hipster Atheist

[Esquilax]

That is not the same as "tolerating sex and drugs". Every religious faith in the world more or less condemns intemperance and hedonism regarding sexuality and the use of psycho-actives. That is different from spiritual use of cannabis. The spiritual use of cannabis is very debatable, but it is definitely not the same as "tolerating sex and drugs" which is pure hedonism. You are grasping at anything to make your point, obviously that was not what I meant.

Oh, so you make an exception for religion, then? Hypocritical much? Because when I asked you specifically how it was that atheism profited from being more free regarding sex, drugs and the like, you said this:

atheist position rather than a person one: This is related to the question of whether sex, drugs and rock music are beneficial for atheism. I cannot get inside of each persons head and see whether they are processing that sex, drugs and rock music are building up their movement. Actually, it doesn't matter. If they tolerate it, that is significant enough. It shows that they receive any benefit from it that they receive.

So according to you, just allowing it to happen is advocacy. So... you've kinda trodden on your own prior argument there, though the fact that you've made yet another exception for religious use is just hilarious.

You completely missed the argument. Of course they are different words. My argument was the tolerance entails advocacy, not that they are exactly the same definition.

Only you're wrong, definitionally. Tolerance need not entail advocacy, and I think you know that. I think that you probably tolerate a lot of things that you disapprove of, that doesn't mean you're necessarily advocating for them.

Teenagers, such as those reading about whether if atheism is true nihilism follows and right after that reading about sex.
You don't see any problem with that?

Yeah, I do. Because that first thing is just dead wrong.

Do I have a problem with teenagers reading about sex? No. Why would I? They're going to be doing it themselves someday, what's the issue with being informed about it?

Why do you accept what the scientific world teaches when it supports the lifestyle that you want to have and reject it when it disagrees with your culture? It is almost like science has a great deal of authority when it comes to disproving Christianity, but it has very little authority when it comes to a question like whether or not you can use marijuana or ecstasy responsibly. Science, in the form of the medical establishment, the food and drug establishment, the pharmacological community has said that you cannot use illegal drugs responsibly and you cannot abuse alcohol responsibly either.

This is one of those things you need proof for. Besides, what is your point, even? We recognize that we're unable to completely control the lives of everyone and force them to do what we find healthy, and therefore we're advocating drug use?

Atheism create a culture among young people that is friendly to drug use and the older atheists do nothing to stop it.

Fucking prove it.

No, it shows examples of religion showing acceptance of marijuana for religious reasons, which is rare and irrelevant because that is not at all what I am talking about, I am talking about the atheist acceptance of youth culture.

It's entirely relevant to what was asked of you earlier, to which you responded that no christian, singular or as a group, was okay with drug use. When you said that, you were dead wrong. Admit it, please.

How you define sexual morality is not subjective. It comes from the sexual act itself. The nature of birth and the economic realities of parenthood establish sexual morality as a basic issue every single religious group in history should care about.

By this definition, sexual morality is subjective, given that advances in technology have made it far safer to have sex, and reduced the chances of pregnancy as an unintended consequence of sex. Also, this definition doesn't really gel with what's in the bible, does it?

Can people have children whenever they want and have as many as they want? NO. OF COURSE NOT.

Incidentally, are you against sex education in schools, contraception, and abortion? You know, all the things that actually help with this problem?

Have you ever been to college? You know what you see? Drugs, liberalism/socialism/immorality/atheism and popular music culture.

Equivocation! Can you prove that all the college kids indulging in this stuff are atheist? Or that all college kids do these things?

And seriously, what is your beef with music, dude?

It is not that the people that are atheists are atheists because they are so knowledgeable about the Bible, because they have painstakingly studied and researched and questioned and looked and looked and looked and studied more and gone through and questioned, certainly some have, but the masses of people, their atheism or agnosticism is the product of accepting the simultaneous decision to cast off restraint and pursue hedonism and follow a movement that tolerates and/or encourages it and at the same time have some sort of intellectual/ethical justification for believing that God does not exist.

Since you've never, in your entire time on this forum, provided any proof that this is true beyond your own flawed personal experiences, I have no qualms about just calling you a liar here.

You liar.