Does Atheistic secularism really promote violence?

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

X11 wrote:

Parapsychology researcher that grows crops and hasn’t published in a science journal since the 80’s.

Nuff said.

So what, at least he published. What the f~~~ have you done, outside of sneer and act like a fool?

Which does not move you any closer to having the stones to address your double talk. Flip flopping and evading.

You’re still just stalling.

Wait, who said Muslims? Joller, you sly devil you.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

X11 wrote:

If chu wants clarification on my answers to his questions I will oblige.

You see, when the men here who’s knowledge extends well beyond your own. Call you on your bulls~~~. You get really quiet. And general. You don’t back up what you say. You flip flop and contradict yourself.

I don’t need any further knowledge in the sciences, to spot a poser. Someone pretentious and cowardly.

Did you notice that FrankOne also responded to your one line statement. But in very predictable fashion, you completely dodged and evaded him. Not even bothering to address his response.

Why would you do this? Because he has the capacity to expose you for what you are.

Fake. Pretentious and a complete liar.

If you had any guts or b~~~~, you would tackle FrankOne’s response. But you dodged it like the plague.

Really strong and genuine behavior on your part.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[Frank V.Participant 2445]

The OP cast their line, bait on the hook.

And some of you are swallowing it !

Before we start insulting each other, calling each other liars, maybe we, including Stentorian and X11, need to see who else has been silent.

The Goddamned Original Poster !

They drop a statement with a question mark at the end, instead of a real question. That sharp pain in your throat is from the barbs of the fishhook. Was the bait worth it ?

“Atheistic Secularism” and “Violence” where only bait.
All of you where the real subject, the targets.

No wonder they are silent now. Mission accomplished.

Stop being suckers.

Frank V.

PS: Yes, I used gender neutral pronouns for the OP. Glad you noticed. And I changed “most” to “some” in once sentence.

[Frank V.Participant 2445]

The OP has an agenda, and it look like it is to pit religious MGTOWs against Atheist MGTOWS.

F~~~ YOU ATHEISTS

The OP said in that thread “Did not think my topic would generate such response in such a short time!!!”

Really ? Didn’t think yelling “F~~~ you” and blaming Atheists for Stalin would not generate such a response ? The OP would have to be stupid, delusional or just plain dishonest.

I don’t gave a damn what their actual agenda is, but this intentional effort to put us against each other is bulls~~~.

I’ll say it again.

You cannot yell “f~~~ you” at a group of people and whine about how they are angry.

Goodkid43 f~~~ you, your agenda and your hypocrisy. Your actions speak for you, you seek to pit us against each other.

Frank V.

PS: Now that I think of it, none of my Catholic friends who really meant it and are serious about it talk to anyone that way. If they do lose their temper, they take responsibility for it and apologize to your face.

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

Frank V. wrote:

Was the bait worth it ?

No, definitely not worth it. Pointless bickering. A total waste of time.

Frank V. wrote:

Stop being suckers.

You’re right Frank. Solid advice. I’m not sure that the people I was debating, were reacting to the title of this thread. It seems we went off on a tangent. But just the same, I’m going to ease up and not bother to expend any more energy on needless conflict. There is only so much that can be said on a subject. Past a certain point, it’s best to just leave it alone and move on.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[Frank V.Participant 2445]

Thanks, Stentorian. I should say that all of us where the targets of this provocation.

Frank V.

[MarketWatcherParticipant]

Frank V. wrote:

who else has been silent.

The Goddamned Original Poster !

Ha! I like you more and more each day Frank!

Anonymous wrote:

Someone mention Muslims and we’ll have a full on bar room brawl.

LOL. No thanks.

[ZarathustraParticipant 2246]

I would strongly suggest to anyone, although its a bit complicated, Derek Parfit’s seminal ethical work “Reasons and Persons”. In that treatise he discusses, at length, the concept of a “self-defeating” theory, of which I believe Christianity to be one. The concept is self explanatory: its a theory that defeats itself! Christianity preaches a big game about tolerance, forgiveness, charity etc… but ever notice that Christians most often display the exact opposite of these qualities? “F~~~ Atheists” hardly seems to fit the Christian virtue. In conclusion, one of the many reasons Christanity is false is its believers actually exhibit the exact opposite of the behaviours their own religion purportedly recommends and teaches. This also explains why many priests, who are supposed to be paragons of chastity, diddle little boys: because their own religion is not only bad at instilling the values it preaches, but encourages the exact opposite.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Stentorian wrote:

Theories are not proof.

You still don’t know what either of those words mean. And after me repeatedly telling you what they do mean.

But you persist in trying to use them.

If you see a ball fly past you away to your right, where do you think the ball came from?

It’s a simple question.

Why are you incapable of answering it?

Why should any of us take anything you have to say seriously when you are incapable of answering even that simple question?

[X11Spectator 4520]

Yeah stentorian clearly is uneducated on science even at an entry level.

Just another new age flunky.

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

Zarathustra wrote:

I would strongly suggest to anyone, although its a bit complicated,

If YOU understood it I doubt its that complicated.

Derek Parfit’s

Who? Doesn’t matter, appeal to authority, not interested.

seminal ethical work “Reasons and Persons”. In that treatise he discusses, at length, the concept of a “self-defeating” theory, of which I believe Christianity to be one.

Cosmic. You believe Christianity to be self defeating, in what way? It seems pretty successful to me, biggest religion in the world.

The concept is self explanatory:

It is? So why do you go on to explain the self explanatory? Here you go:

its a theory that defeats itself!

LOL. Thanks for clearing that up. But there’s more:

Christianity preaches a big game about tolerance, forgiveness, charity etc…

Yep, it does.

but ever notice that Christians most often display the exact opposite of these qualities?

Big vague here, “most”? Give me a figure, a percentage even. “Most Christians often display XYZ….” how have you arrived at this conclusion? Have you weighed up all the interactions with all Christians everywhere? Or have you just pulled this idea out of your ass because you dislike Christians? Define “most” and then “often”. How could you possibly measure this with any degree of success?
Anecdotal experience on your part? Extrapolated out to over 1 billion adherents of the faith worldwide? “Most” of 1 billion I assume would be 500,000,001 Christians or above. That’s a big number of Christians not practising what they preach. Dreadful stuff.

Assertions need evidence and proof or else they are just prejudices, opinions. We all got them, but are they facts? It FEELS like “most” Christians are “often” this that or the other. You’ve got your big girl knickers on here with that one. LOL.

“F~~~ Atheists” hardly seems to fit the Christian virtue.

It doesnt because its not. Where did that phrase “F~~~ Atheists” appear in this thread? I genuinely missed it, so show me. We have had an atheist say he wanted to stick his penis unto the ears of Christians on this thread though. Apart from possibly homosexual overtures being sent out for possible future sexual encounters, I can’t help but think he means “F~~~ Christians”. He just has to ask for a date, who knows, he could be biting his pillow soon enough if that’s his thing. Only he knows.

In conclusion,

This will be good.

one of the many reasons Christanity is false

What are these other reasons? List them with an argument to why this is so, one argument for each reason please.

“False” its a false religion? Its false because it isn’t true? Is it false because you say it is? Explain yourself.

is its believers actually exhibit the exact opposite of the behaviours their own religion purportedly recommends and teaches.

Ok the police are false. Why? Because some cops are corrupt and the police should act the way they’re supposed to. Same logic. The police are “self defeating” too because X amount of them are bent.

This also explains why many priests, who are supposed to be paragons of chastity, diddle little boys: because their own religion is not only bad at instilling the values it preaches,

“Many” priests are child sex predators? Really? How many? Give me some facts. Do you think there are atheist child sex abusers? Muslim? Hindu?

but encourages the exact opposite.

The church encourages child abuse? Show me where it said this?

[X11Spectator 4520]

Chu spend a lot of time microanalysing other people’s words yet you have never to my knowledge actually presented a single theory or justified belief.

Do you understand even if you proved everybody else wrong or whatever it does not make your belief more correct one bit.

[goodkid43Spectator 550]

Less than one percent of all priests were found to molest children.

95% of this tiny percentage are priests who were homosexual i.e. priest and boy.

Homosexuality in the priesthood is the problem.

These are the facts.

God bless, Michael

[ZarathustraParticipant 2246]

Yeah I was going to answer but why bother. It makes no difference to me what another believes. But as a philosopher I will make one rebuttal: My appeal to Derek Parfit was NOT an appeal to authority. It was an appeal to one of the arguments in his book. You are more than welcome to read the book and get back to me when you have read it. Hell, give me your address and I will pay for a copy of the book and mail it to you. By the way, its not a book on atheism, its just a book on ethics. Have a great weekend!

[ZarathustraParticipant 2246]

Great. But since your religion is supposed to be a guide to better living shouldn’t that number be 0% amongst the people who practice this most whole heartedly? Are you saying its acceptable that 1% of your priests molest children? Isn’t it the duty of your church to weed these people out?

[ZarathustraParticipant 2246]

X11 makes an excellent point. The burden of proof regarding existential claims is on the one making the claim (claim god exists, requires proof. Claim a unicorn exists, requires proof.) claiming something does not exist requires no proof.

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

X11 are you asking me out on a date? I’m celibate, and preferred the ladies when I wasn’t, sorry I can’t help you.

As for argumentation here, you don’t use honest to goodness logic and I’ll flag it up. Insult my beliefs with sound argument if you must, if you can’t your stuff is going under the microscope. Your call.

[X11Spectator 4520]

The OP makes a second post in 6 pages which indicates he hasn’t read a single thing between his first and last post.

The OP is just a troll or is unhinged.

OP is a f~~~~~ troll.

[X11Spectator 4520]

Guys please quote, hard to see who is responding to what.

[ZarathustraParticipant 2246]

Cú Chulainn wrote:

X11 are you asking me out on a date? I’m celibate, and preferred the ladies when I wasn’t, sorry I can’t help you.

As for argumentation here, you don’t use honest to goodness logic and I’ll flag it up. Insult my beliefs with sound argument if you must, if you can’t your stuff is going under the microscope. Your call.

Pretty much done here… hard to have a conversation with someone who thinks a book offer is a date. Just to be clear I was offering to send you a book not ask you out on a date. Is that clear? If you would like to read the book I will send it to you.

[Author]

Posts