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!
That is both a sentiment I stand behind, and not a defense of statutory rape; GC brought up Milk being a pedophile, which is simply factually incorrect both under the definition of a pedophile, and in my view, morally. Like I said, the age of consent where I grew up is sixteen, which I feel is a sufficiently knowledgeable age, and no less arbitrary than eighteen either;
Whats your point? If you grew up in Mexico where the age of consent is 12, you'd be fine with that also?
(June 27, 2015 at 4:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I don't have this automatic assumption that younger folks shouldn't have relations with older ones, it depends largely on the circumstances surrounding the pairing. It's context dependent.
Given this, I don't find myself personally bothered by Milk's actions just presented as they had been in the thread, as nobody had established that Milk's actions were predatory, and so the contention GC had within that thread isn't the hypocrisy he seemed to think. However, this is a separate issue entirely from whether or not Milk was a statutory rapist, which he absolutely was, given the laws at the time of his actions. But whether something is legal is not the same thing as whether something is moral; they're separate questions which you're conflating, either through ignorance or through dishonesty I don't know. From what I know about you, it has even odds of being either one.
There is absolutely no reason that a 34 year old man should be romantically involved with a 16 year old kid. Or are you saying that if you had a 16 year old daughter, you be totally fine with her dating a 34 year old man?
(June 27, 2015 at 4:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You're doing that conflation thing again, only this time I'm pretty sure it's ignorance: I asked you, in a previous post, whether a soldier would be a rapist if he and his army kidnapped all the women of a given group, regardless of their consent, with their virginity being the determining factor of whether they're taken or killed. You responded with the statutory rape thing and nothing else, which is a dodge to avoid answering the question I asked, which you still haven't.
If you're referring to an instance in the bible then post the relevant scripture.
(June 27, 2015 at 4:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Not if you literally think the act did not occur. Like I said, a person who thinks the holocaust was a huge fabrication is not attempting to justify or excuse the holocaust, because their position is that there's nothing to justify or excuse, period. If I am to take your own words seriously, then you don't believe that the act in question was ever depicted in those passages, and therefore you have nothing to justify either. The context of my statements there was specifically about the ridiculous lengths you'll go to to act as though nothing immoral has ever happened in the bible, not the lengths you'll go to to excuse the immoral actions within it.
*emphasis mine*
Must I remind you that the conversation on "rape" never happened? So therefore how can you take my words seriously when they don't exist? My position on slavery wasn't that it didn't exist, but that it wasn't slavery in the traditional sense but "indentured servitude", big difference. If you contracted to serve someone of your own free will, that is NOT slavery.
In the KJV the words "slave" and "slavery" each appear only once, and neither in the context of what were speaking of. The word servant is used in the other cases Proving there is a distinction between the words "servant" and "slave" in the original text. Yet you guys tend to continue to use newer translations which have been dumbed down and proven to be in error, all because it fits your agenda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery
Quote:Biblical era
Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another (as the Israelites suffered under Egyptian rule) was not permitted.[16][17] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude
I don't know how I can make this any clearer for you.
(June 27, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Starvald Demelain Wrote:
(March 23, 2015 at 7:47 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote: Law and order has betrayed me several times over. Even so, I still hold onto my morals because I would rather do what is right and set a good example for my children, despite the wrong that was done to me.
As for whether or not I would remain I would remain moral - if you are asking whether or not I would kill someone for my own survival, I can't honestly answer that. I have never killed anyone and don't know what that feels like.
I suppose if it meant shoving one of my children out of harms way and bearing the brunt of that harm, possibly getting killed in the process, then I don't believe I would be compromising my morals because I would be trying to protect my child. And I would do whatever was necessary achieve that.
All in all, it depends on the scenario. If my children were somewhere safe and all I had to do was worry about myself, I probably would die. Killing just doesn't seem to be an option.
(March 23, 2015 at 7:47 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote: And yeah, I don't commit murder because I AM afraid of the death penalty. That and I obey the laws because Prison Orange isn't my color. I have a list of five people who I would happily off right now if I knew that I could get away with it. So your argument is invalid.
This is an example of the nonsense I have to put up with, you guys seem to switch positions whenever it's convenient for your argument.
I'll propose a challenge, provide one instance where I've been "dishonest", and I'll provide ten from Atheists.... you up for it?
So you admit to the sophistry and all around idiocy of your posts then? Sweet. 2/3 isn't bad, you're almost there.
Snark aside, linking me to Judi Lynn's answer to your inquiry on evolution and post-apocalyptic morals proves what exactly?
(September 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I make change in the coin tendered. If you want courteous treatment, behave courteously. Preaching at me and calling me immoral is not courteous behavior.
So you admit to the sophistry and all around idiocy of your posts then? Sweet. 2/3 isn't bad, you're almost there.
Is that the conclusion you arrived at?
Dishonesty can be proven... sophistry and idiocy are just a matter of opinion, usually from those that have no argument...
(June 27, 2015 at 11:06 pm)Starvald Demelain Wrote: Snark aside, linking me to Judi Lynn's answer to your inquiry on evolution and post-apocalyptic morals proves what exactly?
You were whining that I was being dishonest. If you're truly opposed to dishonesty then I can provide plenty of examples of atheists being dishonest, and if YOU'RE being Honest, you'll deride them in the same manner in which you do me, right?
I won't hold my breath...
like I said, Find just one example of me being dishonest (here's a hint, there aren't any) and I'll provide at least ten instances of dishonesty from your fellow atheists....
It's tough to be an honest man surrounded by liars.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
June 28, 2015 at 3:44 am (This post was last modified: June 28, 2015 at 3:53 am by Bob Kelso.)
(June 27, 2015 at 11:27 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(June 27, 2015 at 11:06 pm)Starvald Demelain Wrote: So you admit to the sophistry and all around idiocy of your posts then? Sweet. 2/3 isn't bad, you're almost there.
Is that the conclusion you arrived at?
Dishonesty can be proven... sophistry and idiocy are just a matter of opinion, usually from those that have no argument...
(June 27, 2015 at 11:06 pm)Starvald Demelain Wrote: Snark aside, linking me to Judi Lynn's answer to your inquiry on evolution and post-apocalyptic morals proves what exactly?
You were whining that I was being dishonest. If you're truly opposed to dishonesty then I can provide plenty of examples of atheists being dishonest, and if YOU'RE being Honest, you'll deride them in the same manner in which you do me, right?
I won't hold my breath...
like I said, Find just one example of me being dishonest (here's a hint, there aren't any) and I'll provide at least ten instances of dishonesty from your fellow atheists....
Deal?
Do you find it hard being the only honest man alive when people constantly tell you you're being a reprehensible, dishonest fuck? That's so cool, I might've developed a crush.
Edit: Almost forgot; there aren't any examples of you being dishonest on these forums? Ok.
*looks a mere two pages back*
No. You've never been so dishonest as to knowingly misrepresent another forum member's words in the attempt to score a petty personal point. That's so beneath one of your stature isn't it?
Fucking christ you're delusional.
(September 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I make change in the coin tendered. If you want courteous treatment, behave courteously. Preaching at me and calling me immoral is not courteous behavior.
June 28, 2015 at 3:55 am (This post was last modified: June 28, 2015 at 3:56 am by Longhorn.)
(June 27, 2015 at 7:45 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:
(June 26, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: DO ATHEISTS CONDONE RAPE?
"If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."
Atheist Sam Harris, Interview at The Sun: The Temple of Reason
Well, your reactions were about what I expected.
As Cthulhu Dreaming is fond of saying, "This forum isn't for the thin-skinned."
Y'all can dish it out, but you can't take it.
So....
You expected us to point out the fallacy you made and notice how you dishonestly quote mined Sam Harris and posted it anyway?
Great plan. 12/11 for effort, and a big F for being a disingenuous asshole.
By the way, I'm keeping my fucking promise Randy.
'Ethnic profiling is the only reasonable security measure that has been thwarted in the war on terrorism.' Ann Coulter's 'Mineta's Bataan Death March,' 2/28/02
Randy, and all xtians are blatant racists. One of them said it, that means they all believe it.
June 28, 2015 at 10:12 am (This post was last modified: June 28, 2015 at 10:41 am by Huggy Bear.)
(June 28, 2015 at 3:44 am)Starvald Demelain Wrote: Edit: Almost forgot; there aren't any examples of you being dishonest on these forums? Ok.
*looks a mere two pages back*
No. You've never been so dishonest as to knowingly misrepresent another forum member's words in the attempt to score a petty personal point. That's so beneath one of your stature isn't it?
Fucking christ you're delusional.
That's the best you can come up with?
Take off those rose colored, coke-bottled bifocals for just a second and read it again. you'll notice that Esquilax was misrepresenting ME and I called him on it...
(June 26, 2015 at 9:06 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
(June 26, 2015 at 10:15 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(June 26, 2015 at 9:06 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I actually wouldn't be surprised if this is the case: I remember one of my first interactions with Huggy was on a certain rape-related issue in the bible, and his entire position was that no rape happened because the actual word "rape" was never used in the text, despite the context making it very clear what was happening.
Now THAT is a bald faced lie.
We already know you have a selective memory, how about providing the link to support to that claim?
Actually, I did misremember slightly: we weren't talking about rape, but slavery.The word "slave" does not appear, and therefore it cannot be slavery.
How can I misrepresent what he said when it was never true in the first place? Are you saying that I'm misrepresenting a misrepresentation?
As far a slavery goes I already responded to that in my last post.
Great job, your best example of me being dishonest is calling out Esquilax on his dishonesty.
Anyway I'll provide 10 examples of dishonesty (later today) from your fellow atheists as promised...
(June 28, 2015 at 3:44 am)Starvald Demelain Wrote: Edit: Almost forgot; there aren't any examples of you being dishonest on these forums? Ok.
*looks a mere two pages back*
No. You've never been so dishonest as to knowingly misrepresent another forum member's words in the attempt to score a petty personal point. That's so beneath one of your stature isn't it?
Long post, edited it down to the relevant parts, can read the full post from the link.
(March 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:
(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(March 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:
(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(March 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:
(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Leviticus 25
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.
Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves. They were treated as property, they were not paid, and they could not leave whenever they wanted. The fact that you are appealing to word games is pathetic.
except that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave"
Is that all you are reduced to? Pathetic word games?
they were paid a pittance. here is part of a post I found describing life in that time period.
Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves.
As you can see making the distinction between servant/slave is semantics according to Bad wolf, except when it benefits HIS argument..
(March 4, 2014 at 9:04 am)Esquilax Wrote: And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.
(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: you do not have a passage that says they "CAN" be beaten, you have a passage that says what happens "IF" they are beaten.
Esquilax claims the bible state that "slaves" CAN be beaten... he has yet to provide that passage.
(March 13, 2014 at 11:14 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Have you forgotten the story about Abraham slicing and dicing Issac because some voice in his head told him to do it?
(August 13, 2014 at 3:04 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Wow, you really have a bizarrely skewed idea of what scientific evidence is. Again, try to leave the courtroom analogy behind. Evidence when talking about a factual or scientific claim does NOT include anecdote, I'm sorry it just doesn't. Just like the anecdotal claims of people that have seen Bigfoot is NOT evidence that Bigfoot exists, claims about miracles or faith healing or Jaysus are NOT evidence that any of those are true.
Eyewitness testimony can be admitted as evidence in a trial of someone's guilt in a courtroom, but we are not talking about a courtroom, we're talking about scientific fact.
(August 13, 2014 at 3:12 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:
(August 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Ok, answer this. What is the very first step in any scientific discovery?
What a strange question.. I would say the first step would be to verify the result.
And for those that say he corrected himself, he did not, he made an excuse then gave another wrong answer.
(August 13, 2014 at 3:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:
(August 13, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: No, you must first make an observation (eye witness), and from there you form your hypothesis and test it, and eventually come to your conclusion. that's how the scientific method works.
The initial observation is the evidence needed to form a question.
get it?
Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine. Yes, observation is the first step.
*underlined by me*
"verify the result" isn't the second step either...
(September 17, 2014 at 3:55 am)oukoida Wrote: Did you even read the article I posted? The Placebo effect works through the well known reward mechanisms (the same we experience when we eat or generally do something positive to our bodies).
This is not the placebo effect and I'll tell you why... DOPAMINE IS THE TREATMENT FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE. So OF COURSE if someone with Parkinson's brain, for whatever reason, released dopamine, they will see improvement.
Parkinson's disease causes certain brain cells to die. They are the cells that help control movement and coordination. The disease leads to shaking (tremors) and trouble walking and moving.
Causes
Nerve cells use a brain chemical called dopamine to help control muscle movement. With Parkinson's disease, the brains cells that make dopamine slowly die. Without dopamine, the cells that control movement can’t send messages to the muscles. This makes it hard to control your muscles. Slowly over time, this damage gets worse. No one knows what causes these brain cells to waste away.
Treatment
There is no cure for Parkinson's disease. However, treatment can help control your symptoms.
MEDICINE
Your health care provider will prescribe medicines to help control your shaking and movement symptoms. These drugs work by increasing dopamine in your brain.
The brain producing dopamine because of reward mechanisms, which in turn has an affect on Parkinson's, is not the placebo effect.
The placebo effect is not limited to any specific disease. The example I posted was about cancer, on which dopamine has no effect.
Parkers Tan's attempt to discredit Gallup world poll...
(January 6, 2015 at 11:50 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:
(January 6, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Seriously? The report I linked from Gallup is from 2014....
An opinion poll is not a report. It can be done in a few days with no problem.
A report, on the other hand, requires some time to gather and collate the data into a sensible whole, because it is not a simple telephone poll -- which are inherently biased -- but rather, a collection of statistics drawn out to find data.
Now if you go to page 93 of this report, you'll find the list of references the authors used.
Not one of them is the Gallup Organization.
The fact that you don't know the difference between a report and an opinion poll speaks volumes about your education, or lack thereof.
Really? you freaking Muppet...
page 133 in the Bibliography
Quote:Bjørnskov, C. (2010). How comparable are the gallup world poll
life satisfaction data?.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 11,
41-60.
Quote:Gallup Organisation. (2012).
Indexes and Questions.
And in case you don't know what a bibliography is
Quote:A bibliography is a list of the sources you used to get information for your report. It is included at the end of your report, on the last page (or last few pages
As a matter of fact, Gallup is mentioned all throughout that report, lets see
Page 5
Quote:In Chapter 2 we update our ranking of life
evaluations from all over the world, making
primary use of the Gallup World Poll, since it
continues to regularly collect and provide com
parable data for the largest number of countries.
Also on pages 6,7,10,11,13,18,19,35,38,56,74,100,118,126,136,137,145,148 and 149
Now what's your excuse?
Pandæmonium believing that Denmark has a secular government in spite of being provided with proof that it doesn't, and refusing to acknowledge that he was wrong.
(January 16, 2015 at 11:53 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(January 16, 2015 at 3:45 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Don't bother. You could explain, in parsimonious terms, things like nominal ascriptions, codified constitutions, the nature of governmental structures, de jure defacto, and so on, and stay dry all night here would still fail to get it.
Give him a plastic toy gun and this guy would still manage to shoot himself in the foot.
You're seriously delusional.
This is a clear example of the mindset of an atheist, If you won't accept that Denmark's government is in fact NOT secular which is easily provable, how are you going to even begin to discuss spiritual matters?
(January 3, 2015 at 8:58 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Secularism Gurantees what ive highlighted you suggest in the above post. It gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for then. It prevents a state mandated religion from either existing or enforcing it's rules and dogmas on the body politic.
Now if that's not the 'freedom to chose' I don't know what is.
Quote:Of all the religions in Denmark, the most prominent is Christianity in the form of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, the state religion.
Quote: Let me briefly summarize what the State-church system implies:
• According to the constitution (§ 54), the Lutheran-evangelic Church is the Danish People’s Church (“Folkekirke”), and is, as such, supported by the State, which means that the Lutheran-evangelic religion and its institutions and churches are given a favored place among religions in Danish society. All tax-paying citizens, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, thus contribute to the priests and bishops of the “Folkekirke.”
• Practically all citizens are automatically born as members of the “Folkekirke.”Not to be so demands that the citizens take the initiative to leave the church. At present 83 percent of the Danish population belong to the “Folkekirke.”
Denmark, then, from one point of view is clearly a Christian country—as are by the same standards the other Scandinavian countries.
This amalgamates into what I for want of a better label would label a secularised Lutheranism as a dominant cosmology in Denmark. Although Denmark (and Sweden) is a country in which most of the citizens by tradition belong to the State church, Christianity as a religion does not characterize the life of any large segment of the population.
Need I go on?
Denmark clearly does not have separation between church and state, yet you fail to acknowledge your own evidence proving this fact.
(March 23, 2015 at 7:47 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote: Law and order has betrayed me several times over. Even so, I still hold onto my morals because I would rather do what is right and set a good example for my children, despite the wrong that was done to me.
As for whether or not I would remain I would remain moral - if you are asking whether or not I would kill someone for my own survival, I can't honestly answer that. I have never killed anyone and don't know what that feels like.
I suppose if it meant shoving one of my children out of harms way and bearing the brunt of that harm, possibly getting killed in the process, then I don't believe I would be compromising my morals because I would be trying to protect my child. And I would do whatever was necessary achieve that.
All in all, it depends on the scenario. If my children were somewhere safe and all I had to do was worry about myself, I probably would die. Killing just doesn't seem to be an option.
(March 23, 2015 at 7:47 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote: And yeah, I don't commit murder because I AM afraid of the death penalty. That and I obey the laws because Prison Orange isn't my color. I have a list of five people who I would happily off right now if I knew that I could get away with it. So your argument is invalid.
(May 30, 2015 at 12:02 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Yes. Yes you are. Nowhere did I state that all outreach programs are religious. Yet again, right after I asked you to stop defining my position for me, you literally couldn't even wait one post before you did it again.
We're arguing semantics now? You clearly defined what you thought outreach meant.
(May 29, 2015 at 11:25 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: None of those programs are intending on spreading atheism. As I have said, outreach isn't providing congregation or events for other atheists. Outreach is a church mission to go out and convert more Christians. Which was the entire point of my statement.
(emphasis mine)
I don't know how that statement doesn't imply that all outreach programs are religious, especially since YOU'RE the only one that equated outreach to religion. Now all of the sudden you're backpedaling.... http://atheistforums.org/thread-33629-po...#pid952643
(May 27, 2015 at 10:41 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Ha ha! Man did those goalposts move pretty quick!
Went from why to where in a flash.
Hypocrite
Went from "Outreach is a church mission" to "not all outreach programs are religious" pretty quick also.
(May 30, 2015 at 12:02 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: As usual, you dishonest piece of shit, I'm done with you. Not sure why I let myself go down this road with you time after time. You have nothing to offer except parsing a portion of someone's post and driving down a black hole of stupidity, zeroing in on one definition of a word that has multiple and refusing to acknowledge the others.
If I could put you on ignore, I would.
My bad, I didn't realize that you don't have enough self control to simply not respond to my posts...
Never Argue With The Ignorant Because They Will Simply Pull You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
![[Image: gen664f570e584c98a7c5fa82f478cfb852558f1...416img.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.certificatefun.com%2Fincludes%2Fuserimages%2Fgen664f570e584c98a7c5fa82f478cfb852558f18df06dff5.4427318416img.png)
![[Image: bbb59Ce.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2Fbbb59Ce.gif)
![[Image: ani_dancing.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=forums.catholic.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fani%2Fani_dancing.gif)
![[Image: tumblr_lznw28VAkD1qkolxgo1_500.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=29.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lznw28VAkD1qkolxgo1_500.gif)
![[Image: Religion_in_the_world.PNG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=upload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F54%2FReligion_in_the_world.PNG)
![[Image: goalposts.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i63.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh131%2Ftriathlete247%2Fgoalposts.gif)
