Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 13, 2024, 6:51 am
Thread Rating:
forbidding people to love each other
|
(July 2, 2021 at 5:03 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(July 2, 2021 at 3:04 pm)Drich Wrote: do you really need me to address the mundane poorly thought out question you presented? because once i do my op here addresses the crux of the issue. Something several other posters have already touched on. Well, I pointed that out. I posted a patent of mine. Drich just will not do it. Drich wants someone to PM him an email. Great, I did. We shall see if he is even vaguely honest. Or a flood of religious spam which is what I expect. (July 3, 2021 at 10:28 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:(July 2, 2021 at 5:03 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Sorry I missed your full offer. Even sorrier that I now have to decline (I’m more than a little tetchy about giving out my email address). You at least used a burner account, right?
If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.
This thread is so far derailed. I guess that’s just the nature of the beast... 🐿
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari (July 3, 2021 at 12:28 am)Astreja Wrote: As far as I'm concerned, a "non-empirical being" is indistinguishable from an imaginary being and can just be ignored. (July 3, 2021 at 9:38 am)Klorophyll Wrote: That's an unproven assertion. Pro tip: Think really, really hard about what the phrase "As far as I'm concerned" means. I was stating how *I* felt about "non-empirical beings." I see no reason to take them seriously, so I don't.
So the drickheads and the klorofools cite their irrefutable mageek huly buuk as confirmation of some grand creator, any time their miniscule and pathetic thinking units are forced to actually you know..... think, a complete system shut down occurs. They revert back to the original script of the validity of their particular fantasy.
Their tiny, tiny brains have never had an imaginative or creative thought in their entire lives! All they know is how to regurgitate the same bullshit they've been grazing on since mommy and daddy made themselves a little sheep. (July 3, 2021 at 10:28 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:(July 2, 2021 at 5:03 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Sorry I missed your full offer. Even sorrier that I now have to decline (I’m more than a little tetchy about giving out my email address). Back when I first got online to seek out other atheists there would have been a time I would have fallen for a "one on one" e-mail debate. If you remember "Dinesh D'Souza", a famous right winger. He pulled that shit with me back in the early 2000s. I fell for it at first. But when I got stumped, I simply brought his arguments back to the forum I was on at the time, and let the community hit his arguments with sunlight. I never do one on one private debates now. I figure if you have a valid argument you should have no problem debating it in public where everyone can see it. When a theist offers you the private debate, you can look at it just like a lion stalking prey trying to peel one off of the herd. Ever see that famous video of the African buffalo initially running from a croc trying to pull a calf into the river while a lion was trying to compete for the same calf? Some alfa member of the buffalo heard must have thought "fuck this shit, I am tired of it", and the heard came back and kicked the lion's ass. I never do one on one private debates now. I see them as pointless. Just like I shut the door on phone marketers and Multi Level Marketing scams. If they have something valid, then they should not be afraid of debating it in public. (July 3, 2021 at 11:02 pm)Fireball Wrote:(July 3, 2021 at 10:28 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Well, I pointed that out. I posted a patent of mine. Drich just will not do it. Drich wants someone to PM him an email. No, I even provided my bank details just in case. What do you think? (July 2, 2021 at 7:17 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:(July 2, 2021 at 7:12 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The case has often been made that Christians are no longer bound by Levitical law (due to Jesus fulfilling it), so the proper attitude toward homosexuality by Christians would be based on what Jesus has to say about it. Here it is, in full: Can we skip the labels here? Even outside Christians, Muslims and Jews, most of the world has frowned on same sex. China and Japan also don't condone same sex marriage. What humans miss is that there is religion, and natural biology. The only time sex is wrong is when it is by force. Other than that, leave them alone. CONSENT, not the hole, just like food. I hate mushrooms, but I am not going to demand others don't eat them, if they like it. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 11 Guest(s)