Atheism

I have a problem with the admission of hearsay evidence from hysterical adolescent girls. I'd hardly consider that to have been ". . . rational, professional, and conscientious . . . " Even in the last decade of the 17th century in (nearly) theocratic Massachusetts, one would not have admitted hearsay evidence in, for example, a murder trial. One of the most deplorable aspects of the entire incident is that royal authority did not intervene.

Hell is wonderfully described by James Joyce in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Once you have read that you will have no further difficulties.



That is a matter of personal choice. I lean to an infinite number of pubs owned by nymphomaniacal landladies. An infinite row of sober virgins must be quite tiresome after an aeon or two.

Spendius wrote "An infinite row of sober virgins must be quite tiresome after an aeon or two."

Have you been reading the Koran lately about martyr rewards?

BBB

The only part of the Koran I am aware of is the limitation on bottom-washing after No 2 s. Five times if I remember correctly. The bidet had not been invented at the time of writing.

And that injunction has a practical purpose in preventing compulsive washing.

My reference to HexHammer was to being a member of the human race. Nothing to do with religion.

One does not have to be a Christian to display those traits. Not all Christians, as you so nicely pointed out, display them either.

Since you consider that neither appear to display them, then it would seem that your finding Christians disgusting has another underlying reason than that which you have provided.

You are totally wrong in your assumption that I was trying to be sarcastic. I will tolerate you, Thomas.

You failed to understand why i'm disgusted. It's not about how people behave, it's about how they say they should behave, as compared to how they actually behave. It's a question of hypocrisy.

And i nowhere commented on who i consider displays tolerance and love, so your assumptions are not valid.

I always get a kick out of women who go on about the founding fathers and their desire for a Christian foundation in all phases of government. She does realize, doesn't she, that her place is in the home, tending to the needs of her husband and children, and that she wouldn't have been given an ear by these same founding fathers?

Interestsing. I often behave in ways I know I shouldn't behave in. Does it therefore make me a hypocrite to say it's wrong to behave in these ways? I would have thought it just makes me fallible.

Acknowledging your fallibility absolves you of hypocrisy. Anyway, you're just posting this because you like to argue--another of your myriad faults.

I think of liking to argue as a virtue, not a fault. But I'm willing to tolerate your contrary opinion, however misguided it may be.

Your christian virtue is impressive. However, that doesn't absolve you of your fault of liking to argue for argument's sake.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your post. Science tries to provide answers to our environment that can be proved by evidence. It has never claimed to find the source of life on this planet, but evolution has been proven in many forms.

Science is not religion.

She also quoted Grover Cleveland. Who else quotes ole Grove?

Jesus Christ! Pahu, can you keep this creationist crap in this thread ?
http://able2know.org/topic/121621-337#post-4379721
Thanking you in advance.

Phau
This sort of illogical crap is not appreciated. It only makes me want to be intolerant.

I have offered suggestions of what those underlying reasons might be Intrepid but Setanta has me on Ignore to avoid him having to consider them. They are, imo, as you possibly agree, to do with Christian teaching on sexual matters. Those teachings are, as you probably also know, designed to protect the ladies. That is why Setanta declares me to be the misogynist. It deflects suspicion, by assertion, from his own misogyny which the material facts of life under the atheistic ideology have no known way of inhibiting without the intervention of the state in the hands of whomsover it might fall. A manifesto for misogyny in other words, in either direction, the outcome being determined by the separate powers of the two sexes where the evolutionary doctrine of the Devil takes the hindmost, a figure of speech, rules.

I imagine Setanta is of the firm and unshakeable opinion that the teachings of the Church on sexual matters were brought in by an umarried, elite caste with no nepotistic characteristics, for no good reason, as a whim, in which case his supposed excellence in history is in tatters. It's almost as if a robin was objecting to its eggs being blue and its breast being red.

The Church's teaching on sexual matters has obviously been felt to hinder his convenience and then it is simply a matter of his cutting his cloth to suit his measurements by selective exposure to ideas emanating from the same position and the emphatic and intolerant expression of them and not only excluding other ideas but boasting of doing so over and over again.

The ironic aspect is that the Church's teachings are not mandatory on him and there is no reason for him to take any notice of them. He simply wants, as Dylan has it, to get everybody into the same hole he's in.

His giant straw man is that teaching kids a Christian viewpoint will cause them to be stuck with it for life despite him having had such instruction and him not being stuck with it. The idea that adult Christians are choosing to be what they are he conveniently puts down to their stupidity which, by the reverse invidious comparison, implies that he is intelligent.

No, but I'm currently reading a synopsis of the Cynics, Skeptics, and Stoics of the Helenistic age and the Roman interpretations of them as written by Cicero in The Nature of the Gods and Lucretius's On the Nature of Things. I'm finding uncanny parallels between the doubters of yore and today.

You are, JPB, supposed to offer some evidence that such a position has no benefits to society or to an individual woman content with it, as many are. A mere sneer is insufficient to organise the social relations of a complex social structure around. Such sneers might well be caused by being unable to snare a man who can match expectations. From my experience the higher up the social scale a woman is in the more likely she is to have such a lifestyle and to ask her husband how she should vote. She may well not wish to be given an ear.

spendi, dahling... she not only wished to have an ear, she wrote a treatise expressing her position. It wasn't a sneer at all. Simply an observation of the irony of a woman who says we should all follow the (false) intent of the founding fathers while herself looking for an advantage outside their wishes.