Secular family values rock!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The atheist troll reminds me of when I lived in Europe. Yes! You had to listen to endless pig-ignorant and arrogant criticisms of the US (and I say that as a die-hard lefty who supports Obama and LGBT rights and marched against the Iraq war).

DCUM's atheist troll suffers from the same diseases of pig ignorance, arrogance, and inability to grasp subtlety.

And let me deflect what's coming: you're going to call me a hypocritical religious person. Nope, you're a troll who dishes unthinking insults.

Pointing that out isn't insulting you. It's just labeling you truthfully!

Hi, threatened Christian.

Why are you lumping everybody who thinks you're and ignorant nuisance under "threatenened Christian"? We are legion.

There are several here besides me who want your trolling to end. Ive only noticed one pig-ignirant atheist troll, however.... Yup, that's you.

I am not the poster above. I am "We are legion." So you're directing your anger toward Atheist Troll # - uh - 10?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am not the poster above. I am "We are legion." So you're directing your anger toward Atheist Troll # - uh - 10?

So there are two of you who can't tell the difference between thoughtful responses vs. lame quips and off-point (you seem to be saying you're imitating the other troll) cartoons?

Lucky us!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Some atheists read Borg and Crossan too -- on the road to atheism.

But none of the atheists here, apparently. Otherwise, you guys would have understood my original reference to Borg and Crossan. But nope, instead an atheist poster (you?) followed up my post, within just a page or two, with a naive whine about how believers aren't aware of research into the virgin birth.

Which is unfortunate. I know thinking atheists who can do so much better than you're doing here. There are lots of ways to challenge belief, but poor you, you're clueless and can only come up with endless glib insults.

But hey, don't bother reading any tedious books on your own. Go back to using that fun IMG button to post cartoons....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Some atheists read Borg and Crossan too -- on the road to atheism.

But none of the atheists here, apparently. Otherwise, you guys would have understood my original reference to Borg and Crossan. But nope, instead an atheist poster (you?) followed up my post, within just a page or two, with a naive whine about how believers aren't aware of research into the virgin birth.

Which is unfortunate. I know thinking atheists who can do so much better than you're doing here. There are lots of ways to challenge belief, but poor you, you're clueless and can only come up with endless glib insults.

But hey, don't bother reading any tedious books on your own. Go back to using that fun IMG button to post cartoons....

What is there to say? Again, there is plenty of evidence to share regarding Christianity and its connection to pagan beliefs. I don't want to join your Borg/Crossan book club, thank you.

So yes, a cartoon about sums up how I feel right now. I'm only speaking for myself - not for "legion."

And while I can say that extremists were to blame for the deaths in France, many of the devastating global events have been steeped in religious beliefs - however distorted these views may be.

no thanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Some atheists read Borg and Crossan too -- on the road to atheism.

But none of the atheists here, apparently. Otherwise, you guys would have understood my original reference to Borg and Crossan. But nope, instead an atheist poster (you?) followed up my post, within just a page or two, with a naive whine about how believers aren't aware of research into the virgin birth.

Which is unfortunate. I know thinking atheists who can do so much better than you're doing here. There are lots of ways to challenge belief, but poor you, you're clueless and can only come up with endless glib insults.

But hey, don't bother reading any tedious books on your own. Go back to using that fun IMG button to post cartoons....

What is there to say? Again, there is plenty of evidence to share regarding Christianity and its connection to pagan beliefs. I don't want to join your Borg/Crossan book club, thank you.

So yes, a cartoon about sums up how I feel right now. I'm only speaking for myself - not for "legion."

And while I can say that extremists were to blame for the deaths in France, many of the devastating global events have been steeped in religious beliefs - however distorted these views may be.

no thanks

So you want to continue with the cheap shots and just wave your hands about "plenty of evidence" that you can't be bothered to read or even link to. Laziness stirred up with arrogance. Wow.

Honest question: why did you post a cartoon that suggests YOU'RE the imitator? Because your cartoon doesn't logically apply to me (you accused me of being the only anti-troll poster here, which is wrong, but anyway that's your own stated position). The only other person in the room that it could apply to is ...you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And while I can say that extremists were to blame for the deaths in France, many of the devastating global events have been steeped in religious beliefs - however distorted these views may be.

no thanks

PP again. And many of the most devastating global events have been based on secular views, and I say that as a near-socialist. What's your point? Do you always base your opinions on cherry-picking and selective evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And while I can say that extremists were to blame for the deaths in France, many of the devastating global events have been steeped in religious beliefs - however distorted these views may be.

no thanks

PP again. And many of the most devastating global events have been based on secular views, and I say that as a near-socialist. What's your point? Do you always base your opinions on cherry-picking and selective evidence?

The difference is that we can criticize secular justifications for murder. We feel that somehow it's not fair to criticize people's religious reasons for doing something bad. Stalin, bad, Pol Pot bad, Mao bad, no secular atheist will defend the reasons these people gave for doing what they did. But the flip side is not true for religion. Religion as at sometime in history been used to justify killing children, slavery, and genocide. Religion's claim is that it represents the will of God, it is beyond reason.

Look how many people criticized Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. The world is pussyfooting around Islam's role in the attacks in France even as the attackers chanted "God is Great". We must have an open and frank discussion about the role of religion as it affects not just the practitioners, but non practitioners. You, me, us, we all are non-practitioners of some religion. Religion should not be given a free pass, it deserves no special respect, it should be brought out in the open and critiqued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And while I can say that extremists were to blame for the deaths in France, many of the devastating global events have been steeped in religious beliefs - however distorted these views may be.

no thanks

PP again. And many of the most devastating global events have been based on secular views, and I say that as a near-socialist. What's your point? Do you always base your opinions on cherry-picking and selective evidence?

The difference is that we can criticize secular justifications for murder. We feel that somehow it's not fair to criticize people's religious reasons for doing something bad. Stalin, bad, Pol Pot bad, Mao bad, no secular atheist will defend the reasons these people gave for doing what they did. But the flip side is not true for religion. Religion as at sometime in history been used to justify killing children, slavery, and genocide. Religion's claim is that it represents the will of God, it is beyond reason.

Look how many people criticized Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. The world is pussyfooting around Islam's role in the attacks in France even as the attackers chanted "God is Great". We must have an open and frank discussion about the role of religion as it affects not just the practitioners, but non practitioners. You, me, us, we all are non-practitioners of some religion. Religion should not be given a free pass, it deserves no special respect, it should be brought out in the open and critiqued.

Of course we can criticize religion's role in events. People do this all the time. The Inquisition sucks and Dawsh/ISIS sucks. There, I said it.

As an aside, do you study creative writing? Because I feel nothing but admiration for your imaginative re-write of your original alcoholism/drug abusers/stupidity posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And while I can say that extremists were to blame for the deaths in France, many of the devastating global events have been steeped in religious beliefs - however distorted these views may be.

no thanks

PP again. And many of the most devastating global events have been based on secular views, and I say that as a near-socialist. What's your point? Do you always base your opinions on cherry-picking and selective evidence?

I will criticize poor leaders who kill in the name of anything - with the true victims being helpless and mostly innocent people. So to kill in the name of power over a territory is horrific. However, to kill in the name of some god is worse!

The Crusades were just as bad as vicious acts committed by ISIS. I'm not cherry-picking anything, honey bun. If your god is so loving, why do priests sexually abuse kids? Why do people bomb abortion clinics? Why do people commit hate crimes against gays? Why do people try to FORCE gays to take the "straight" path through conversion therapy? Why must Jews hate Palestinians? Why must Palestinians hate Jews?

the common theme? religion
religion that protects its adherents despite how wrong their actions are

Don't talk to me about extremist views either. These views are all rooted in religious frameworks that are ALL outdated and based on texts taken out of an historical context that no longer applies today.

near Socialist - lol! You know that we should never mix religion with politics! weakens and divides a country . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And while I can say that extremists were to blame for the deaths in France, many of the devastating global events have been steeped in religious beliefs - however distorted these views may be.

no thanks

PP again. And many of the most devastating global events have been based on secular views, and I say that as a near-socialist. What's your point? Do you always base your opinions on cherry-picking and selective evidence?

The difference is that we can criticize secular justifications for murder. We feel that somehow it's not fair to criticize people's religious reasons for doing something bad. Stalin, bad, Pol Pot bad, Mao bad, no secular atheist will defend the reasons these people gave for doing what they did. But the flip side is not true for religion. Religion as at sometime in history been used to justify killing children, slavery, and genocide. Religion's claim is that it represents the will of God, it is beyond reason.

Look how many people criticized Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. The world is pussyfooting around Islam's role in the attacks in France even as the attackers chanted "God is Great". We must have an open and frank discussion about the role of religion as it affects not just the practitioners, but non practitioners. You, me, us, we all are non-practitioners of some religion. Religion should not be given a free pass, it deserves no special respect, it should be brought out in the open and critiqued.

Of course we can criticize religion's role in events. People do this all the time. The Inquisition sucks and Dawsh/ISIS sucks. There, I said it.

As an aside, do you study creative writing? Because I feel nothing but admiration for your imaginative re-write of your original alcoholism/drug abusers/stupidity posts.[b]

Your line is ironic, you must realize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And while I can say that extremists were to blame for the deaths in France, many of the devastating global events have been steeped in religious beliefs - however distorted these views may be.

no thanks

PP again. And many of the most devastating global events have been based on secular views, and I say that as a near-socialist. What's your point? Do you always base your opinions on cherry-picking and selective evidence?

I will criticize poor leaders who kill in the name of anything - with the true victims being helpless and mostly innocent people. So to kill in the name of power over a territory is horrific. However, to kill in the name of some god is worse!

The Crusades were just as bad as vicious acts committed by ISIS. I'm not cherry-picking anything, honey bun. If your god is so loving, why do priests sexually abuse kids? Why do people bomb abortion clinics? Why do people commit hate crimes against gays? Why do people try to FORCE gays to take the "straight" path through conversion therapy? Why must Jews hate Palestinians? Why must Palestinians hate Jews?

the common theme? religion
religion that protects its adherents despite how wrong their actions are

Don't talk to me about extremist views either. These views are all rooted in religious frameworks that are ALL outdated and based on texts taken out of an historical context that no longer applies today.

near Socialist - lol! You know that we should never mix religion with politics! weakens and divides a country . . .

Why is killing for religion "worse" than secular killing? The victims are still dead. In both cases the killing over territory was justified in the name of something --secular ideology or religion. But the victims are still dead. So why is one way of killing "worse" than the other?

Your views on religions "all" being outdated are just your own views, and you admit to barely researching your own views. So let's not bother going down that track.

No need to call me honey-bun.

[Anonymous]

PP again. Do you know anything about Marxism? Dialectical materialism? The debates about whether the revolution would come from the proletariat or could it come from the peasants? Why there were so many executions of political opponents on ideological grounds? Lenin and Stalin were operating under a secular ideology that was as rigid as any religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP again. Do you know anything about Marxism? Dialectical materialism? The debates about whether the revolution would come from the proletariat or could it come from the peasants? Why there were so many executions of political opponents on ideological grounds? Lenin and Stalin were operating under a secular ideology that was as rigid as any religion.

You said it yourself - ". . . as rigid as any religion." Religion is rigid.

Dialectical materialism is not. In theory, it's about the interdependence of opposing sides. Therefore, there's always motion that should - in theory - shift the balance. that perhaps if the working class emancipated itself capitalism would be erased

In practice, however, this doesn't work b/c those with means will usually win - whether that's through capitalism or dictatorship.

It's simply human nature - Darwinism at work. The strong will survive.


That's why it's so easy to prey on people using religion as the main vehicle. Promise them the world, and they'll follow.

same situations, I suppose - But IMO using fairy tales and myths to persuade folks to take action (for good or evil) is cruel.

false hope

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. Do you know anything about Marxism? Dialectical materialism? The debates about whether the revolution would come from the proletariat or could it come from the peasants? Why there were so many executions of political opponents on ideological grounds? Lenin and Stalin were operating under a secular ideology that was as rigid as any religion.

You said it yourself - ". . . as rigid as any religion." Religion is rigid.

Dialectical materialism is not. In theory, it's about the interdependence of opposing sides. Therefore, there's always motion that should - in theory - shift the balance. that perhaps if the working class emancipated itself capitalism would be erased

In practice, however, this doesn't work b/c those with means will usually win - whether that's through capitalism or dictatorship.

It's simply human nature - Darwinism at work. The strong will survive.


That's why it's so easy to prey on people using religion as the main vehicle. Promise them the world, and they'll follow.

same situations, I suppose - But IMO using fairy tales and myths to persuade folks to take action (for good or evil) is cruel.

false hope

Ok, I'm impressed that you know this much about dialectical materialism. I don't think you're right, but I'm impressed. This is more like it, right?

Dialectical materialism in the communist interpretation is about inevitability: there's very little flexibility in the final outcome. At least that's what I was taught in Europe, in a different language. No flexibility of opposing sides, because the proletariat's march to victory is inevitable. The capitalists do always win... until the proletariat unite. Which the proletariat will eventually wise up and do. Marx, writing in England during the industrial revolution, thought the proletariat were primed and ready to go. Were Chinese peasants in the 30s and 40s ready to unite? That question used to be a big deal. Either way, though, the capitalists were ultimately doomed. Reading about dialectical materialism really gives you the impression of a rigid, determinist philosophy.

Heck, leaving theory aside, the reverence for communist leaders was sort of like idol worship. Simple compilations of their quotes, like Mao's Little Red Book, were secular bibles. Little kids had to memorize large chunks of it, sort of like in a madrassa.

Also, religion is a lot more flexible than you're giving it credit for. In fact the last 10 pages of this thread been about your, or somebody else's, frustration with believers who develop interpretations that differ from orthodoxy. And that's precisely because these believers study and criticize and think for themselves. This seems to take atheists by surprise, but there are many, many of us such believers.

You lose points for once again referring to religion as "fairy tales." Ad hominems don't make an argument, in fact they make the user look juvenile. You know better than to keep slinging the insults, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. Do you know anything about Marxism? Dialectical materialism? The debates about whether the revolution would come from the proletariat or could it come from the peasants? Why there were so many executions of political opponents on ideological grounds? Lenin and Stalin were operating under a secular ideology that was as rigid as any religion.

You said it yourself - ". . . as rigid as any religion." Religion is rigid.

Dialectical materialism is not. In theory, it's about the interdependence of opposing sides. Therefore, there's always motion that should - in theory - shift the balance. that perhaps if the working class emancipated itself capitalism would be erased

In practice, however, this doesn't work b/c those with means will usually win - whether that's through capitalism or dictatorship.

It's simply human nature - Darwinism at work. The strong will survive.


That's why it's so easy to prey on people using religion as the main vehicle. Promise them the world, and they'll follow.

same situations, I suppose - But IMO using fairy tales and myths to persuade folks to take action (for good or evil) is cruel.

false hope

Ok, I'm impressed that you know this much about dialectical materialism. I don't think you're right, but I'm impressed. This is more like it, right?

Dialectical materialism in the communist interpretation is about inevitability: there's very little flexibility in the final outcome. At least that's what I was taught in Europe, in a different language. No flexibility of opposing sides, because the proletariat's march to victory is inevitable. The capitalists do always win... until the proletariat unite. Which the proletariat will eventually wise up and do. Marx, writing in England during the industrial revolution, thought the proletariat were primed and ready to go. Were Chinese peasants in the 30s and 40s ready to unite? That question used to be a big deal. Either way, though, the capitalists were ultimately doomed. Reading about dialectical materialism really gives you the impression of a rigid, determinist philosophy.

Heck, leaving theory aside, the reverence for communist leaders was sort of like idol worship. Simple compilations of their quotes, like Mao's Little Red Book, were secular bibles. Little kids had to memorize large chunks of it, sort of like in a madrassa.

Also, religion is a lot more flexible than you're giving it credit for. In fact the last 10 pages of this thread been about your, or somebody else's, frustration with believers who develop interpretations that differ from orthodoxy. And that's precisely because these believers study and criticize and think for themselves. This seems to take atheists by surprise, but there are many, many of us such believers.

You lose points for once again referring to religion as "fairy tales." Ad hominems don't make an argument, in fact they make the user look juvenile. You know better than to keep slinging the insults, right?

And your numbers are dwindling rapidly, because thinking for yourself about religion is the first step away from it.