Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[Esquilax]

No it doesn't. What denominations can you name that promote racism or sexism or genocide today? I can't think of a single one. Unfortunately, that could not be said 60 years ago. To balance that unfortunate fact, you have to realize that the abolitionist movement, the peace movement, and feminism have all been influenced by Christianity.

Oh, that's easy. Just off the top of my head, there's the Westboro Church. If you're after a less... insane example- and I don't blame you, even I think I'm being a tad unfair bringing those assholes up- the Southern Baptist Convention still has an article demanding that women be subservient to their husbands. That's sexist. So... you know, I did that right away.

As to your last sentence, a little look at history shows that for every moderate in favor of desegregation, women's rights or peace, there's been more than a few opposed. In fact, just to quash your feminism claim right now, the christian right was the main opposition to the equal rights amendment in 1923 that would have ensured equality for women. In fact, if you go back and actually look before you speak, you can see many prominent christians speaking out against women's equality.

And, given your comments about Hitchens and co... well, it's a bad look for you, isn't it?

What does this mean?

It means that I think you're bullcrap made flesh. A living avatar for shit. That you have an underlying nature of shitty falsehoods that winds its way to your very core.

Which is a florid way to say I think you're consistently disingenuous.

[Napoléon]

Because you tolerate it. Look at this thread. Look at how many people are saying it is ok to use ecstasy. Because you present yourself that way, like you are encouraging drug use, which is what you are doing.

And you promote it, in a deeper and more insidious way, when you say it is immoral to believe in God, when you attack Christians that believe in God, when you say that God's existence has been disprove, when you attack every last strand that people are holding on to to tell them how to live a good life, when you try and take away their hope and their strength and what allows them to wake up and not be monsters.

When you say there is no problem with being a nihilist, or you say that it is sufficient to tell people that they must be ethical but not give them any sort of tools to build and ethical system beyond arbitrary categories like happiness or respect for sentient beings. There is no reason to care about those things if you take athiesms seriously intellectually, as I did, if you understand it to imply nihilism, as I did.

The stakes are high. If you don't believe in God, fine, but why encourage drug use? Why tell people that it is immoral or intellectually deficient to believe in God when you don't have anything to put in its place. Supposing that religion was untrue, but given the nihilism of atheism, based on soley utilitarian grounds, couldn't you argue that if religion increased happiness, it was justified? Why not follow that, if all you can. It does increase happiness, but it is also true.

Why try and take peoples faith away from them? Why try to make responsible ecstasy users out of them?

Too many straw men in there for me to even care about arguing.

Enjoy your delusion.

[jstrodel]

Oh, that's easy. Just off the top of my head, there's the Westboro Church. If you're after a less... insane example- and I don't blame you, even I think I'm being a tad unfair bringing those assholes up- the Southern Baptist Convention still has an article demanding that women be subservient to their husbands. That's sexist. So... you know, I did that right away.

That is your opinion about what is sexist. Do you actually have an example of a mainstream church that advocates the hatred or exploitation of women?

As to your last sentence, a little look at history shows that for every moderate in favor of desegregation, women's rights or peace, there's been more than a few opposed. In fact, just to quash your feminism claim right now, the christian right was the main opposition to the equal rights amendment in 1923 that would have ensured equality for women. In fact, if you go back and actually look before you speak, you can see many prominent christians speaking out against women's equality.

Well, the Christian church has made a lot of mistake over the years. I don't think that feminism is really a simple issue at all. I am not going to defend the issue of the equal rights amendment because I don't know that much about it. I do not think that feminism is a black and white issue and I think that many churches have had backwards attitudes towards women, sometimes extremely backwards.

This does not answer the question of what major denomination today promotes overtly misogynistic or racists views. The examples of Christians historically who have been wrong about many issues is indeed a serious issue, but you can cite many Christians on the other side of the issue just as easily. John Wesley was against slavery in the 18th century and Martin Luther King was one of the leaders in the civil rights movement. It is true that there have been many Christian churches (I would argue, real Christians, not false churches) that have embraced evil views. This is a serious issue, and not something that I take lightly. But there also have been billions of Christians historically, and they have taken a very large number of different positions.

I would say politically, the fruit of the Christian church overall has been to create and define in many ways Western Civilization, which, despite all the bloodshed, has been the most powerful, prosperous, free and well developed civilization that has ever existed (and the civilization that gave birth to the modern atheist movement).

And, given your comments about Hitchens and co... well, it's a bad look for you, isn't it?

Not sure what you mean.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Drugs are baaaad, mmm'kay?

What prevents you from having compassion for others? Is your heart so hard and so unfeeling you are incapable of uttering a single with even a small amount of concern for something that doesn't align with your pet beliefs or what is cool?

Shut the fuck up you pathetic, self righteous cuntrag.



Sorry if that broke any forum rules. I just couldn't help it.

[jstrodel]

CleanShavenJesus if what I am writing is so obviously wrong, why can't you argue your points instead of just insulting me?

[CleanShavenJesus]

I have been, in other threads. That comment was so goddamn delusional I didn't know what else to say. Who the hell do you think you are?

[jstrodel]

I am someone who has probably traveled down some of the same paths you have, and I see no reason not to speak my mind of what I have seen and known.

[CleanShavenJesus]

If what you claim is true, then I'm sorry for your former situation. But who are you to say something like that to somebody you don't even know? You're so offended by the slightest comment making fun at the drug world, you're acting like a moral judge. But you're no better than the guy who posted that, nor myself. Just because you made it out of there. The definition of "self-righteous".

I never did the drugs myself, but I did say earlier that I was in the "market" of them. We went down the same road, but you made a terrible turn on some other avenue.. Just because you found a map and got out of that avenue, doesn't mean you're allowed to be the moral judge of everyone else who didn't even go down the same road.

[jstrodel]

How am I more of a judge of you more than you are of me?

What offends you most and gets you most angry is not to call someone a "motherfucker" or say the most offensive evil thing possible, what offends you is to make a challenge that you realize that you have some sort of moral failing. That is what hurts you the most. It is not offensive to try and make the most offensive post possible, but it is offensive to challenge things that are evil.

It is not self righteous to say about something that is evil "that is evil". That is not self righteous. Self righteousness goes something like this, when someone makes up something out of thin air and says "it is always evil to make statements about what is evil". That is self righteous. Actually, it is self refuting also, because of course the actions that the statement refers to, condemning statements are contained in the same statement.

So what does that say about what you have said? What is the standard of right and wrong? Can the only standard you have be "it is wrong to judge what the standard of right and wrong is"?

[LastPoet]