Atheists... Your life is pointless

I think that you may be wrong there to a degree. I could be wrong but I think that there may have been a Jewish sect called the therapeutae that taught ethical behavior but they were killed off for the most part or should I say that others tried to be wipe them away but their teachings were so wide spread and could not be killed off but this is only a theory.
I think that the ruling religion may have tried to incorporate their teaching but with an immoral twist to their own advantage. Who knows what really took place. We are a bunch of risen apes.

"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

Oh, it's up for debate--you just lack the skills and the courage to debate it.

Zardoz--Your position seems to rest on the existence of the priests you mention.

In what way do they undermine the Christian religion?

We don't reject the notion of a free press because a nest of corruption in one, or more, media organisations is exposed. Nor even if we suspect that all media organisations are corrupt.

We don't reject universal adult franchise because voter fraud exists.

Had those priests not done what it is they are said to have done in the way you claim your position in empty. It is you who need them to prop up your argument.

You need to bring forward arguments against the Christian teaching which don't rely on a minority of ministers having behaved criminally.

The vast majority of America's 80 million Catholics are just as disgusted as you are by those priests and are more than willing to see them punished after due process.

Spendius this was not a nest of corruption in just one instance you had four priests molesting one child this almost never happens outside the bounds of religious cults. Those who belong to religious cults believe source of morality is religious cults but instead religious cults are instead often the source of perversion and child molestation. The serial killer named BTK (Bind Torture and Kill) was a church leader and used the Church computer to taunt the police after he killed 10 people but you can bet he never missed a day in church.

Trying to make to make religious cults the paragons of morality is foolish most of the commandments are about preserving the religious cult.

If religious cults improved morality the incidence of child rape would not be higher in religious cults than the general population.

Arguments against Christian teachings? Psalm 137.9 “Happy shall you be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
How about doing like Mosses commanded, if someone worked on the Sabbath the penalty was death. When a man was discovered picking up firewood on the Sabbath Mosses order him killed for his offence.
This was nothing but an ignorant primitive tribe.


“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you: from them you may buy slaves. We may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clan born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life but you must not rule over your fellow Israelite ruthlessly.”

Leviticus 25:44-46

The source of morality is the state if we followed the Christian religious cult we would kill anybody that worked on Sundays and we would all own slaves.

The 80 million who belong to the Catholic religious cult may be disgusted but they have to realize making the Priests god’s proxy on earth made it much, much easier for the child molesters and when the Bishops and the Cardinals became aware of the degree of child molestation they were not concerned about the children welfare they were concerned about the cults welfare. Maybe the child molesters couldn’t help it since most were victims themselves but the Bishops and the Cardinals could have put a stop to it by simply having the Priests arrested and charged. There should be no special privileges afforded the molesters to keep from embarrassing the cult. Again the state legislates morality the cult makes decisions based on what is good for the cult.

I could be wrong but I doubt it, spendius has no problems with the teachings of the bible and if I am not mistaken he wishes that slavery was legal because he would like to have a few. I think that he promotes life because the more people that are here the more that can be taken advantage of. I see spendius as a sociopath.

Izzythepush, the reason we have dictionaries is so people can find the proper meanings of words. I listed two commonly accepted dictionaries and the Catholic Church meets the definition of a cult. You can make up the meaning of words to suit yourself but it won’t alter the actual meanings. The definition of a cult for those who belong to one is someone else’s religion. Many born again Christians were more than happy to refer to the Mormon Church as a cult but never their own. Their’ is always the one true religion.

You must get sick often. Most belong in those two groups, fundamentalist christians or atheists. LOL

Skills and courage? Ba ha ha ha ha ha. Yes I'm quite aware of the fact that you old man have a lot of time to blow of or in other words trying various ways to bust a nut. How's it working out for you? You do that role playing game of yours with Dr. Drew Peacock? Do you show your skills and courage while participating in these role playing games?

Izzythepush I have been posting every day for twelve years and I have dealt with all kinds. I actually had a candidate for mayor try to call me out to fight when I bought certain things to light on the local board and of course he lost. In all those years I don’t think any remark bothered as much as your remark about some “ a few kids with sore bottoms.” I tried to shake it off and ignore it but it kept bothering me. It may have been just thoughtless on your part. But I could just imagine the Cardinal having the same attitude you had, ah it is just few kids with sore bottoms reassign the Priest to another church. Child rape is a horrible crime and many of those molested will molest others. Some of those kids committed suicide. There are something things that are just not humorous.

You're just being sanctimonious, like a lot of preachy people. Not only do you want us to think like you, but we even have to use your terminology.

I've not posted lies nor wildly exaggerated things like you have. If anyone should be apologising it should be you.

Can't back up your bullshit, so you just smear other members--no surprise there.

You do like to exercise your mind on those things don't you?

The contents of the Bible were selected, translated, published and promoted by Christians.

That simple fact should give you pause for thought. It is banned in North Korea.

You obviously have a pressing need to discredit it.

Your existence as well as idiots like "the amazing atheist" are all that I need to make my point. It's not up for debate man as I said in the first place. Both groups are fanatics, both groups fighting a war that just wastes time and doesn't lead to progress in a timely manner. Both these groups should only receive two things: laughter and ridicule.
And I think you're confusing yourself with me. Old man, I'm quite sure your fecal incontinence leads to smearing of the feces in some way or another. Accidentally or not. Keep your private awkward matters to yourself. No need to shout it out to the rest of the world.

No, your basic analogy is hopelessly flawed. All atheists are atheists, of course; but not all theists are Christians, and not all Christians are fundamentalists. Furthermore,not all fundamentalists are the kind of extremists you attempt to suggest. (If it's not up for debate, why are you attempting to debate it?)

The most extreme of fundamentalists, for example, either support those who take action, or take actions themselves against abortion. Those actions include attempting to murder or murdering abortion doctors and attempting to bomb or bombing abortion clinics. Not all fundamentalists act that way, or support those who do. They are an even smaller subset of all Christians, and a negligible subset of all theists. Your thesis is shown to be idiocy because you smear all fundamentalists with the same brush, let alone all Christians and all theists.

You do the same thing with all atheists. I know of no atheists at all who advocate murder or bombings. Even if there were (and you've provided no such evidence), it would not be a reasonable basis to condemn all atheists. You are, obviously, unaware that atheists are not all alike, and that condemning all atheists for the stupidity of one or two is about as fallacious as you can get. As for me, you know nothing about my attitudes or opinions in this matter, because if you did, you wouldn't lump me in with that fool.

A great many atheists, and in my experience, most atheists, don't care what other people believe and don't spend any time ranting about it. A great many atheists simply don't believe there is a god and don't care. That you are unable to distinguish such nuances is not surprising--after all, you mistake slander for rhetoric.

Analogy? What analogy dimwit?
So an atheist or a theist have to begin supporting violence, murder and bombings in order for them to be considered fanatics?
Interesting, so what do you call it when you have a single minded zeal to put a theist in their "rightful place," with harassment? Vice versa what do you call it when a theist have a single minded zeal to put an atheist in their "rightful place?" What other than obsessive interest on the matter would lead to putting someone who believes in God or someone who doesn't believe in God in their "rightful place"through various measures of useless banter I wonder? You sure as hell ain't getting paid to do it.

You compared atheists to fundamentalist Christians, that was the analogy, and it was your analogy, not mine.

You're using a straw man--at no time did i say that one has to support or indulge in violence to be thought a fanatic. I used those examples because even someone as simple-minded as you might get the message (i misjudged, though--apparently you're not that swift). As for putting people in their "rightful place," that's also not something to which i alluded, and bad-mouthing people, something which appears to be your preferred indoor sport, is not necessarily indicative of fanaticism.

I doubt that you're getting paid to be here either, and if the banter is useless why do you bother? Personally, i don't spend any time at all attempting to put anyone in their "rightful place," and wouldn't presume to claim to know what that place might be. I only ever discuss these matters online, not in real life. After all, Mr. Useless Banter, that's why we all come here.

My analogy did not compare atheists to fundamentalist Christians, if you're talking about my comment "Just opposite faces of the same coin." That is a metaphor not an analogy. Jeez has aging really fried your nerves this bad old man?


Ooooh the most used word in your vocabulary: straw man. I don't even understand the definition of a strawman dimwit.

You're the one who used the strawman, here I'll repeat what you said.


So you saying that I think fanatics are the ones who who advocate murder or bombings?
Specifically by your quote I know that is what you're implying:



Bad mouthing, itself, is not the problem dimwit. It is about being excessively intolerance of opposing views.


At least I'm not shoving the cock of "belief in God" or the "non-belief in God" into people's face.


Thank you for sharing your hypocrisy. Well appreciated.


Oh good for you that you are not shoving the cock of "non-belief in God" unlike some of those Jehovah's witness who shove the cock of "belief in God".

This is what you wrote. This is from the Free Online Dictionary:

1. a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
b. A comparison based on such similarity.

When your language skills are so poor, you would do well not to suggest to suggest that others have such problems. This is how the same source defines metaphor:

1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or "All the world's a stage" (Shakespeare).
2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: "Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven" (Neal Gabler).

One thing your statement definitely was not was a metaphor.

I'm not at all surprised that you don't know what a straw man fallacy is. You've shown time and again that you have almost no rhetorical skills. So, for example, what i wrote that you claim is a straw man is not, because i didn't impute that to you. I was just using an extreme example to show how not all theists are Christians, not all Christians are fundamentalist, and not even all fundamentalists are extremists. I'm not surprised that that didn't sink in with you.

The word you wanted was intolerant, not intolerance. That was not the claim you made, but if that's your standard, you're one of the most intolerant people i've ever encountered, which, apparently by your definition, makes you a fanatic. As for the rest of that drivel, your obsession with cocks and defecation is very bizarre and suggests to me some deep-seated emotional and mental health problems. But whatever the case, you have failed to support you analogy, you have failed to make clear you claim, and you've failed miserably at debate.

Small wonder you don't really want to debate--you lack the skills.

Oh this is priceless. You think that that is an analogy, and goes onto quote the dictionary definition and you still can't see it. And then goes on a drag which is just the automatic gain saying of what I said in my last comment.
Ooooooh nice skills you have there.