an older age doesn't change maturity.

Counter argument: Living in a time where you had to be self-sufficient by age 15 does.

---

At 7/6/07 02:16 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Counter argument: Living in a time where you had to be self-sufficient by age 15 does.

Counter Argument: You stated that there are Romeo and Juliet laws so I could "bone my girlfriend" at 15. Making your counter argument irrelevant.

---

At 7/6/07 02:29 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/6/07 02:16 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Counter argument: Living in a time where you had to be self-sufficient by age 15 does.

Counter Argument: You stated that there are Romeo and Juliet laws so I could "bone my girlfriend" at 15. Making your counter argument irrelevant.

You're trying so hard to take potshots at me that you completely missed the relevance. If you look back over the posts between this one and Imperator's first, maybe you'll catch it again.

---

At 7/6/07 02:36 AM, Ravariel wrote:

You're trying so hard to take potshots at me that you completely missed the relevance.

Correction: Since you stated that there are Romeo and Juliet Laws in place so 15 year olds can have their way with each other, then you're in no place to counter any argument made by me even if they're an exaggeration to prove a point.

Me: I'm 17. I think I should be able to.
You: There are Romeo and Juliet Laws in place.

Hence: You're just supporting me to legalize it. Which is why your counter argument against me is irrelevant.

---

At 7/6/07 02:41 AM, Memorize wrote:
Me: I'm 17. I think I should be able to.
You: There are Romeo and Juliet Laws in place.

Sigh, no. Here, allow me to illustrate the last few posts in one.

You: I'm 17 I should be able to because people used to at 13.
Imperator: Those people also died at 40.
You: Dying earlier doesn't mean maturing earlier.
Me: It does when you also have to be self-sufficient by 15.

This is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DIRECTION OF CONVERSATION. It is almost totally unrelated to the previous one, EVEN THOUGH it started at the same spot.

Do you understand yet?

---

Counter arguement: Dying at an older age doesn't change maturity.

15 year olds aren't mature dipshit. I can't think of a single person I know who was self-sufficient and mature enough to raise a family at age 15.

Just...just read Rav's post and shut up....

(see, by calling you a dipshit, I pretty much negated the strength of my argument. But when you disagree with me [cause you will] I'll just call you "biased" instead).

---

At 7/6/07 03:08 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Sigh, no. Here, allow me to illustrate the last few posts in one.

I've never known a person who literally said "sigh" to me.

Do you understand yet?

Yeah, I understand that what you said is irrelevant.

At 7/6/07 12:38 PM, Imperator wrote:

15 year olds aren't mature dipshit.

Because that certainly addresses the fact that there are those who are married at 12 and 13.

It's not like just because we live twice as long that we doubled how old you must be.
In this case, we went from 15 to 18. Not 15 to 30.

---

At 6/25/07 06:11 AM, Makaio wrote: Blind hollow existence?
Blind for seeing through the indoctrination of our parents and being able to take in all the science behind the world to form our own opinions?

Ha, my parents never told me to belive in God, een though they do.
And I believe in God because I think its the moast logical conclusion.
So how is that not being able to take in all the science behind the world?
Your saying that we can only form our own opinions only if we agree with you?

Hollow and meaningless because we've come to realize its better to live life for life itself, to be good to better your life and the lives of others instead of being good in fear of divine punishment, the realization that life is precious and rare so we should live the life we have according to our rules and morals, not those of falsified "prophets", madmen and criminals.

Living life for life sounds meaningless realy, you dont run around for the sake of running do you?
OK, you can run around in a circle, but when I run, Im going somwere or trying to achive somthing.

In my opinion there are 4 types of people, the ignorant, the mislead, the weak minded and atheists.

Hmmmm, so since I was never pressured into what I belive I either weak minded or Ignorant.

Your a doltard

Where I live there are different typs of people were I go to school, Relligion is kept to ones ownself but ive noticed that it is only the atheists that go right out and say that they dont believe in god to people.

And it is a general trend where I live that the ones that do proudly claim things like that are genneraly low brow people that are not that smart.

So where I live there are 3 typs of people

the ones that are smart and keep whatever they beleve to them selvs (moast of them believe in some sort of relligion)

The ones that are stupid and try to pressure you into believing what they belive ( entirely composed of ateists)

And of coarse the others, the Jahovas witnesses (some are freinds with my mom), the Jews (Jews are popular) and the satanist that Im freinds with.

So shut the hell up and stop pretending that you know what your talking about.

---

Zoraxe7, that is fine and all, but, how things are locally for you doesn't necessary represent the rest of the world.

In the rest of the world, the general trend goes that the more intelligent you are, and/or educated, the less likely you are to believe in God(s).

A lot of statistic about this.

About atheist being big mouthed, I can understand that it is annoying. But, there is a lot of deep misunderstanding and hate for atheists these days (people who believe they worship the devil, ect), so, being more seen and heard may help clear up the confusion. Of course, being an asshole won't help at all, but assholes are hardly something exclusive to atheists.

---

dude i never heard that its always been about science the big bang u know

---

At 7/6/07 01:55 PM, Drakim wrote: Zoraxe7, that is fine and all, but, how things are locally for you doesn't necessary represent the rest of the world.

In the rest of the world, the general trend goes that the more intelligent you are, and/or educated, the less likely you are to believe in God(s).

Maybe, but I live in a small town in massachusetts, I go to one of the moast well funded schools in the area. Education is held to be very important.

Its the ones here that dont do well in school that tend to be atheists and Idiots.

I dont know why its so different here.
Do you got an idea?

---

At 7/6/07 02:57 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 7/6/07 01:55 PM, Drakim wrote: Zoraxe7, that is fine and all, but, how things are locally for you doesn't necessary represent the rest of the world.

In the rest of the world, the general trend goes that the more intelligent you are, and/or educated, the less likely you are to believe in God(s).

Maybe, but I live in a small town in massachusetts, I go to one of the moast well funded schools in the area. Education is held to be very important.

Its the ones here that dont do well in school that tend to be atheists and Idiots.

I dont know why its so different here.
Do you got an idea?

Not to be accusing-ish, but, I think it is a think matter of selective observation. Whenever you see an atheist that is an asshole, you think "ah, another asshole atheist. They just keep popping up", while, when it happens that you meet a nice atheist or asshole Christian, you won't think about it so much, because you aren't "keeping count" in the same way about them.

Otherwise, it may very well just be like that where you live. The average does not mean that everybody is like that. In a room filled with three kids who are 10 years old and an old man of 80 years, the average age of the people in room is 27,5 years old. Yet, nobody is anything like 27 years old in the room. So, don't get too hung up in averages. They just show a trend, not a definitive rule.