"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Foxaèr]

I’m not replying to the post above, because I don’t think that type of ignorance needs to be repeated. But I would like to point out, that I’m a sinner too. I’m not self righteous, and would be one of the first to point out, that I’m in need the Jesus to cover my sins.

The problem is believing that sin exists. In the end, sin is mere invented nonsense.

If you want to talk about morality sans deity, however, then we can have a rational discussion.

[RoadRunner79]

I’m not replying to the post above, because I don’t think that type of ignorance needs to be repeated. But I would like to point out, that I’m a sinner too. I’m not self righteous, and would be one of the first to point out, that I’m in need the Jesus to cover my sins.

The problem is believing that sin exists.  In the end, sin is mere invented nonsense.

If you want to talk about morality sans deity, however, then we can have a rational discussion.

Objective morality is a big issue for the materialist. It’s a strong argument for God.  And with subjective morality, you have no argument. However this is a big topic, which should probably have its own thread.

[Amarok]

Objective morality is a big issue for the materialist.

No it isn't 

 It’s a strong argument for God.  

No it's not 

And with subjective morality, you have no argument. 

Yes he still does 

However this is a big topic, which should probably have its own thread.

Does not require one we been over this a thousand times on this forum and your side gets it's ass handed to it  every time .

---

I’m not replying to the post above, because I don’t think that type of ignorance needs to be repeated. But I would like to point out, that I’m a sinner too. I’m not self righteous, and would be one of the first to point out, that I’m in need the Jesus to cover my sins.

The problem is believing that sin exists.  In the end, sin is mere invented nonsense.

If you want to talk about morality sans deity, however, then we can have a rational discussion.

He's just gonna preach at you and well go in the same circle we have a dozen times with his position asserting everything and producing nothing but a great deal of text .And us more convinced they have no clue what morality is .

[Joods]

It can if the plan attracts unsavory people who cause it to fail  



Yes it does it as you must ask why your philosophy is so ripe for a abuse and why it attracts abusers in the first place

Sorry, I don’t agree, and it doesn’t follow. If you would like, though I can condemn atheism by its worst adherents. Call it a compromise.

No, you can't because the only thing atheists collectively state is their lack of beliefs in a god or gods. This is our only commonality. Outside of that, we are as varied and different as everyone else.

[Amarok]

It can if the plan attracts unsavory people who cause it to fail  



Yes it does it as you must ask why your philosophy is so ripe for a abuse and why it attracts abusers in the first place

Sorry, I don’t agree, and it doesn’t follow. If you would like, though I can condemn atheism by its worst adherents. Call it a compromise.

No you can't as Atheism is not ideology of philosophy and thus there are no adherents and why would i compromise when i have won .

---

That's asinine...yet not altogether unexpected from a certain section of AF. Congrats on the civil discourse merit badge.

Yeah and your pompous  walls of text that signify nothing puts you in certain theist section of AF called the "Smug Dunning Kruger Douche bag section " Along with Neo so you can stick you pretentious peanut gallery bullshit up your backside you smug pick .

[RoadRunner79]

Sorry, I don’t agree, and it doesn’t follow. If you would like, though I can condemn atheism by its worst adherents. Call it a compromise.

No, you can't because the only thing atheists collectively state is their lack of beliefs in a god or gods. This is our only commonality. Outside of that, we are as varied and different as everyone else.

So you are saying that I would need to evaluate atheism on what atheism essentially is, not on the demeanor or actions of it's adherents outside of that description / philosophy.

I believe that you agree with Augustine!  I do too.

And one might note, that Christians are as varied and different as everyone else as well.  I would say that there are a few more essential beliefs which need to be present (to call oneself a Christian) in comparison to atheism but overall you will find a wide range.   You will find some who are using their faith as a mask for their hatred and bigotry.  And there are others who do not.   I don't think that most Christians would support the Westboro group for instance.  I agree with Graham in the OP, that Jesus never condoned sin.   However when you look at the scriptures, he was often harshest towards believers behaving badly, such as Westboro Babtist.

[Amarok]

So you are saying that I would need to evaluate atheism on what atheism essentially is, not on the demeanor or actions of it's adherents outside of that description / philosophy

No you would need to judge it on an individual basis or on what the person actually believes. And the only thing you could say that is essential is not accepting (passive tense )  the theists baseless assertions about god.

I believe that you agree with Augustine!  I do too.

He was an idiot 

And one might note, that Christians are as varied and different as everyone else as well.  I would say that there are a few more essential beliefs which need to be present (to call oneself a Christian) in comparison to atheism but overall you will find a wide range.   You will find some who are using their faith as a mask for their hatred and bigotry.  And there are others who do not.   I don't think that most Christians would support the Westboro group for instance.  I agree with Graham in the OP, that Jesus never condoned sin.   However when you look at the scriptures, he was often harshest towards believers behaving badly, such as Westboro Babtist.

Nope Christianity is philosophy and it's adherents can be judged as a unified group sorry nice try .Unlike atheism which has not essential and is simply not accepting a claim (passive tense)  And being harsh on bad believers does not refute my earlier points .If your philosophy is attracting awful people there is a reason awful people are attracted to it and why the have the ability to prosper .

[Joods]

Yeah! What Tiz said!

[RoadRunner79]

Yeah! What Tiz said!

What part? It seems to be contradictory. 

What you said before seemed to match with what Augustine said. Have you changed your mind?   Did you change your mind, because Augustine had said similar?   I’ve had Tiz call me names and tell me how wrong I am, when I was agreeing with him. It seems to be his default response.

[Amarok]

What part? It seems to be contradictory. 

Nope totally internally consistent 

I’ve had Tiz call me names and tell me how wrong I am, when I was agreeing with him. It seems to be his default response.

It was one time and it's because you were unclear in your statement .And nope my default response is showing that your wrong because you virtually always speak nonsense .