Feed on Posts or Comments 28 November 2014

Islam Thomas on 18 Jun 2013 12:57 am

Religious education teaches insanity

When people who are religious are allowed to teach children, they often end up indoctrinating the children in nonsense, as documented by Richard Dawkins in this video inside an Islamic school:

It can take children years to recover from this indoctrination, if they recover at all.

459 Responses to “Religious education teaches insanity”

  1. on 18 Jun 2013 at 2:44 am 1.The messenger said …

    6.Anonymous, your claim of brain washing is crap.
    Many people are converted after they turn 16, therefore this “years of introduction” crap is false.
    Teaching religion at a young age does not create a mental block. The reason that there bond to religion is sometimes stronger when it is taught to them at a young age is because it allows them to learn about the morals of GOD, and they laws of GOD(such as I am the LORD thy God, Thou shalt have no other gods, No graven images or likenesses, Not take the LORD’s name in vain, Remember the sabbath day, Honor thy father and thy mother, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet) so they can decide either to follow GOD, or not.
    GOD’s teachings are not forced on them, they are given a choice to either follow Jesus’s teachings, or not. The choice is their’s.
    Religious education is not brain washing.
    Thomas is brain washing you by fabricating lies and tring to convince you that they are true.

  2. on 18 Jun 2013 at 2:52 am 2.The messenger said …

    Tom, atheists are the brain washers.

    Religious schools teach science and religion.

    Non religious schools teach only science.

    Religious schools do not force their beliefs upon anyone, they simply give people the choice to either believe in GOD, or to not believe in GOD.

    Foolish atheists are always complaining because most people choose to believe in GOD, rather than the lies of atheists.

    Atheists brainwash people with their lies by not allowing them to choose between Religion and atheism.

  3. on 18 Jun 2013 at 2:56 am 3.The messenger said …

    Tom, how can you fail to see that GOD is good?

    43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

  4. on 18 Jun 2013 at 4:47 am 4.Fluttershy said …

    FIRST!
    The solution to this problem however is almost impossible, and itself would be considered discrimination….

  5. on 18 Jun 2013 at 6:30 am 5.Anonymous said …

    What’s impossible about telling them that in the pre-scientific, mostly illiterate, uneducated societies such as those that spawned the holy books of the Abrahamic religions, the superstitious people believed patently absurd things. Today we call that nonsense Islam or Christianity.

    They can then go on to learn about the ridiculous beliefs of these ancient people such as man was made from dust and woman from man’s rib. They can either do that in religious education, or a stand-up comedy class.

  6. on 18 Jun 2013 at 2:32 pm 6.The messenger said …

    5.Anonymous, that would be a complete lie.

    The Hebrew people, both past and present, are very educated.

    Tell me, could a bunch of uneducated people build such magnificent structures and form such a great nation?

    The Hebrew people, aka Jews, are some of the most intelligent, loving, compassionate, people on the earth.

    Here is an example of brilliant Jewish architecture.

    Solomon’s Temple
    This page has some issues
    Not to be confused with Solomon’s Temple, Buxton.

    A sketch of Solomon’s Temple as described in the Hebrew Bible. Cross section, looking West (above). East elevation (below).

    Reconstruction of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem according to the description from the Bible.
    According to the Hebrew Bible, Solomon’s Temple, also known as the First Temple, was the Holy Temple (Hebrew: ???????????????????: Bet HaMikdash) in ancient Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount (also known as Mount Zion), before its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar II after the Siege of Jerusalem of 587 BCE. There is no direct archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon’s Temple, and no mention of it in the surviving contemporary extra-biblical literature.

    The Hebrew Bible states that the temple was constructed under Solomon, king of the Israelites. This would date its construction to the 10th century BCE, although it is possible that an earlier Jebusite sanctuary had stood on the site. During the kingdom of Judah, the temple was dedicated to Yahweh, the god of Israel, and is said to have housed the Ark of the Covenant. Rabbinic sources state that the First Temple stood for 410 years and, based on the 2nd-century work Seder Olam Rabbah, place construction in 832 BCE and destruction in 422 BCE (3338 AM), 165 years later than secular estimates.

    Because of the religious sensitivities involved, and the politically volatile situation in East Jerusalem, only limited archaeological surveys of the Temple Mount have been conducted. No excavations have been allowed on the Temple Mount during modern times. An Ivory pomegranate mentions priests in the house of YHWH, and an inscription recording the Temple’s restoration under Jehoash have appeared on the antiquities market, but the authenticity of both has been challenged and they remain the subject of controversy. No conclusive archeological evidence for or against the existence of Solomon’s Temple has been found.

    History according to the Bible

    Architectural description

    Archaeology

    Notable mentions

    See also

    Footnotes

    General references

    Further reading

    Read in another language

    Last modified 1 hour ago

  7. on 18 Jun 2013 at 2:33 pm 7.The messenger said …

    Tom, atheists are the brain washers.
    Religious schools teach science and religion.
    Non religious schools teach only science.
    Religious schools do not force their beliefs upon anyone, they simply give people the choice to either believe in GOD, or to not believe in GOD.
    Foolish atheists are always complaining because most people choose to believe in GOD, rather than the lies of atheists.
    Atheists brainwash people with their lies by not allowing them to choose between Religion and atheism .

  8. on 19 Jun 2013 at 5:25 am 8.Fluttershy said …

    I mean that a person can purely believe in science and other stuff, and still consider themselves theist and convert people…

  9. on 19 Jun 2013 at 3:40 pm 9.DPK said …

    I had what would be described as a “religious” education… meaning Catholic school and university… but I was never taught nonsense, like “evolution is just a theory”. I was taught by educated people who seemed to be very adept at keeping reality and their faith well segregated.

    It was almost comical to see how they would at one point make fun of people who believed, for instance, in the biblical creation story, or many of the other absurd biblical myths, like Noah and the Ark, Jonah and the whale… and then they would turn right around and council people about the inerrant word of god…
    It must be very stressful on your sanity living that kind of Jekyll and Hyde existence.

    As Mark Twain famously said, “Faith is believing in stuff you know ain’t so.”

  10. on 19 Jun 2013 at 7:10 pm 10.The messenger said …

    9.DPK, mark was a good writer, but he was not very smart.

  11. on 19 Jun 2013 at 7:12 pm 11.The messenger said …

    DPK, the things in the bible are reality.

    I provided a lot of proof in the past.

  12. on 20 Jun 2013 at 2:05 pm 12.freddies_dead said …

    6.The messenger said …

    A whole bunch of stuff about a temple claimed to have been built in the Bible, however, it’s this bit that stands out to me:

    There is no direct archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon’s Temple, and no mention of it in the surviving contemporary extra-biblical literature.

    Such a magnificent structure that absolutely no evidence for it’s existence remains and no mention was made of it outside the Bible.

    Ole messy attempts to refute Anonymous with a temple that doesn’t seem to have ever existed. Obviously this seemingly non-existent temple was so grand that it’s builders could only have been a highly educated bunch. And only such a highly educated bunch could have singularly failed to note the existence of such a grand temple in any other contemporary manuscript of the time.

    It’s almost as if the highly educated societies of the time were wholly unaware of such a magnificent example of God’s glory.

  13. on 20 Jun 2013 at 2:09 pm 13.freddies_dead said …

    11.The messenger said … (to DPK)

    DPK, the things in the bible are reality.

    Which bits? The men made out of dust? The women made from ribs? The talking donkey? The chit-chatty snake? It seems that “reality” doesn’t mean what you think that it means.

    I provided a lot of proof in the past.

    So far you’ve provided exactly no proof of your God’s existence and today all you’ve given us is a temple that has no evidence to support that it was ever even built. Your definition of “proof” is as odd as your definition of “reality”.

  14. on 20 Jun 2013 at 3:58 pm 14.The messenger said …

    Here is some information about the relics from Solomon’s Temple that were discovered by some Muslim workers.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-jerusalem-artifacts.html

  15. on 21 Jun 2013 at 1:23 am 15.The messenger said …

    13.freddies_dead, here is some proof of GOD.

    Miracle of the Sun

    The Miracle of the Sun (Portuguese: O Milagre do Sol) was an event on 13 October 1917 which was attended by 30,000 to 100,000 people, who were gathered near Fátima, Portugal. Several newspaper reporters were in attendance and they took testimony from many people who claimed to have witnessed extraordinary solar activity. This recorded testimony was later added to by an Italian Catholic priest and researcher in the 1940s.

    According to these reports, the event lasted approximately ten minutes.The three children also reported seeing a panorama of visions, including those of Jesus, Our Lady of Sorrows, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, and of Saint Joseph blessing the people.

    The event was officially accepted as a miracle by the Roman Catholic Church on 13 October 1930. On 13 October 1951, the papal legate, Cardinal Tedeschini, told the million people gathered at Fátima that on 30 October, 31 October, 1 November, and 8 November 1950, Pope Pius XII himself witnessed the miracle of the sun from the Vatican gardens.

  16. on 21 Jun 2013 at 1:30 am 16.The messenger said …

    Miracle of the Sun

    People witnessing the event.
    The people had gathered because three young shepherd children had predicted that at high noon the Blessed Virgin Mary would appear in a field in an area of Fátima called Cova da Iria. According to many witnesses, after a period of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky. It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the shadows on the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds. The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern, frightening those who thought it a sign of the end of the world. Witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became “suddenly and completely dry, as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling”.

    Estimates of number present range from 30,000 to 40,000 by Avelino de Almeida, writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século, to 100,000, estimated by Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra, both of whom were present that day.

    The event was attributed by believers to Our Lady of Fátima, a reported apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children who had made predictions of the event on 13 July 1917, 19 August, and 13 September. The children stated that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them and provide a miracle “so that all may believe.”

  17. on 21 Jun 2013 at 9:29 am 17.Fluttershy said …

    “I provided a lot of proof in the past.”

    HAHAHA….ahhh….nice one…
    Wait….that was a stand up joke right?
    RIGHT?
    Otherwise i feel sorry for you…
    You must live in some other dimension where you actually posted something relevant…

  18. on 23 Jun 2013 at 5:05 am 18.The messenger said …

    30,000 to 100,000 people witnessed thisiricle.

    How is that not valid proof?

  19. on 23 Jun 2013 at 5:06 am 19.The messenger said …

    30,000 to 100,000 people witnessed this miricle..
    How is that not valid proof?

  20. on 23 Jun 2013 at 7:52 pm 20.Martin said …

    “When people who are religious are allowed to teach children, they often end up indoctrinating the children in nonsense”

    Thomas again embarks upon illogical conclusions. We would need Thomas to share what qualifies as acceptable education but we can be sure a deity who creates is not part of it.

    1. The religious family teaches God
    2. I would not teach God.
    3. Therefore they teach insanity.

    Clearly Thomas concludes illogically, foolishly and as a bigot. All parents it could be argued brainwash. Thomas refuses to see his beliefs in this light.

  21. on 23 Jun 2013 at 8:04 pm 21.DPK said …

    Again Martin must lie about the facts in order to try and make a point. If you watched the video, at no time did anyone object to the idea that ” The religious family teaches God.”
    The actual position would go like this:
    1. The religious schools teach things that are simply not true.
    2. Teaching things as fact that are not true is insane.
    3. Therefore they teach insanity.

    Martin… would you consider it insane for someone in the position of authority to teach children something like, humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time in history, roughly 6 thousand years ago?

    Just curious if you think that the time period in which dinosaurs roamed the earth actually depends on what you believe, or is it a fact?

  22. on 23 Jun 2013 at 9:09 pm 22.alex said …

    messenger is out of control. somebody call the cops. that motherfucker sounds like he about to do something crazy. lock up your women and your kids.

  23. on 23 Jun 2013 at 10:43 pm 23.Martin said …

    Alex since you have neither you have a lot of free time huh?

    lol!!

    Martin,

    Good one!

  24. on 23 Jun 2013 at 11:12 pm 24.DPK said …

    Notice Martin drives by, drs aload of horseshit he calls “logic”, ignores it when his fallacious reasoning and outright lies are called out, comes back with a third grade taunt against Alex, and runs away hoping no one noticed he once again got called out for being a liar.
    That’s the way they play the game folks.

  25. on 24 Jun 2013 at 12:07 am 25.alex said …

    21.Martin said …
    Alex since you have neither you have a lot of free time huh?
    lol!!
    Martin,
    Good one!

    martin, you sorry piece of shit. when you sock post, you need to use a different name, dumbass.

  26. on 24 Jun 2013 at 1:15 am 26.The messenger said …

    Tom, atheists are the brain washers.
    Religious schools teach science and religion.
    Non religious schools teach only science.
    Religious schools do not force their beliefs upon anyone, they simply give people the choice to either believe in GOD, or to not believe in GOD.
    Foolish atheists are always complaining because most people choose to believe in GOD, rather than the lies of atheists.
    Atheists brainwash people with their lies by not allowing them to choose between Religion and atheism.

  27. on 24 Jun 2013 at 2:09 am 27.alex said …

    26.The messenger said …

    dumbmotherfucker says shit that he backs up with more bullshit. go fuck yourself.

    martin, where are you? you need to sock post yourself again, dipshit.

  28. on 24 Jun 2013 at 5:49 am 28.Anonymous said …

    Yes. Once again, “martin” outs himself as a despicable liar, a fraud, and a sock-puppet. Unable to make a case for his religion, all he is left with is to post his make-believe conversations in order to distract attention from his inability to justify his belief in his make-believe god.

  29. on 24 Jun 2013 at 1:55 pm 29.A said …

    Martin that was quite funny! It is too easy to get one off on alexander the mouth. I just hope he can’t reproduce all his hate in a spawn.

    Well played sir!

  30. on 24 Jun 2013 at 2:50 pm 30.DPK said …

    Yes Martin, er, other A, what a brilliant example of 5th grade debating skills you show… implying that Alex has neither a girlfriend or children is simply breathtakingly insightful. Surely that must prove your god is real!

    Then Ass, is an equally brilliant and touching display of loving christian compassion replies:
    “Martin that was quite funny! It is too easy to get one off on alexander the mouth. I just hope he can’t reproduce all his hate in a spawn.
    Well played sir!… uhm I mean other me.”

    But notice that neither one addressed the fact that Martin failed to answer the actual question… so let’s try again:

    Martin… would you consider it insane for someone in the position of authority to teach children something like humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time in history, roughly 6 thousand years ago?

    Just curious if you think that the time period in which dinosaurs lived actually depends on what you believe, or is it a fact? In other words, do actual facts care whether you believe in them or not?

  31. on 24 Jun 2013 at 3:18 pm 31.freddies_dead said …

    19.The messenger said …

    30,000 to 100,000 people witnessed this miricle..
    How is that not valid proof?

    The only thing that thousands of wankers in a field sharing a delusion is proof of, is that thousands of people in a field are quite capable of sharing a delusion.

    There is no actual evidence for the “miracle of the sun” other than some eyewitness accounts from delusional wankers. The sun did not dance in the sky, it did nothing. But, not wishing to sound like idiots for gathering in a field for no reason, the wankers gave delusional accounts which matched the “prophecy”.

  32. on 24 Jun 2013 at 3:25 pm 32.DPK said …

    On 21 September 1995. Before dawn, a Hindu worshiper at a temple in south New Delhi made an offering of milk to a statue of Ganesha. When a spoonful of milk from the bowl was held up to the trunk of the statue, the liquid was seen to disappear, apparently taken in by the idol. Word of the event spread quickly, and by mid-morning it was found that statues of the entire Hindu pantheon in temples all over India were taking in milk.

    By noon the news had spread beyond India, and Hindu temples in the United Kingdom, Canada, UAE, and Nepal among other countries had successfully replicated the phenomenon, and the Vishva Hindu Parishad (an Indian Hindu organization) had announced that a miracle was occurring. In the USA, it was observed at the Hindu Temple Society of North America (Ganesh Temple).

    The reported miracle had a significant effect on the areas around major temples; vehicle and pedestrian traffic in New Delhi was dense enough to create a gridlock lasting until late in the evening. Many stores in areas with significant Hindu communities saw a massive jump in sales of milk, with one Gateway store in England selling over 25,000 pints of milk,[3] and overall milk sales in New Delhi jumped over 30%.[4] Many minor temples struggled to deal with the vast increase in numbers, and queues spilled out into the streets, reaching distances of over a mile.

    Messenger… millions of people all over the world observed this miracle. Surely this is proof that the Hindu gods are real, don’t you agree?

  33. on 24 Jun 2013 at 4:06 pm 33.michael said …

    ok. lets break down post 7 by messenger:

    Tom, atheists are the brain washers.

    - – right. there are a lot of atheist organizations that demand membership for newborns.

    Religious schools teach science and religion.

    - – a broad generalization. bringham young is a good example of this.

    Non religious schools teach only science.

    - – other than any history or religious courses offered, yes.

    Religious schools do not force their beliefs upon anyone, they simply give people the choice to either believe in GOD, or to not believe in GOD.

    - – this is outright fucking lie.

    north american martyers and saint bernadette, both located in pennsylvania, featured teachers that explained that if i did not believe and obey i would go to hell. in fact, a nun ran st bernies and was adamant about yelling at students through a megaphone because she wasnt allowed to hit them anymore

    Foolish atheists are always complaining because most people choose to believe in GOD, rather than the lies of atheists.

    - – i cannot speak for atheism but i dont really care what you believe in. its when you decide that you want power over someone else because god said this or that, thats typically when i get pissed off.

    spirtuality…freedom to believe in god…i dont mind.

    religion, an organization that impacts everyone…is not my friend.

    Atheists brainwash people with their lies by not allowing them to choose between Religion and atheism .

    - – this last part, well, its just too stupid to even respond to.

  34. on 24 Jun 2013 at 4:41 pm 34.Boz said …

    Religious folks, outside of Muslims and Atheists allow you to chose what to believe We do see Muslim nations and Atheist nations putting people to death by millions for not believing the state religion. They must brainwash the masses to keep control with threats of death.

  35. on 24 Jun 2013 at 5:24 pm 35.alex said …

    “They must brainwash the masses…”

    so, atheists brainwash and theists brainwash also. we all brainwash and somehow this makes the theist brainwashing gooder? your statement still does not refute the xtian brainwashing. moron.

  36. on 24 Jun 2013 at 6:12 pm 36.DPK said …

    34.Boz said …

    “Religious folks, outside of Muslims and Atheists allow you to chose what to believe.”

    You mean religious schools who charge people for an “education” allow you to choose to believe that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time in history if you want to? What kind of “education” is that? Here, give me your money, and believe whatever you want…
    And where do you get that atheists do not “allow” you to believe nonsense? Last I checked there were a lot of people in the world who believe a lot of utter nonsense and there are no atheist stupidity squads rounding them up. I think you mistake “laughing at you and thinking you are either retarded, stupid, or insane” for “not allowing”
    You are allowed to believe whatever you want, but the fact is reality doesn’t care if you believe in it or not.
    D

  37. on 24 Jun 2013 at 6:37 pm 37.Anonymous said …

    “…allow you to chose what to believe”

    And at a stroke, the replacement sock-puppet demonstrates the depth of his brainwashing.

    If you choose what to believe then you are admitting that you practice self-deception. If you choose what do believe then reality takes a back seat to nonsense. If you choose what to believe in preference to what is actually true, then you are a dangerous individual who cannot be trusted to act in a rational manner.

    This hole that you are digging in your attempts to inflame and incite is swallowing you whole. Whilst it’s comical to watch your self-incrimination, you really should stop digging.

  38. on 24 Jun 2013 at 7:09 pm 38.A said …

    Box,

    I would argue atheists are worse. Look no further than Korea, China and the former USSR. Start a church, own a Bible and we will kill or imprison you.

    Nice!

  39. on 24 Jun 2013 at 8:50 pm 39.Brian said …

    There are many logical arguments against God. Where they seem to fall apart is they rely on being able to rationalize the mind of God. When I read about the works of Einstein there is much I don’t understand so when I think of the the vastness of the universe I conclude that just because something is illogical to me doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

  40. on 24 Jun 2013 at 9:15 pm 40.DPK said …

    “when I think of the the vastness of the universe I conclude that just because something is illogical to me doesn’t mean it isn’t so.”

    But it also doesn’t mean it IS so, so unless you are willing to accept any postulated idea as reality, you need to have something more to go on….
    I have said many, many time here, there is undeniably an order to the universe… there are “laws” regarding the way that matter and energy behave, and those laws have led to what we call the physical universe, or “creation” if you will. If you want to call that underlying order to the universe “god” in the same sense that Einstein meant when he referred to “god”… have at. You will get no argument from me. But if you want to jump from THAT to an all powerful, all knowing warrior god who wants to be my friend, wants me to snip off the end of my penis, cares about who I sleep with, and will judge me and punish me or reward me with eternal life of bliss or torment after I die… well you’re going to need a bit more than some ancient legends written by sheep herding primitives that thought thunder and lightening were signs of gods anger.
    And if you further want me to accept a magical god who had to incarnate himself as a human in order to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself for the crime of a woman who ate an apple from a forbidden tree, well, understand please if I laugh at your ridiculousness.

  41. on 24 Jun 2013 at 10:55 pm 41.A said …

    Indeed Brian, just as atheist accept macro evolution as true. The can’t prove it but they sure believe it.

  42. on 24 Jun 2013 at 11:20 pm 42.alex said …

    “Where they seem to fall apart…”

    it doesn’t matter if 100% of them fall apart. it’s not proof for your god, you dipshit. just because an elliptical planetary orbit cannot be replicated on earth doesn’t mean your god exists.

    same shit with santa non-believers who beat their kids and murder people don’t mean santa claus is real. no?

    try, atheists who beat their kids and murder people don’t mean your is real. yes.

    religious education is bullshit because teaching about a god without merit is insanity. unless you got some shit that proves your god? of course, you don’t and puleeze, not that sun shit again.

    hey, martin. martin, the other sock is here to fluff you again, you dumbass.

  43. on 25 Jun 2013 at 6:48 pm 43.Scourge said …

    #41 A Just a heads-up; the “macro evolution”{sic) you seem to deride is merely micro-evolution allowed to run.

    Are you an atheist posing as a Christian to make Christians look like ignorant fools?

  44. on 25 Jun 2013 at 7:11 pm 44.A said …

    Deride? Never I have merely asked for proof that will survive the scientific method.

    Macro is just Micro that is just allowed to run? Lol, yeah I have heard that one before. So, if alex claims he can swim an Olympic size pool you just assume he can swim the Atlantic Ocean, right?

    Think for yourself scrooge.

  45. on 25 Jun 2013 at 7:57 pm 45.DPK said …

    A will not accept the well documented and highly supported concept of speciation unless he can observe it in a laboratory, but he has no problem believing in an invisible man who lives in a magical kingdom who listens to his thoughts and will reward him with an eternal life of happiness as long as he isn’t gay, doesn’t work on the Sundays, snips off the end of his penis and never eats pork or shellfish…. and oh yeah, also doesn’t worship any OTHER invisible men as well.
    Okay………………

  46. on 25 Jun 2013 at 7:59 pm 46.DPK said …

    and you said atheists don’t allow you to believe utter nonsense if you want to… hahahaha

  47. on 25 Jun 2013 at 8:22 pm 47.DPK said …

    And lest we once again get derailed by “A” and his creationist obsession, let’s not forget that neither the “A” “Martin”, or “Boz” sock puppets have had the balls to actually answer the (on topic) question posed them… big surprise, huh?
    But. for the sake of increasing their humiliation and demonstrating their own brainwashed method of reasoning, let’s try again:

    “Martin… (aka A, Boz, Hor, Biff, et.al.) would you consider it insane for someone in the position of authority (as say, a teacher) to teach children something like “humans and dinosaurs actually existed at the same time in history, roughly 6 thousand years ago”?

    Just curious if you think that the time period in which dinosaurs lived actually depends on what you choose to believe, or is it actually a fact that doesn’t change based on your religious indoctrination? In other words, do actual facts care whether you believe in them or not?

  48. on 25 Jun 2013 at 9:31 pm 48.alex said …

    “So, if alex claims he can swim an Olympic size pool you just assume he can swim the Atlantic Ocean, right?”

    you diversionary piece of shit. if i was teaching, in school, the fact that i can swim the atlantic ocean, it would be universally agreed upon that i’m a bullshitter.

    you see where this is headed? your god is bullshit and religious education is insaneifying.

    what other atheists believe in, is irrelevant. i believe barbeque sauce cures cancer. of course it’s crazy, but do you see me teaching that shit, do you?

    hey martin, your other sock is missing you.

  49. on 25 Jun 2013 at 9:57 pm 49.A said …

    Once again the claim speciation is well documented and is fact. A simple test, Aaagggaaaiiinnn. Provide facts we can test using the scientific method. We can then put it to rest.

    Prediction: They will not but will ramble on about creationism, Bible, God in order to avoid the inordinate amount of faith they have in nature.

  50. on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:08 pm 50.alex said …

    “Aaagggaaaiiinnn. Provide facts we can test using the scientific method. We can then put it to rest.”

    Screaming like a beeatch ain’t gonna change the topic “Religious education teaches insanity”. Is it “Education teaches scientific method insanity”? no, you dipshit. religious education is bullshit because you can’t prove your god. this is insane. go pray, better yet, start your own site, fuckhead.

  51. on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:14 pm 51.DPK said …

    Start here. Then I’d suggest perhaps checking into your local college and taking a class on evolutionary biology.
    But of course you will do neither, because it is easier to proclaim gawd mussta done it.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

  52. on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:15 pm 52.DPK said …

    “… (aka A, Boz, Hor, Biff, et.al.) would you consider it insane for someone in the position of authority (as say, a teacher) to teach children something like “humans and dinosaurs actually existed at the same time in history, roughly 6 thousand years ago”?
    Just curious if you think that the time period in which dinosaurs lived actually depends on what you choose to believe, or is it actually a fact that doesn’t change based on your religious indoctrination? In other words, do actual facts care whether you believe in them or not?

  53. on 26 Jun 2013 at 1:00 am 53.A said …

    Hmmm, so do you believe that ToE should be taught as a FACT in the classroom Dippy?

    You keep dodging along with your buddies and keep changing the subject. Why is that Dippy?

  54. on 26 Jun 2013 at 1:24 am 54.alex said …

    “Hmmm, so do you believe that ToE should be taught as a FACT in the classroom Dippy?”

    damn skippy. the same classroom that teaches earth science that says the planet is around 4.5 billion years old. how’s that compare to your 10,000 year old bullshit earth? the same science that dates fossils way fucking older that your bullshit ark?

    you’re questioning the ToE that has been subjected to rigorous/examination/correction techniques and/or critiques as compared to your bullshit creationism?

    you wonder why creationism/id is not taught in public schools? if ToE is ever found to be bullshit, make no mistake it will removed from the curriculum. in the meantime, your bullshit creationism will never even leave the theoretical starting gate because it’s bullshit. wanna publish some scientific papers and subject it to criticality? you shit talking motherfucker…

  55. on 26 Jun 2013 at 1:48 am 55.DPK said …

    “Hmmm, so do you believe that ToE should be taught as a FACT in the classroom Dippy?”

    “… (aka A, Boz, Hor, Biff, et.al.) would you consider it insane for someone in the position of authority (as say, a teacher) to teach children something like “humans and dinosaurs actually existed at the same time in history, roughly 6 thousand years ago”?
    Just curious if you think that the time period in which dinosaurs lived actually depends on what you choose to believe, or is it actually a fact that doesn’t change based on your religious indoctrination? In other words, do actual facts care whether you believe in them or not?

    Why won’t you answer the question instead of demanding answers from others all the time? Do you have any integrity at all?

  56. on 26 Jun 2013 at 3:46 am 56.the messenger said …

    31.freddies_dead, tell me, if this event really was a dilision, do you thunk that at least 1 of those people would have said so.

    Out of all those people no one spoke up against it, therefore it is highly unlikely that it was a lie.

  57. on 26 Jun 2013 at 3:58 am 57.the messenger said …

    33.michael, I attended the roman catholic school of st. James, and they thought both science and religion.

    Before that, I attended the school of talon k stone. They never taught any religion.

    FYI, there is a large difference between teaching the history of religion and the actual teachings of religion.

  58. on 26 Jun 2013 at 4:20 am 58.DPK said …

    Messenger… A LOT more people saw statues of the Hindu god Ganesha drinking milk in 1995. It was recorded on video, and reported by eye witnesses around the world.
    Why do you discount this miracle as evidence of the existence of the Hindu gods?

    You must have a reason.

  59. on 26 Jun 2013 at 4:28 am 59.the messenger said …

    58.DPK, any supernatural event that does not happen in the name of GOD, must have come from satin.

    Tell me, where is this “recording”?

  60. on 26 Jun 2013 at 4:33 am 60.the messenger said …

    33.michael, atheists try to twist young people’s opinion of religion, instead of letting them form there own opinions and beliefs.

    I ws raised by catholic parents, they never forced me to go to church, or forced me to pray, I chose to do all of that by my self. I chose to believe in GOD, I was not forced.

  61. on 26 Jun 2013 at 4:39 am 61.Anonymous said …

    Messenger has also been asked about Sathya Sai Baba, and he kept ignoring that one too.

    So, let’s restate it. Millions of people believed Sathya Sai Baba to be a god. He has many miracles attributed to him and, note, unlike Yahweh he was [supposedly] doing so until his recent death.

    So, messy, we have millions of people following someone who, in the present day, performs miracles. His followers claim that no-one has disproved his powers as being real.

    Hence, Sathya Sai Baba is way more powerful and relevant today that Yahweh. Messy, do you accept Sathya Sai Baba miracles as true? Yes, or no? If you don’t, tell us why.

    Also, why do you not become one of his disciples? After all, unlike the three-way god of the Christians, there is absolutely no doubt that Sathya Sai Baba physically existed in the modern day

  62. on 26 Jun 2013 at 4:40 am 62.the messenger said …

    33.michael, I never try to gain power over anyone. GOD is the one and only true ruler

    We are all equal under GOD. A human has no right to rule over another human. GOD rules over us, humans can only lead people.

  63. on 26 Jun 2013 at 4:55 am 63.the messenger said …

    61.Anonymous, I apologize for being late, I have been on vacation in Colorado.

    Yahweh has been worshiped since time began, and his most loyal followers “the Jews and Christians” have been around for thousands of years before Sathya Sai Baba’s ever existed.

  64. on 26 Jun 2013 at 6:08 am 64.Anonymous said …

    Messy, for fuck’s sake stop with the dodging and answer the questions – this evasion and avoidance is typical of Christians and you in particular. Like all of the people here with their imaginary friends, you love to post challenges but you are scared stiff to answer a question.

    Here are the questions. Stop with with diversions and answer them.

    So, let’s restate it. Millions of people believed Sathya Sai Baba to be a god. He has many miracles attributed to him and, note, unlike Yahweh he was [supposedly] doing so until his recent death.

    So, messy, we have millions of people following someone who, in the present day, performs miracles. His followers claim that no-one has disproved his powers as being real.

    Hence, Sathya Sai Baba is way more powerful and relevant today that Yahweh. Messy, do you accept Sathya Sai Baba miracles as true? Yes, or no? If you don’t, tell us why.

    Also, why do you not become one of his disciples? After all, unlike the three-way god of the Christians, there is absolutely no doubt that Sathya Sai Baba physically existed in the modern day

  65. on 26 Jun 2013 at 8:59 am 65.Fluttershy said …

    “Here are the questions. Stop with with diversions and answer them.
    So, let’s restate it. Millions of people believed Sathya Sai Baba to be a god. He has many miracles attributed to him and, note, unlike Yahweh he was [supposedly] doing so until his recent death.
    So, messy, we have millions of people following someone who, in the present day, performs miracles. His followers claim that no-one has disproved his powers as being real.
    Hence, Sathya Sai Baba is way more powerful and relevant today that Yahweh. Messy, do you accept Sathya Sai Baba miracles as true? Yes, or no? If you don’t, tell us why.
    Also, why do you not become one of his disciples? After all, unlike the three-way god of the Christians, there is absolutely no doubt that Sathya Sai Baba physically existed in the modern day”
    Had to rerestate it ;D

  66. on 26 Jun 2013 at 8:59 am 66.Fluttershy said …

    “Here are the questions. Stop with with diversions and answer them.
    So, let’s restate it. Millions of people believed Sathya Sai Baba to be a god. He has many miracles attributed to him and, note, unlike Yahweh he was [supposedly] doing so until his recent death.
    So, messy, we have millions of people following someone who, in the present day, performs miracles. His followers claim that no-one has disproved his powers as being real.
    Hence, Sathya Sai Baba is way more powerful and relevant today that Yahweh. Messy, do you accept Sathya Sai Baba miracles as true? Yes, or no? If you don’t, tell us why.
    Also, why do you not become one of his disciples? After all, unlike the three-way god of the Christians, there is absolutely no doubt that Sathya Sai Baba physically existed in the modern day”
    Had to rerestate it ;D

  67. on 26 Jun 2013 at 11:11 am 67.freddies_dead said …

    56.the messenger said …

    31.freddies_dead, tell me, if this event really was a dilision, do you thunk that at least 1 of those people would have said so.

    There were many varying eyewitness accounts, some claimed to see the sun move, some claimed to see various colours and others (believers and non-believers alike) who saw nothing at all.

    Out of all those people no one spoke up against it, therefore it is highly unlikely that it was a lie.

    It is your claim that there were no witnesses who saw nothing that is the lie.

  68. on 26 Jun 2013 at 2:58 pm 68.A said …

    DPK, I accept facts. Is Macroevolution fact?

  69. on 26 Jun 2013 at 4:02 pm 69.DPK said …

    68.A said …

    DPK, I accept facts. Is Macroevolution fact?

    hahahaha… you accept facts? That’s funny.
    Is the existence of supernatural gods a fact?

  70. on 26 Jun 2013 at 4:07 pm 70.DPK said …

    and “A”… why won’t you ever answer even the simplistic of questions?
    “… (aka A, Boz, Hor, Biff, et.al.) would you consider it insane for someone in the position of authority (as say, a teacher) to teach children something like “humans and dinosaurs actually existed at the same time in history, roughly 6 thousand years ago”?

    You must have an opinion… either you think that reality depends on your own personal belief system, in which case you think there is nothing wrong with a school teaching a child that dinosaurs and humans existed simultaneously in history…. OR you think it is not ok for a teacher to teach complete and utter nonsense to students, in which case you agree with the original post that “religious education teaches insanity”.
    Which is it?

  71. on 26 Jun 2013 at 5:02 pm 71.A said …

    Lol!! More diversions. You and Dr Dawkins do not agree? ToE is not fact and it is taught as a lie? So this is truly insanity? So you agree with me Dippy! We have some common ground.

    Now answer this. A form of man and dinosaurs did not exist together. Is this truth and a fact?

  72. on 26 Jun 2013 at 7:04 pm 72.DPK said …

    The only diversions here are coming from you. I know it’s hard for you to stay on topic… but try really hard now.
    We are not talking about the theory of evolution, which you seem to have a fixation on, as if you think that somehow it proves the non-existence of your imaginary god. (it doesn’t btw… most of the educated world, including the vast, vast majority of theists and even religious leaders accept the reality of evolution. It is only the marginalized wing nuts like you and the moon-landing deniers that take issue with one of the most widely supported and accepted scientific theories in existence.)
    But back to topic, we were talking about religious “education” and if it is ok to teach children utter nonsense as facts. If you have a problem with dinosaurs, ok I understand… it makes you nervous because there is no mention of dinosaurs in your holy book. Forget that then… would it be ok to teach children that volcanic eruptions are caused by angry gods who require a human sacrifice to appease them? Or, would you consider that to be insane?
    Would you go to a doctor who graduated from a medical school that taught that germ theory is “just a theory” and it’s ok to believe that infectious diseases are not caused by bacteria and viruses, but are a punishment or test from god?
    Would you fly in an airplane designed by an engineer who was taught that Newtonian physics was “just a theory” and that flight is actually achieved through the will of god, with assistance of angels?

    Will you actually answer any of these A, or are you going to show once again that you are simply full of shit?

  73. on 26 Jun 2013 at 7:28 pm 73.A said …

    Doctors? AIRPLANES? LOL!!! You are high?

    Lets try again on your own scenario. You truly are afraid Dippy. Now answer this. A form of man and dinosaurs did not exist together. Is this truth and a fact?

  74. on 26 Jun 2013 at 7:38 pm 74.DPK said …

    Yeah, I knew you wouldn’t have the balls to answer.

    Your brainwashing is complete. Thanks for proving our point.

    Mr. Asstrophysicist is so terrified of anything that even remotely challenges his delusions that he will not EVEN admit that teaching a child that volcano gods cause volcanoes because they are angry would qualify as insanity.

    There you have it folks. Case closed.

    hahahahahahahaha………………………….

  75. on 26 Jun 2013 at 11:55 pm 75.Matt said …

    Yeah its true Ape. We have writings from cavemens that shows when they first arrived. There weren’t any dinosaurs in their writings. Still no God dude. Why don’t you get you a education.

  76. on 27 Jun 2013 at 1:36 am 76.DPK said …

    Ass farted…”Lets try again on your own scenario. You truly are afraid Dippy. Now answer this. A form of man and dinosaurs did not exist together. Is this truth and a fact?”

    Hahaha…. Man, you’re really grasping at anything now, aren’t you?
    No dipshit, no Homo sapiens existed at the same time as dinosaurs. Missed it by about 65 million years.

  77. on 27 Jun 2013 at 1:39 am 77.Anonymous said …

    “A form of man and dinosaurs did not exist together. Is this truth and a fact?”
    Well, duh. The Flintstones. One Million Years BC.

  78. on 27 Jun 2013 at 2:27 am 78.DPK said …

    Oh, I forgot the Flintstones and Rachel Welsh.
    Does Barney Rubble count as “a form of man” in your worldview, Ass?
    Well, I guess if you believe in talking donkeys, walking on water, and ascending bodily into heaven, why not?

  79. on 27 Jun 2013 at 3:30 am 79.The messenger said …

    64.Anonymous, here is my answer.

    Any supernatural event that does not happen in the name of GOD, must have come from satin. Therefore I do not recognize those events as true miracles.

  80. on 27 Jun 2013 at 3:32 am 80.The messenger said …

    64. Anonymous, Yahweh has been worshiped since time began, and his most loyal followers “the Jews and Christians” have been around for thousands of years before Sathya Sai Baba’s ever existed.

    Therefore it is highly unlikely that Sathya was a GOD.

  81. on 27 Jun 2013 at 3:42 am 81.The messenger said …

    67.freddies_dead, YOU ARE A LIAR.

    Here is an article that CLEARLY states that no one denied that this event occurred.

    De Marchi accounts

    The most widely cited descriptions of the events reported at Fatima are taken from the writings of John De Marchi, an Italian Catholic priest and researcher. De Marchi spent seven years in Fátima, from 1943 to 1950, conducting original research and interviewing the principals at undisturbed length.[15] In The Immaculate Heart, published in 1952, De Marchi reports that, “[t]heir ranks (those present on 13 October) included believers and non-believers, pious old ladies and scoffing young men. Hundreds, from these mixed categories, have given formal testimony. Reports do vary; impressions are in minor details confused, but NONE TO OUR KNOWLAGE HAS DIRECTLY DENIED the visible prodigy of the sun.”[16]

    A photostatic copy of a page from Ilustração Portugueza, October 29, 1917, showing the crowd looking at the Miracle of the Sun during the Fátima apparitions.
    Some of the witness statements follow below. They are taken from John De Marchi’s several books on the matter.

    “Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun ‘danced’ according to the typical expression of the people.” ? Avelino de Almeida,[17] writing for O Século
    O Século was Portugal’s most widely circulated[18] and influential newspaper. It was pro-government and anti-clerical at the time.[17] Almeida’s previous articles had been to satirize the previously reported events at Fátima.[7]
    “The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceedingly swift and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat.” ? Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem.[19]
    “…The silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy grey light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds… The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands… people wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they.” ? Reporter for the Lisbon newspaper O Dia.[16]
    “The sun’s disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible.” — Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University.[20]
    “As if like a bolt from the blue, the clouds were wrenched apart, and the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendor. It began to revolve vertiginously on its axis, like the most magnificent firewheel that could be imagined, taking on all the colors of the rainbow and sending forth multicolored flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect. This sublime and incomparable spectacle, which was repeated three distinct times, lasted for about ten minutes. The immense multitude, overcome by the evidence of such a tremendous prodigy, threw themselves on their knees.” ? Dr. Manuel Formigão, a professor at the seminary at Santarém, and a priest. He had attended the September visitation, and examined and questioned the children in detail several times.[20]
    “I feel incapable of describing what I saw. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt my eyes. Looking like a ball of snow, revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zig-zag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment.” — Rev. Joaquim Lourenço, describing his boyhood experience in Alburitel, eighteen kilometers from Fatima.[21]
    “On that day of October 13, 1917, without remembering the predictions of the children, I was enchanted by a remarkable spectacle in the sky of a kind I had never seen before. I saw it from this veranda…” — Portuguese poet Afonso Lopes Vieira.[22]
    According to De Marchi, “Engineers that have studied the case reckoned that an incredible amount of energy would have been necessary to dry up those pools of water that had formed on the field in a few minutes as it was reported by witnesses.”[6]

  82. on 27 Jun 2013 at 12:50 pm 82.A said …

    Matt,

    What writings do we have from the cavemen? What do they tell us?

  83. on 27 Jun 2013 at 2:25 pm 83.Matt said …

    A you must be idiot. We have writings from the cavemen that tells us about their lives and the customs. Don’t you ever read? No god needed by the cavemens.

  84. on 27 Jun 2013 at 2:41 pm 84.Anonymous said …

    “What writings do we have from the cavemen? What do they tell us?”

    Writings?
    Drawings, yes. Animals, (check out Lascaux Cave and Cave of Altamira). Not a dinosaur in sight, or any Fred Flintstone/sexy Raquel Welch image anywhere. What does that tell you? They liked to scribble on the dark cave walls?

  85. on 27 Jun 2013 at 2:48 pm 85.DPK said …

    Matt… he is just trying to bait you into a diversionary sidetrack discussion to draw attention away from his inability to debate the topic honestly.
    Notice he has answered NONE of the direct, on topic questions posed him multiple times? That is what he does, anything he can to draw attention from the fact that his imaginary god is, well, imaginary.
    Don’t get sucked in.

    Ass… do you think teaching children that volcanoes are caused by angry volcano gods, or other such religious nonsense that is clearly not true, is insane?
    Come on, you do, or you don’t!

  86. on 27 Jun 2013 at 2:59 pm 86.Matt said …

    I can handle myself thanks.

    Yes anonymous we have writings from cavemen days. They tell us about who they were and what they did. They even wrote some poetry. There wasn’t any gods in there writings.

  87. on 27 Jun 2013 at 3:07 pm 87.Anonymous said …

    Matt,
    Where are these “writings”? Reference, please.

  88. on 27 Jun 2013 at 4:52 pm 88.Matt said …

    I don’t know where the writings are now. But they do exists. No god will change the reality for you.

  89. on 27 Jun 2013 at 5:08 pm 89.DPK said …

    And what language are these “writings” written in Matt?

  90. on 27 Jun 2013 at 5:44 pm 90.alex said …

    “And what language are these “writings” written in Matt?”

    oh, no! where is this headed?

  91. on 27 Jun 2013 at 6:45 pm 91.Matt said …

    Why don’t you get an education. Some type of higherglyphics .

  92. on 27 Jun 2013 at 6:56 pm 92.Anonymous said …

    Matt: “Why don’t you get an education. Some type of higherglyphics”

    OK. And you consider Egyptians to be cavemen? Or do you refer to some other source for the hieroglyphics? Wonder who needs the education?

  93. on 27 Jun 2013 at 7:16 pm 93.DPK said …

    I smell a troll….. smells like dirty socks.
    Notice “A” has disappeared?
    D

  94. on 27 Jun 2013 at 7:39 pm 94.A said …

    Sigh! The things atheist believe in today.

    Matt were these cave dwellers atheist? Did they write atheist materials that have survived until today? Was Socrates one of them?

  95. on 27 Jun 2013 at 8:27 pm 95.Anonymous said …

    “Matt were these cave dwellers atheist? Did they write atheist materials that have survived until today?”

    No, A, quite the opposite. Cave art is probably the rise of religion. Man’s attempt to understand his place. Later superseded by other myths and actual writings, such as hieroglyphics, korans, torahs, and bibles.

    Maybe you and Matt can both get educated.

  96. on 27 Jun 2013 at 8:30 pm 96.The messenger said …

    64.Anonymous, here is my answer.
    Any supernatural event that does not happen in the name of GOD, must have come from satin. Therefore I do not recognize those events as true miracles.

  97. on 27 Jun 2013 at 8:31 pm 97.The messenger said …

    64. Anonymous, Yahweh has been worshiped since time began, and his most loyal followers “the Jews and Christians” have been around for thousands of years before Sathya Sai Baba’s ever existed.
    Therefore it is highly unlikely that Sathya was a GOD.

  98. on 27 Jun 2013 at 8:32 pm 98.The messenger said …

    o67.freddies_dead, YOU ARE A LIAR.
    Here is an article that CLEARLY states that no one denied that this event occurred.
    De Marchi accounts
    The most widely cited descriptions of the events reported at Fatima are taken from the writings of John De Marchi, an Italian Catholic priest and researcher. De Marchi spent seven years in Fátima, from 1943 to 1950, conducting original research and interviewing the principals at undisturbed length.[15] In The Immaculate Heart, published in 1952, De Marchi reports that, “[t]heir ranks (those present on 13 October) included believers and non-believers, pious old ladies and scoffing young men. Hundreds, from these mixed categories, have given formal testimony. Reports do vary; impressions are in minor details confused, but NONE TO OUR KNOWLAGE HAS DIRECTLY DENIED the visible prodigy of the sun.”[16]
    A photostatic copy of a page from Ilustração Portugueza, October 29, 1917, showing the crowd looking at the Miracle of the Sun during the Fátima apparitions.
    Some of the witness statements follow below. They are taken from John De Marchi’s several books on the matter.
    “Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun ‘danced’ according to the typical expression of the people.” ? Avelino de Almeida,[17] writing for O Século
    O Século was Portugal’s most widely circulated[18] and influential newspaper. It was pro-government and anti-clerical at the time.[17] Almeida’s previous articles had been to satirize the previously reported events at Fátima.[7]
    “The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceedingly swift and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat.” ? Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem.[19]
    “…The silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy grey light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds… The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands… people wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they.” ? Reporter for the Lisbon newspaper O Dia.[16]
    “The sun’s disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible.” — Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University.[20]
    “As if like a bolt from the blue, the clouds were wrenched apart, and the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendor. It began to revolve vertiginously on its axis, like the most magnificent firewheel that could be imagined, taking on all the colors of the rainbow and sending forth multicolored flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect. This sublime and incomparable spectacle, which was repeated three distinct times, lasted for about ten minutes. The immense multitude, overcome by the evidence of such a tremendous prodigy, threw themselves on their knees.” ? Dr. Manuel Formigão, a professor at the seminary at Santarém, and a priest. He had attended the September visitation, and examined and questioned the children in detail several times.[20]
    “I feel incapable of describing what I saw. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt my eyes. Looking like a ball of snow, revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zig-zag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment.” — Rev. Joaquim Lourenço, describing his boyhood experience in Alburitel, eighteen kilometers from Fatima.[21]
    “On that day of October 13, 1917, without remembering the predictions of the children, I was enchanted by a remarkable spectacle in the sky of a kind I had never seen before. I saw it from this veranda…” — Portuguese poet Afonso Lopes Vieira.[22]
    According to De Marchi, “Engineers that have studied the case reckoned that an incredible amount of energy would have been necessary to dry up those pools of water that had formed on the field in a few minutes as it was reported by witnesses.”[6]

  99. on 27 Jun 2013 at 8:59 pm 99.DPK said …

    Here’s how it goes folks.

    “A” writing as Matt, says:
    “Something profoundly silly and unsupported, like cavemen wrote poetry in “higherglyphics”. He does this so he can then come back as his other self and say:
    “Sigh! The things atheist believe in today.”

    Hey Ass… I’m an atheist… I don’t believe that… kinda kills your atheist theory, don’t it?

    How about you answer the questions directed to you instead of inventing trolls to argue with? We already know all your tricks. You aren’t fooling anyone, you idiot.

  100. on 27 Jun 2013 at 9:16 pm 100.Matt said …

    DPk you’re an idiot. They only one who post as me is me. The things I say are facts. If you don’t like fact then go wailer in your ignorance.

    A you are also a complete idiot. There is no god. Cavemen did not need to make up stories to steal the monies of other people.

  101. on 27 Jun 2013 at 10:57 pm 101.DPK said …

    Matt… you need to chill. You are either A trolling or you are even dumber than he is. You call people stupid, uneducated and ignorant and you have absolutely no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Cavemen did not write in hieroglyphics. Cavemen drew stickmen on walls. They did have gods. They cowered in fear of thunder and lightning. They howled at the moon. The imagined animals as gods… shit they imagined everything as gods.
    Get over yourself and stop talking shit about stuff about which you are either completely ignorant about, or you are an ASS sock trying to make atheists look stupid. My guess is the later.

    Now that ASS has once again derailed the conversation with meaningless diversions, shall we get back to again pointing out that he has failed to answer any of the questions posed to him. Shall we take that as a concession that the topic of the thread, “religion teaches insanity” is correct, since he has said absolutely NOTHING to refute that idea.

  102. on 27 Jun 2013 at 11:24 pm 102.Anonymous said …

    Matt “The things I say are facts.”

    That may be, but what you write is BS.

    Matt “A you are also a complete idiot. There is no god. Cavemen did not need to make up stories to steal the monies of other people.”

    A is a complete idiot, agreed. But I am afraid you’ve lost me with the cavemen and money analogy. Do you know the significance of the drawings within the caves? Why did our ancestors draw on the walls? Maybe this is where gods began to emerge. Gods are man-made, the myths had to begin somewhere.

  103. on 27 Jun 2013 at 11:57 pm 103.Anonymous said …

    That primitive, uneducated, pre-scientific people would attempt to explain their environment assigning magical qualities to the only terms they knew; man, animals, sun, moon, stars, etc., seems a no-brainer.

    That supposedly educated people still attach some kind of significance to those superstitions speaks volumes to the power of religious brainwashing.

  104. on 28 Jun 2013 at 2:01 am 104.A said …

    Matt,

    I will allow you to speak for the cavemen. If you say they are atheist and bought such a myth then OK.
    I don’t think they have the writings you think they produced.

    DPK thinks I post for everyone on the blog. If I were going to post an idiot sock of the blog as he views you I might call him DPK!! Lol!!

    Hmmm, how does that hand feel DPK?

  105. on 28 Jun 2013 at 2:32 am 105.DPK said …

    Oh ass, don’t flatter yourself. I don’t accuse you of being EVERYONE on this board, just most of the stupid people. Not even all of them… I don’t think you are messenger or Solomon… But you HAVE been busted outright on several occasions replying under the wrong name, so it is a fact that you DO use socks to try and bolster your own position, and you have been caught red handed doing it… So why are you surprised when people accuse a proven liar of lying?

    Nice of you to “allow” Matt to “speak for the caveman”. How about you man up and actually answer some of the multiple questions you have been asked? Coward.

  106. on 28 Jun 2013 at 3:20 am 106.Anonymous said …

    A stated:
    “Matt,
    I will allow you to speak for the cavemen.”

    I am floored by the magnanimity. YOU will ALLOW. The grandiose nature of your personalities amazes me. I’d bet that you also wear small sized shoes ;-) (Napolean complex, perhaps?)

    Strangely enough, I agree with you that Matt is a complete idiot. Maybe he looks back at you in the mirror? Hmmmm……Two fools or one jester, methinks.

  107. on 28 Jun 2013 at 1:20 pm 107.Matt said …

    They were atheists. They did not believe in a god. Anyone who reads their writings knows these things. Cavemen were even to smart to be fooled into such lies. Stop being stupid and give up the lies.

  108. on 28 Jun 2013 at 5:38 pm 108.Fluttershy said …

    Cavemen couldn’t write…

  109. on 28 Jun 2013 at 8:11 pm 109.Anonymous said …

    Cavemen couldn’t write…

    Trolls don’t care.

  110. on 28 Jun 2013 at 8:56 pm 110.A said …

    Lightning striking the oceans does not produce life either so what is one more fairytale?

  111. on 28 Jun 2013 at 9:07 pm 111.Anonymous said …

    Great, it looks like “A” wants to contribute. Let’s remind him of DPK’s question.

    Ass… do you think teaching children that volcanoes are caused by angry volcano gods, or other such religious nonsense that is clearly not true, is insane?
    Come on, you do, or you don’t!

    So, what is your answer?

  112. on 28 Jun 2013 at 9:32 pm 112.alex said …

    lightning strikes you in your ass, and you holla “what’s up messenger?” wtf?

  113. on 28 Jun 2013 at 11:18 pm 113.The messenger said …

    64. Anonymous, Yahweh has been worshiped since time began, and his most loyal followers “the Jews and Christians” have been around for thousands of years before Sathya Sai Baba’s ever existed.
    Therefore it is highly unlikely that Sathya was a GOD,.

  114. on 28 Jun 2013 at 11:28 pm 114.Matt said …

    A give up on your god. Lightning did strike our planet billions of years ago and produced life. Go back to science school.

  115. on 29 Jun 2013 at 12:48 am 115.DPK said …

    103.A said …
    “Lightning striking the oceans does not produce life either so what is one more fairytale?”

    Fact is no one claims to know exactly how life originated on our planet billions of years ago. But the fact is, it did. And the fact is, it started out very simple and grew more and more complex. This is fact.
    Now ASS, since you claim to know that lighting had nothing to do with it, why don’t you tell us exactly how it DID happen… not the fairytale version… the facts that you know to be true.
    Please commence AFTER you have answered the other dozen or so questions you have been dodging.
    Coward.

  116. on 29 Jun 2013 at 2:35 am 116.Anonymous said …

    A: “Lightning striking the oceans does not produce life either so what is one more fairytale?”

    Matt: “Lightning did strike our planet billions of years ago and produced life. Go back to science school.”

    Dumb and dumber in action.

  117. on 29 Jun 2013 at 2:56 am 117.alex said …

    “Dumb and dumber in action.”

    me, an atheist, doesn’t know how the universe was created.

    you, a theist, believes god made adam. and then eve from adam’s rib. who’s the dumb motherfucker?

    ok, some atheists believe in ufos and you can call them dumb. some atheists believe in the big bang and you can call them dumb. still doesn’t change the fact that you’re a dumbfuck, motherfucker, does it?

  118. on 29 Jun 2013 at 4:19 am 118.The messenger said …

    114.DPK, idiot.

    You stated that no one knows how life originated, then you stated a theory about how the originsl lifeforms formed into modern creatures.

    You claim that no one knows how life started, but you make up crazy lies about what these life forms did.

    You idiot.

  119. on 29 Jun 2013 at 4:22 am 119.The messenger said …

    116.alex, people have proved that DNA can be used to grow another similar organism, therefore the DNA in adam’s rib could have been used to construct eve.

    You are a small minded little man.

  120. on 30 Jun 2013 at 1:18 am 120.Standardtheist (Fluttershy) said …

    “you, a theist, believes god made adam. and then eve from adam’s rib. who’s the dumb motherfucker?”

    Silly dumb atheist who believes in science 9_9

    We also believe that other invisible men are fake and how gay people arent allowed in our slice of literal heaven.

  121. on 30 Jun 2013 at 1:19 am 121.Fluttershy said …

    I know i forgot a shiton of other bad shit.
    Any theists here willing to speak up on your horrid religion? ;D

  122. on 30 Jun 2013 at 2:20 am 122.The messenger said …

    119.Standardtheist (Fluttershy), gay people can go to heaven.

    It is not a sin to be gay, it is a sin to have gay sex.

  123. on 30 Jun 2013 at 2:36 am 123.Anonymous said …

    Seeing that the troll Messenger is back posting his usual drivel, answering questions that were not asked (strawman much?), and posting fallacy after fallacy after brain-fucking-dead-fallacy, let’s remind him that we are still waiting for him to actually answer this. Why are you afraid to give an answer?

    Millions of people believed Sathya Sai Baba to be a god. He has many miracles attributed to him and, note, unlike Yahweh he was [supposedly] doing so until his recent death.

    So, messy, we have millions of people following someone who, in the present day, performs miracles. His followers claim that no-one has disproved his powers as being real.

    Hence, Sathya Sai Baba is way more powerful and relevant today that Yahweh. Messy, do you accept Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles as true? Yes, or no? If you don’t, tell us why.

    Also, why do you not become one of his disciples? After all, unlike the three-way god of the Christians, there is absolutely no doubt that Sathya Sai Baba physically existed in the modern day

    Now answer the question as asked. Not some diversion, even though we know that’s what you want to do.

  124. on 30 Jun 2013 at 4:08 am 124.The messenger said …

    123.Anonymous, I told you why I do not recodnize his “miracles” within comment 113.

    Here is coment 113.

    (64. Anonymous, Yahweh has been worshiped since time began, and his most loyal followers “the Jews and Christians” have been around for thousands of years before Sathya Sai Baba’s ever existed.
    Therefore it is highly unlikely that Sathya was a GOD,.)

    That is the reason that I do not recodnize sathya’s “miracles” as legit.

  125. on 30 Jun 2013 at 4:10 am 125.The messenger said …

    123.Anonymous, I will not become one of his deciples because he is not GOD.

  126. on 30 Jun 2013 at 7:41 am 126.Fluttershy said …

    “it is not a sin to be gay, it is a sin to have gay sex.”
    Which is discrimination, which no loving deity would do.
    Isnt god such a bitch?

    “let’s remind him that we are still waiting for him to actually answer this. Why are you afraid to give an answer?
    Millions of people believed Sathya Sai Baba to be a god. He has many miracles attributed to him and, note, unlike Yahweh he was [supposedly] doing so until his recent death.
    So, messy, we have millions of people following someone who, in the present day, performs miracles. His followers claim that no-one has disproved his powers as being real.
    Hence, Sathya Sai Baba is way more powerful and relevant today that Yahweh. Messy, do you accept Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles as true? Yes, or no? If you don’t, tell us why.
    Also, why do you not become one of his disciples? After all, unlike the three-way god of the Christians, there is absolutely no doubt that Sathya Sai Baba physically existed in the modern day
    Now answer the question as asked. Not some diversion, even though we know that’s what you want to do.”
    repost

  127. on 30 Jun 2013 at 1:18 pm 127.The messenger said …

    126.Fluttershy, I already answered those questions in comments 124 and 125.

    You are stupid.

  128. on 30 Jun 2013 at 5:38 pm 128.Curmudgeon said …

    Fluttershy

    Why don’t you worship Sathya? If not him why are you not a Taoist? Taoism is a form of atheism. So why not join in?

    You have been asked this numerous times but have no answer it seems.

  129. on 30 Jun 2013 at 6:18 pm 129.alex said …

    “Taoism is a form of atheism.”

    you’ve been told many, motherfucking times, you dipshit. atheism is a non-belief in your bullshit god. some atheists believe in this and that, but what they believe in, is not the same as atheism.

  130. on 30 Jun 2013 at 7:18 pm 130.CurmudgeonAtheist Deception said …

    http://robertpriddy.wordpress.com/

  131. on 30 Jun 2013 at 7:18 pm 131.Atheist Deception said …

    http://robertpriddy.wordpress.com

  132. on 30 Jun 2013 at 9:03 pm 132.DPK said …

    Curm… Think about it lad. When you come to the realization as to WHY Fluttershy doesn’t worship Sathya, then you will understand why she also doesn’t worship your Jesus god either.
    You’re on the brink of a revelation, keep thinking. Almost there.

  133. on 30 Jun 2013 at 9:55 pm 133.The messenger said …

    130.DPK, no answer?

    Typical.

  134. on 30 Jun 2013 at 10:51 pm 134.Curmudgeon said …

    DPk, think about it young lady. When you realize WHY I don’t accept atheism you will understand why I don’t worship Sathya.

    But to help you, isn’t his miracles there for you to see? He exists until recently, you stated you wanted proof. Why will not the proofs given by Sathya work for you?

    You’re on the brink of a revelation, keep thinking. Almost there. You claimed to be open minded. Was that claim not true?

    Oh, Fluttershy is a GUY DPK. I know, I understand the confusion there where a guy takes on the name of a pony. However, anyone just slightly observant would know.

  135. on 30 Jun 2013 at 11:27 pm 135.alex said …

    “When you realize WHY I don’t accept atheism you will understand why I don’t worship Sathya.”

    you are a dipshit. atheism does not equal Sathya, you fuckhead. you can’t understand that can’t you, but you do love the biblical foreskin shit? nobody is asking you to accept anything. atheists don’t believe in your bullshit and yet you insist on going around and around pointing out nonsensical, irrelevant shit.

    prove your god or your bullshit is confirmed, you asshole.

  136. on 01 Jul 2013 at 3:04 am 136.The messenger said …

    133.alex, you are asking him to except your lies.

  137. on 01 Jul 2013 at 3:05 am 137.The messenger said …

    133.alex, I have given you proof.

  138. on 01 Jul 2013 at 5:21 am 138.DPK said …

    on 30 Jun 2013 at 10:51 pm 128.Curmudgeon said …
    DPk, think about it young lady. When you realize WHY I don’t accept atheism you will understand why I don’t worship Sathya.

    Well the only reason you would not “accept” the idea that gods are imaginary would be if you had some proof that they do. But for some reason, you never present any.

    But to help you, isn’t his miracles there for you to see? He exists until recently, you stated you wanted proof. Why will not the proofs given by Sathya work for you?

    I’ve seen more convincing miracles from Lance Burton and David Blaine. Way more than I’ve seen from your Jesus god, and I KNOW they are not miracles… Don’t you?

    You’re on the brink of a revelation, keep thinking. Almost there. You claimed to be open minded. Was that claim not true?

    Dawkins once said you can be so open minded that your brains fall out. That is what apparently has happened to you. Why do you accept miracles described in ancient legends written by people who were at best, ignorant and unimaginably superstitious, yet you reject ones you can see for yourself on YouTube.

    Oh, Fluttershy is a GUY DPK. I know, I understand the confusion there where a guy takes on the name of a pony. However, anyone just slightly observant would know.

    Does it matter? I know your religion has a history of denigrating women, and calling someone a woman qualifies as an insult to you, but in this century, there is no shame in being either a man or woman, and if I mistakenly got fluttershy’s gender incorrect, I’m sure he or she would construe it as an insult, as you have.

    Now, are you going to give us any reason to believe that any of the silly claims you make about the existence of magical supernatural gods is actually true?
    Yeah, didn’t think so. Go back to being Ass now.

  139. on 01 Jul 2013 at 5:36 am 139.Anonymous said …

    “Yeah, didn’t think so. Go back to being Ass now”

    But isn’t it time for him to wear his Martin socks now?

  140. on 01 Jul 2013 at 7:07 am 140.The messenger said …

    136.DPK, tell me miss, could some random person, like lance button, create the world?

    Could he preform a miracle like the one that I listed in my previous comments?

    Tell me, how did the world come into existance unless someone created it?

    Tell me, do you agree that deadfred’s following statement is a lie?”(There were many varying eyewitness accounts, some claimed to see the sun move, some claimed to see various colours and others (believers and non-believers alike) who saw nothing at all.)”

    Tell me, do you agree that John De Marchi’s statement below disproves Fred’s statement listed above? “The most widely cited descriptions of the events reported at Fatima are taken from the writings of John De Marchi, an Italian Catholic priest and researcher. De Marchi spent seven years in Fátima, from 1943 to 1950, conducting original research and interviewing the principals at undisturbed length.[15] In The Immaculate Heart, published in 1952, De Marchi reports that, “[t]heir ranks (those present on 13 October) included believers and non-believers, pious old ladies and scoffing young men. Hundreds, from these mixed categories, have given formal testimony. Reports do vary; impressions are in minor details confused, but NONE TO OUR KNOWLAGE HAS DIRECTLY DENIED the visible prodigy of the sun.”[16]”

    Do you agree with Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University, that the “miricale of the sun” really did occur?

    Do you realize that even the atheists who witnessed the “miracle of the sun” did not deny that it happend?

    I AM WAITING FOR ANSWERS.

  141. on 01 Jul 2013 at 7:25 am 141.The messenger said …

    Fluttershy, and Anonomus, you are apparently stupid and blind.

    You two have asked me the same questions about Sathya sai Baba, over and over and over.

    I HAVE ANSWERED THEM COUNTLESS TIMES.

    HERE IS A LIST OF ALL THE TIMES THAT I ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS.

    Comment125

    Comment124

    Comment113

    Comment97

    Comment96

    Comment80

    Comment79

    YOU TWO MUST BE BLIND FOR NOT SEEING MY ANSWERS!!!!

  142. on 01 Jul 2013 at 7:56 am 142.Fluttershy said …

    “and if I mistakenly got fluttershy’s gender incorrect, I’m sure he or she would construe it as an insult, as you have.”

    Honestly i dont care ;D

    Anyway, on to the debating ;D

    “Fluttershy
    Why don’t you worship Sathya? If not him why are you not a Taoist? Taoism is a form of atheism. So why not join in?”

    Because their beliefs aren’t what i believe in?
    Sure they think your god is fake (and it is 9_9), but they also believe in shit that makes just as little sense…

    So…You gonna answer the questions now?

  143. on 01 Jul 2013 at 11:58 am 143.Curmudgeon said …

    “Because their beliefs aren’t what i believe in?”

    There you go Fluttershy. That I why I don’t follow Sathya. Sure, they think your atheism is BS (and it is)and they also believe in BS.

  144. on 01 Jul 2013 at 1:45 pm 144.Fluttershy said …

    So instead of stuff that is logical and makes scientific sense, you chose sky daddy and magic?

    Yeah, mate…
    -THAT- is crazy in my book…

    Also, offtopic, i am making a Tulpa (sentient being in my head that will be best companion ever).
    Some Theists claim they are demons, satan, etc. Care to explain?

  145. on 01 Jul 2013 at 1:54 pm 145.Curmudgeon said …

    No, but I wish you best with your friend.

  146. on 01 Jul 2013 at 2:04 pm 146.Curmudgeon said …

    I wish you the best with your other fairytale, atheism. I don’t have the faith and is totally illogical.

  147. on 01 Jul 2013 at 2:23 pm 147.DPK said …

    132.Fluttershy said …

    “and if I mistakenly got fluttershy’s gender incorrect, I’m sure he or she would construe it as an insult, as you have.”

    Honestly i dont care ;D

    Obviously I meant to write “he or she would NOT construe it as an insult, as you have…”

    I knew you wouldn’t care. I would have no idea if you were a man or woman, and it would make absolutely no difference to me, unlike Crum… who apparently thinks being thought of as a female is one of the greatest insults you can hurl… he uses it often and has done the same to me. Sorry Crum, I’m not offended by your stupidity. Amused, but not offended.

  148. on 01 Jul 2013 at 6:48 pm 148.The messenger said …

    126.Fluttershy, sex has only one purpose, reproduction.

    Gay couples cannot reproduce together.

    Therefore gay sex is an abomination because it causes lust and it fails to help reproduce humans.

    It is not discrimination, it is logic.

  149. on 01 Jul 2013 at 7:00 pm 149.The messenger said …

    on 01 Jul 2013 at 7:25 am 139.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Fluttershy, and Anonomus, you are apparently stupid and blind.
    You two have asked me the same questions about Sathya sai Baba, over and over and over.
    I HAVE ANSWERED THEM COUNTLESS TIMES.
    HERE IS A LIST OF ALL THE TIMES THAT I ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS.
    Comment125
    Comment124
    Comment113
    Comment97
    Comment96
    Comment80
    Comment79
    YOU TWO MUST BE BLIND FOR NOT SEEING MY ANSWERS!!!!

  150. on 01 Jul 2013 at 8:38 pm 150.A said …

    I thought little girls named themselves after pink magical ponies? Is Butterfly a dude!!

    I adore woman. I have 3 very special ones in my life. They are liked pretty ponies when they were small. I see how Dippy thought Butterfly to be a gal.

  151. on 01 Jul 2013 at 11:48 pm 151.Fluttershy said …

    “No, but I wish you best with your friend.”
    Not only do you express any opinion of the question asked, you post something that the question didnt want…

    Although, thanks for the positive aspect of it ;D

  152. on 01 Jul 2013 at 11:49 pm 152.Fluttershy said …

    “Amused, but not offended.”
    Entertained and irritated here ;D

  153. on 01 Jul 2013 at 11:50 pm 153.Fluttershy said …

    So…
    Any theists here have any “Demon” or “Satan” comments to do with tulpae?
    i ponder what you think ;D

  154. on 02 Jul 2013 at 1:25 am 154.DPK said …

    Don’t let Ass’s inane rambelings irritate you, F.. Look at it this way, for someone to irritate me I would have to in some small way care about what they said or I’d.
    Assman has such a long and well documented reputation here of being a ompletely dishonest, dispecible, moronic idiot that no one takes a word he says seriously. That’s why the only way he can get affirmation is by posting under different names and pretending to be someone else. This is about the 5th time he has been caught doing it by forgetting which name he was supposed to reply under.
    I rather enjoy seeing him wriggle and it is fun to watch the depths to which he will sink in order to avoid an honest intellectual discussion about the reality of his god buddy. He’d rather make schoolyard taunts about another’s masculinity or call someone a lady, as if that were an insult, than present evidence for his imaginary god, which he never, ever, EVER does! Because he has none, and he knows full well he has none.
    He is like the village idiot. Every village has one, I suppose. He does do a great service to the atheist side in every argument though, so he does serve some purpose.

  155. on 02 Jul 2013 at 2:24 am 155.The messenger said …

    152.DPK, I proved that you are a complete liar on countless occasions.

    You are a hypocrite.

  156. on 02 Jul 2013 at 1:51 pm 156.Fluttershy said …

    I guess A is irony in physical form?
    Attempting to make theists look good, but instead shows how ridiculous they are XD

  157. on 02 Jul 2013 at 2:28 pm 157.DPK said …

    143.Fluttershy said …
    “I guess A is irony in physical form?
    Attempting to make theists look good, but instead shows how ridiculous they are XD”

    This is true. I don’t think anyone here has done more to discredit theistic, dogmatic reasoning than ASS. He’s our poster child. “This is your brain. This is your brain on religion. Questions?”

  158. on 02 Jul 2013 at 5:39 pm 158.Xenon said …

    This poster fluttershy is making up a Tulpa to be the best companion ever. He is looking for a name?

    Right, and theist have problems. You might name it “Help me” and hopefully someone will mate.

  159. on 02 Jul 2013 at 6:29 pm 159.DPK said …

    ” I don’t think anyone here has done more to discredit theistic, dogmatic reasoning than ASS. He’s our poster child.”

    Opps, forgot about Xenon. Been a while since you resurrected that sock puppet Ass, or should I say, Horatio?

    hahahaha… he is SOOOOO transparent.

  160. on 02 Jul 2013 at 8:50 pm 160.The messenger said …

    126.Fluttershy, sex has only one purpose, reproduction.
    Gay couples cannot reproduce together.
    Therefore gay sex is an abomination because it causes lust and it fails to help reproduce humans.
    It is not discrimination, it is logic.

  161. on 03 Jul 2013 at 12:39 am 161.40 Year Atheist said …

    Here is an intellectual challenge which all Atheists, being intellectual elites, will want to take. This will emphasize deductive abilities with empirical premises, the two main claims to fame that Atheists make.
    1. Prove the Validity of Reason, using Reason.

    2. Prove the Validity of Logic, using Logic.

    3. Prove the Validity of Science, using Science.
    Reminder, deduction looks like this:
    IF [ X = true ], THEN [ Object = Valid ].
    The objects above are reason, logic and science, so the premise X must demonstrate an impeccable, irrefutable case (X = true, incorrigibly) in order to prove the unquestionable validity of the objects.

    Next,
    4. Prove the Validity of Reason, using Logic and Science.

    5. Prove the Validity of Logic, using Reason and Science.

    6. Prove the Validity of Science, using Reason and Logic.

    7. Deduce Reason From Chemistry (using empirical premises).

    8. Deduce a Detailed Hierarchy of Values (Morals) From Atoms and Atomic Positions.

    9. Deduce Materialism From Materialism.

    10. Deduce Materialism From Reason.

    11. Deduce Materialism From Logic.

    12. Deduce Materialism From Science.

    13. Deduce Atheism using Reason.

    14. Deduce Atheism using Logic.

    15. Deduce Atheism using Science.
    Remember, a deduction of 15 would look like this:
    IF [ Reason = true ], Then [ Atheism = True ].
    But this requires that the premise, [ Reason = true ], must be proved valid, so some sort of valid argument must be made for the premise, the subpremises, the sub-subpremises, etc.

    The intellectual, thinking Atheist should enjoy this challenge.

  162. on 03 Jul 2013 at 12:49 am 162.Fluttershy said …

    “This poster fluttershy is making up a Tulpa to be the best companion ever. He is looking for a name?
    Right, and theist have problems. You might name it “Help me” and hopefully someone will mate.”

    Yes i am making a tulpa.
    I dont need a name, her name is “Alexis” (yes, it is a female)
    Please explain how a tulpa is a problem. being that i am merely making a sentient being.

  163. on 03 Jul 2013 at 2:19 am 163.Fluttershy said …

    “The intellectual, thinking Atheist should enjoy this challenge.”
    looks like a waste of time, I’d rather use my time to talk to Alexis…

  164. on 03 Jul 2013 at 2:43 am 164.alex said …

    Here is an idiot challenge which all xtians, being idiot morons, will want to take.

    why is that you morons dismiss the same proof offered up by theists of a different kind and yet you expect others to believe the same shit when offered by you?

  165. on 03 Jul 2013 at 1:02 pm 165.Fluttershy said …

    “126.Fluttershy, sex has only one purpose, reproduction.
    Gay couples cannot reproduce together.
    Therefore gay sex is an abomination because it causes lust and it fails to help reproduce humans.
    It is not discrimination, it is logic.”

    You know sex is also for pleasure, right?
    And for that matter, the world is already overpopulated, so honestly, sex for reproduction is useless now..

  166. on 03 Jul 2013 at 3:25 pm 166.DPK said …

    “126.Fluttershy, sex has only one purpose, reproduction.
    Gay couples cannot reproduce together.
    Therefore gay sex is an abomination because it causes lust…”
    Also, by this reasoning, an infertile hetero couple that cannot reproduce also would commit an abomination if they have sex.
    Yes, and music and art has no purpose whatsoever than to cause pleasure. Therefore listening to music and looking at art is an abomination because it causes pleasure with no other purpose. Eating food because it tastes good but is not necessary for survival… like french fries or ice cream, also, an abomination.

    Thanks for demonstrating so clearly messenger that “religious education causes insanity.” Nothing could make it any clearer.

  167. on 03 Jul 2013 at 7:34 pm 167.The messenger said …

    165.Fluttershy, list is like a drug, it causes a person to be distracted from the world around them, and it causes a constant desire for more.

    And it can cause horrible deceases.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_disease

  168. on 03 Jul 2013 at 8:00 pm 168.The messenger said …

    166.DPK, art is not a sin.

    Art does not distract us from our duties in life, it allows us to express our selves.

    Lust is a sin. It causes people to become didtacted from their daily jobs, and it causes jealousy.

    If a man or woman becomes lustful, they will attempt many unorthodox things in order to obtain sexual activities. They might find hookers, they might cheat on their spouses, and they might molest children.

    Lust also leads to death. It can cause someone to have a child, and it can lead that couple to have an abortion. Abortion is murder.

    Lust is an awful thing.

    Music does not cause jealousy, it does not cause any death, it does not cause a spouse to be unfaithful, and it does not cause anyone to molest children.
    Therefore music is not a sin.

    Music does serve a perpose. It causes joy in a good, ungrateful, peaceful way.

  169. on 03 Jul 2013 at 9:53 pm 169.Anonymous said …

    Messenger, it seems the moderation applied to you means many of your comments come out-of-sequence so we don’t always see them.

    Now, you said that miracles that don’t happen in the name of god must be caused by satin (sic). Help us out here.

    You are now saying that Satan? currently performs more miracles than either your god or Jesus. Why would Satan do this? Doesn’t that make Satan more powerful and acting more in the interest of mankind than your god. Right?

    Second, what is your proof that Satan exists and isn’t just mythology?

    Third, a miracle is something that is attributed to the supernatural; there is nothing in the definition of which agent performs it. So your answer evades the question.

    It seems, though, that you accept that those “miracles” ascribed to Sathya Sai Baba really occured but you now are quibbling as to who caused them. Correct?

  170. on 03 Jul 2013 at 11:02 pm 170.A said …

    “IF [ X = true ], THEN [ Object = Valid ]”

    40 YA,

    Another great challenge but no atheist here is interested in discussions requiring thought, logic or reason. They are only atheists, thought, logic and reason dies not apply to them as a group any more than Taoism.

    I do like the concepts.

  171. on 03 Jul 2013 at 11:14 pm 171.alex said …

    “They are only atheists…”

    they are not interested in the bullshit that the xtian assholes keeps flinging about.

    “but no atheist here is interested in discussions requiring thought, logic or reason.”

    maybe so, but all atheists here are interested in your god proof. let’s hear it. chirp, chirp?

  172. on 03 Jul 2013 at 11:48 pm 172.Fluttershy said …

    “Another great challenge but no atheist here is interested in discussions requiring thought, logic or reason.”

    I disagree, all we use is logic, thought and reason.
    You are too ignorant to see that.

    “They are only atheists, thought, logic and reason dies not apply to them as a group any more than Taoism.”

    First off, you cant generalise atheists, excluding how they dont believe in god.
    Secondly, logic, reason and thought applies to anyone that it applies to…

  173. on 04 Jul 2013 at 1:24 am 173.The messenger said …

    166.DPK, art is not a sin.
    Art does not distract us from our duties in life, it allows us to express our selves.
    Lust is a sin. It causes people to become didtacted from their daily jobs, and it causes jealousy.
    If a man or woman becomes lustful, they will attempt many unorthodox things in order to obtain sexual activities. They might find hookers, they might cheat on their spouses, and they might molest children.
    Lust also leads to death. It can cause someone to have a child, and it can lead that couple to have an abortion. Abortion is murder.
    Lust is an awful thing.
    Music does not cause jealousy, it does not cause any death, it does not cause a spouse to be unfaithful, and it does not cause anyone to molest children.
    Therefore music is not a sin.
    Music does serve a perpose. It causes joy in a good, unhateful, peaceful way.

  174. on 04 Jul 2013 at 1:41 am 174.DPK said …

    “IF [ X = true ], THEN [ Object = Valid ]”
    40 YA,
    I do like the concepts.

    Hahahahaha…. Sure you do Ass. Tell you what, lets see you use the process 40yr laid out to logically prove theism.
    Go ahead, I’m gonna get another beer. This should be really, really funny!

  175. on 04 Jul 2013 at 4:10 am 175.The messenger said …

    169.Anonymous, first of all GOD is Jesus.

    Satan causes supernatural events in order to corrupt people, and to bring them away from GOD and his teachings.

    GOD shows his power simply by giving us life. On occation he will preform events like “the miricale of the sun”.

    GOD acts more in the interest of mankind than anyone else. He created us, he provides many miracles for mankind, he gave us the greatest moral guide in this world, and he died for us.

    Satan is only interested in destroying mankind. He tempts us with lust, hate, greed, and jealousy.

    Ever since we were created, satan has been trying to destroy us. He corrupts us with hate, thus causing war. He tempts us with greed, thus causing us to forget what is really important in life( family, friends, GOD, and love ).

    Satan has infected so many people with hate. Espeasally my people. The Irish.

    He tempted the prostestant Irish with hate, thus causing them discriminate against the Catholic Irish. The Protestants took the Catholic’s land, rights, money, and homes. Then satan tempted the catholic Irish with hate, thus causing them to want revenge.
    Satan tempted the British with greed, thus causing them to be very stingy with their shipments of good food, thus causing the potato famine, this killing many of my people.

    I have given you proof of GOD, therefore satan must also be real because GOD has spoken of him.

    Lastly, allow me to refraise my miracle statement. I believe that the supernatural events that satan caused did occur. I do not recodnize them as coming from GOD because there is only one GOD, and he is Jesus.

    Jesus is the one and only GOD, therefore those others supernatural events could not have come from GOD.

    I know that Jesus is GOD because of the miracles that he has preformd, secondly because his messages(the bible)are the only perfect moral guide in the world.

  176. on 04 Jul 2013 at 4:16 am 176.The messenger said …

    136.DPK, tell me miss, could some random person, like lance button, create the world?
    Could he preform a miracle like the one that I listed in my previous comments?
    Tell me, how did the world come into existance unless someone created it?
    Tell me, do you agree that deadfred’s following statement is a lie?”(There were many varying eyewitness accounts, some claimed to see the sun move, some claimed to see various colours and others (believers and non-believers alike) who saw nothing at all.)”
    Tell me, do you agree that John De Marchi’s statement below disproves Fred’s statement listed above? “The most widely cited descriptions of the events reported at Fatima are taken from the writings of John De Marchi, an Italian Catholic priest and researcher. De Marchi spent seven years in Fátima, from 1943 to 1950, conducting original research and interviewing the principals at undisturbed length.[15] In The Immaculate Heart, published in 1952, De Marchi reports that, “[t]heir ranks (those present on 13 October) included believers and non-believers, pious old ladies and scoffing young men. Hundreds, from these mixed categories, have given formal testimony. Reports do vary; impressions are in minor details confused, but NONE TO OUR KNOWLAGE HAS DIRECTLY DENIED the visible prodigy of the sun.”[16]”
    Do you agree with Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University, that the “miricale of the sun” really did occur?
    Do you realize that even the atheists who witnessed the “miracle of the sun” did not deny that it happend?
    I AM WAITING FOR ANSWERS.

  177. on 04 Jul 2013 at 4:38 am 177.Anonymous said …

    It’s sad, but 40Yasshole also demonstrates the insanity of religious thinking. Strip away all of his verbal sleight of hand, straw man arguments, whacky definitions, and general bollocks, here’s what you are left with:

    Create straw man definition of atheism [a]
    Assert, absent evidence, the existence of [x]
    Define [x] as being unprovable by [y]
    Demand atheists disprove [x] using [y] whilst adhering to (straw man) position [a]
    Ban anyone from his blog who asks him to prove existence of [x], points out any of his fallacies, or corrects him on [a]
    Therefore gods exists and atheists are [insert vilification here]

    What a disingenuous, deceitful, lying, asshole.

  178. on 04 Jul 2013 at 5:22 am 178.The messenger said …

    58.DPK, you mentioned that this “Hindu” miracle was recorded.

    I asked you where this recordeding is located so that I may see it for my self, but you have yet to answer any of my questions, including the ones within comment 176.

  179. on 04 Jul 2013 at 7:10 am 179.Fluttershy said …

    wait…
    that idiot has a blog O.o

  180. on 04 Jul 2013 at 9:56 am 180.freddies_dead said …

    140.The messenger said …

    Tell me, do you agree that deadfred’s following statement is a lie?”(There were many varying eyewitness accounts, some claimed to see the sun move, some claimed to see various colours and others (believers and non-believers alike) who saw nothing at all.)”

    So you have a signed witness statement (with corroborative evidence that they’re not fakes) from every one of those 70k people and, each and every one of those statements share a claim to have witnessed the same thing?

    Tell me, do you agree that John De Marchi’s statement below disproves Fred’s statement listed above? “The most widely cited descriptions of the events reported at Fatima are taken from the writings of John De Marchi, an Italian Catholic priest and researcher.

    An Italian Catholic priest eh? Colour me unsurprised that he decided the miracle was real.

    De Marchi spent seven years in Fátima, from 1943 to 1950, conducting original research and interviewing the principals at undisturbed length.[15] In The Immaculate Heart, published in 1952, De Marchi reports that, “[t]heir ranks (those present on 13 October) included believers and non-believers, pious old ladies and scoffing young men. Hundreds, from these mixed categories, have given formal testimony. Reports do vary; impressions are in minor details confused, but NONE TO OUR KNOWLAGE HAS DIRECTLY DENIED the visible prodigy of the sun.”[16]”

    And just how does that statement “disprove” what I said about people being there who saw nothing? De Marchi only says he has no knowledge of anyone saying they saw nothing. It seems that De Marchi is still more intellectually honest than you, refusing to make the claim that every single person who was there saw the same thing.

    If you just scroll down that wiki article a bit further you’ll find a section titled “Critical evaluation of the event” where Professor Auguste Meessen from the Institute of Physics at the Catholic University of Leuven says sun miracles are optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun. Joe Nickell (a noted skeptical investigator) suggests a similar reason.

    Most importantly you will find the line not all witnesses reported seeing the sun “dance”. Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others, including some believers, saw nothing at all which is credited as being from a book by a Hungarian Benedictine priest by the name of Stanley L. Jaki.

    Do you agree with Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University, that the “miricale of the sun” really did occur?

    How do we know Dr. Almeida Garrett even exists. Trying to find any other reference to such a person except for when they are waxing lyrical about the fatima hoax is coming up empty. Do you have a link to something that Dr Garrett did that wasn’t related to the fatima hoax?

    Do you realize that even the atheists who witnessed the “miracle of the sun” did not deny that it happend?

    Atheists are people, they’re subject to optical illusions just as much as theists, this isn’t persuasive.

    I AM WAITING FOR ANSWERS.

    You’ve been given answers. Now why should we believe your claim about the fatima hoax any more than we should believe this guys claim?

  181. on 04 Jul 2013 at 9:56 am 181.freddies_dead said …

    148. (and again at 160) The messenger said …

    126.Fluttershy, sex has only one purpose, reproduction.

    You’ve forgotten pleasure, comfort, excitement.

    Gay couples cannot reproduce together.

    Therefore gay sex is an abomination because it causes lust and it fails to help reproduce humans.

    Sterile straight couples cannot reproduce either, is their lovemaking an abomination too?

    It is not discrimination, it is logic.

    It is bigotry, plain and simple.

  182. on 04 Jul 2013 at 10:11 am 182.Fluttershy said …

    “Therefore gay sex is an abomination because it causes lust and it fails to help reproduce humans.”

    Me eating a chocolate sundae with bananas and peanuts for reasons other than sustenance is also an abomination? yes? no?

  183. on 04 Jul 2013 at 1:37 pm 183.A said …

    “The intellectual, thinking Atheist should enjoy this challenge”

    40 I guess we don’ have that type of atheists. We have atheists who make up girlfriends named Alexis!

    Hahahaha

  184. on 04 Jul 2013 at 2:01 pm 184.The messenger said …

    180.freddies_dead, yes it would be a sin. Lust is bad.

  185. on 04 Jul 2013 at 2:05 pm 185.Fluttershy said …

    What is wrong with the name “Alexis”?

    And for that matter, what is your beef with tulpae? Is it the fact that i am making a sentient being, and yet dont believe that only a god can make sentient beings?

    Sorry for being off topic, but you are simply being an “Ass”, Alexis will be my companion, not girlfriend, heck, she isnt even human.

    On topic mode activate.

    Nice one with the diversion.
    How does one believe that teaching children (who like all children believe in stuff that adults tell them) incorrect information as fact, not insane?
    surely you cannot squirm out of this question…

  186. on 04 Jul 2013 at 2:07 pm 186.Fluttershy said …

    HA

    Just realised the humor of my tulpa….(Alexis)

    Im making a sentient being…
    Something that “god” hasnt done.
    Why?, because he doesnt exist XD

  187. on 04 Jul 2013 at 3:34 pm 187.The messenger said …

    181.Fluttershy, it is not bigotry. No one can have sex unless it is for reproduction.

    That rule applies to everyone, there it is not discrimination.

  188. on 05 Jul 2013 at 12:29 am 188.The messenger said …

    180.freddies_dead, there have been no records of any of the witnesses denying that this miracle occurred. Therefore, due to the fact listed above, there are no witnesses who denied this miracle.

    John de Marchi is bound by the laws of Jesus, “thou shall not lie”, therefore he is would not lie about this.

    The fact that no one denied that this event occurred, further supports the possibility that it did happen.

    It was reported to have been cloudy that day, and therefore eliminates the possibility of stairing at the sun as the reason for the miracle, due to the fact that the sun was covers up for most of that time.

    Tell me, does it sound a bit ridiculous that every person in that crowd was effected by this “starring at the sun theory”? I am certain that not every single person there was starring at the sun. It seems highly unlikely for that to have been the cause of this event.

    Here is an article written by Dr. Garrot, thus proving her existance.

    The Miracle of the Sun

    An Eyewitness Account by Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett, professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Coimbra, Portugal

    “It must have been 1:30 p.m when there arose, at the exact spot where the children were, a column of smoke, thin, fine and bluish, which extended up to perhaps two meters above their heads, and evaporated at that height. This phenomenon, perfectly visible to the naked eye, lasted for a few seconds. Not having noted how long it had lasted, I cannot say whether it was more or less than a minute. The smoke dissipated abruptly, and after some time, it came back to occur a second time, then a third time
    “The sky, which had been overcast all day, suddenly cleared; the rain stopped and it looked as if the sun were about to fill with light the countryside that the wintery morning had made so gloomy. I was looking at the spot of the apparitions in a serene, if cold, expectation of something happening and with diminishing curiosity because a long time had passed without anything to excite my attention. The sun, a few moments before, had broken through the thick layer of clouds which hid it and now shone clearly and intensely.
    “Suddenly I heard the uproar of thousands of voices, and I saw the whole multitude spread out in that vast space at my feet…turn their backs to that spot where, until then, all their expectations had been focused, and look at the sun on the other side. I turned around, too, toward the point commanding their gaze and I could see the sun, like a very clear disc, with its sharp edge, which gleamed without hurting the sight. It could not be confused with the sun seen through a fog (there was no fog at that moment), for it was neither veiled nor dim. At Fatima, it kept its light and heat, and stood out clearly in the sky, with a sharp edge, like a large gaming table. The most astonishing thing was to be able to stare at the solar disc for a long time, brilliant with light and heat, without hurting the eyes or damaging the retina. [During this time], the sun’s disc did not remain immobile, it had a giddy motion, [but] not like the twinkling of a star in all its brilliance for it spun round upon itself in a mad whirl.
    “During the solar phenomenon, which I have just described, there were also changes of color in the atmosphere. Looking at the sun, I noticed that everything was becoming darkened. I looked first at the nearest objects and then extended my glance further afield as far as the horizon. I saw everything had assumed an amethyst color. Objects around me, the sky and the atmosphere, were of the same color. Everything both near and far had changed, taking on the color of old yellow damask. People looked as if they were suffering from jaundice and I recall a sensation of amusement at seeing them look so ugly and unattractive. My own hand was the same color.
    “Then, suddenly, one heard a clamor, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed all at once to loosen itself from the firmament and, blood red, advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was truly terrible.
    “All the phenomena which I have described were observed by me in a calm and serene state of mind without any emotional disturbance. It is for others to interpret and explain them. Finally, I must declare that never, before or after October 13 [1917], have I observed similar atmospheric or solar phenomena.”
    Professor Almeida Garrett’s full account may be found in Novos Documentos de Fatima (Loyala editions, San Paulo, 1984)

    Return to
    Table of Contents

  189. on 05 Jul 2013 at 1:55 am 189.Fluttershy said …

    “180.freddies_dead, yes it would be a sin. Lust is bad.”

    I love how messengers posts are moderated, so it takes about 2 days for it too pass, and then his ridiculous posts screw up the order of things…

    Lust is bad?
    No, lust is normal, human, perfectly acceptable.

    Trying to stop lust is like trying to stop hunger, emotions, pain, etc.

    Not much of a surprise that priests rape little boys, the poor guys had all their lust bottled up, until the cork popped XD.

  190. on 05 Jul 2013 at 3:13 am 190.alex said …

    “I love how messengers posts are moderated…”

    this blog looks like wordpress and it’s got an idiot detector, hence the messenger moderation. keeps the self appointed bible translator from totally fucking up this place.

  191. on 05 Jul 2013 at 4:56 am 191.Anonymous said …

    One of the trolls said:

    “I AM WAITING FOR ANSWERS”

    Then fuck-off to a website which has the purpose of atheists answering theists questions, then.

    This site is for you theists to explain away your ridiculous beliefs. We get to ask the questions, your role here is to answer them. You don’t have to like it, but you don’t have question-asking privileges here. So just fuck off if that’s not to your satisfaction.

    Oh, and change your socks, would you please?

  192. on 05 Jul 2013 at 5:06 am 192.The messenger said …

    189.Fluttershy, lust is a sin. It causes people to become distracted from their daily jobs, and it causes jealousy.
    If a man or woman becomes lustful, they will attempt many unorthodox things in order to obtain sexual pleasure. They might find hookers, they might cheat on their spouses, and they might molest children.
    Lust also leads to death. It can cause someone to have a child, and it can lead that couple to have an abortion. Abortion is murder.
    Lust is an awful thing.

    Resisting lust is very easy. Every time that you start to think about lustful things, think about the suffering that GOD went through for us and mabe you will find the will power to resist it.

    GOD overcame great pain for us. Compaired to what GOD overcame, overcoming lust should be extremely EASY.

    P.S. those priests who molested those children were not true Christians. They broke the laws of GOD, and are therefore nolonger followers of GOD. They abandoned GOD.

  193. on 05 Jul 2013 at 7:56 am 193.Fluttershy said …

    Messenger said
    “Tell me, how did the world come into existance unless someone created it?”

    Tell me how it came into existence by a creator and then come back to us.

    “Could he preform a miracle like the one that I listed in my previous comments?”

    I am fairly certain that staring into the sun isn’t good for you…that, and it messes up your optic nerves and shit…
    Not a surprise that people saw crazy shit.

    “Lust also leads to death. It can cause someone to have a child, and it can lead that couple to have an abortion. Abortion is murder.”

    You idiot, a child who hasn’t been born isn’t even sentient, are you saying that killing an ant or fish is also murder? In that case, i would owe several billion years worth of jail time.

    “He (satan) corrupts us with hate, thus causing war.”

    The irony, most war is created due to religion…

    “I have given you proof of GOD, therefore satan must also be real because GOD has spoken of him.”

    You have done no such thing.

    “If a man or woman becomes lustful, they will attempt many unorthodox things in order to obtain sexual activities. They might find hookers, they might cheat on their spouses, and they might molest children.”

    If the person already has a relationship with someone, they wont cheat on them…because…you know…they already have someone to have sex with, etc.

    “And it can cause horrible deceases.*insert wikipedia link*”

    No, sex causes STD’s. Thats why they are called “sexually” transmitted diseases. Lust is perfectly normal, why are you incapable of realising that?
    (I would assume the brainwashing)

  194. on 05 Jul 2013 at 9:47 am 194.freddies_dead said …

    184.The messenger said …

    180.freddies_dead, yes it would be a sin. Lust is bad.
    Who said anything about lust?

    We’re talking about a heterosexual, married couple who may not even know that they’re unable to conceive and you’ve got them burning for all eternity for doing nothing more than carrying out their part in your God’s plan.

    He did, in your worldview, create them with the express purpose of falling in love, getting married and failing to produce children because He had decided that’s what would happen. He then gets to torture them for all eternity for not producing children even though they had no choice in the matter.

    Your God really would be a complete douchebag if He existed.

  195. on 05 Jul 2013 at 10:35 am 195.Fluttershy said …

    Good point….

    Messenger, is two heterosexual people having sex, yet failing to have kids due to lack of fertility a sin?
    Or for that matter, what about condoms? the pill, etc? Are they sins?

  196. on 05 Jul 2013 at 10:37 am 196.Fluttershy said …

    Or for that matter.

    Why does your god “set up” people to go to hell?
    I mean, he makes people gay on purpose, AND makes them have sex.
    Is God merely an asshole, or is he something far worse?

  197. on 05 Jul 2013 at 1:03 pm 197.alex said …

    ‘I mean, he makes people gay on purpose, AND makes them have sex.”

    no, he don’t. gay people have choices. just like retards, blacks, poor people and tribesman. retards have a choice NOT to be mental. black people, if they pray hard enough, can be white. poor people just need to work harder and pick smart lottery numbers instead of the random shit the machine prints out. tribesman should have choiced to be born in the good ole u.s.a.

    see this shit? if messenger uttered these total bullshit, i bet not a single xtian motherfucker would say anything. if i said ALL atheists believe that ufos populated this planet, “bullshit” would be forthcoming.

    so, until you got some proof for that religious shit you’re teaching, insanity it stays.

  198. on 05 Jul 2013 at 4:19 pm 198.The messenger said …

    193.Fluttershy, It was reported to have been cloudy that day, and therefore eliminates the possibility of stairing at the sun as the reason for the miracle, due to the fact that the sun was covers up for most of that time.

    Furthermore, does it sound a bit ridiculous that every person in that crowd was effected by this “starring at the sun theory”? I am certain that not every single person there was starring at the sun. It seems highly unlikely for that to have been the cause of this event.

    Whether or not the child is out of the mother is irrelivent. It is still a living human being with a soul. The parrents have no right to decide whether it lives or dies.

    Killing an unborn child is nothing like killing a fish. A fish cannot feel any emotion, and it does not have the same intelligence capability as a human. And lastly a fish does not have a soul. It is not murder to kill a fish and eat it.

    Most wars are not caused by religion, they are caused by people who are greedy for land. Napolian started wars because he wanted more land. Henry the 8th started wars because he wanted more land. The Muslims started the crusades because they wanted to steal land from the Byzantine empire. The Catholics fought back because they were political allies of the Byzantine empire. World war 1 was caused by Germany attacking other counties. World war 2 was stated because hitler wanted more land( aka the world ). The Vietnam conflict was started unordered to stop communism. The palistanian Israeli wars were started because of Arab land greed, and palistanian suiside boomers who murderd incident Israeli citizens, and many Israeli school kids in the Avivim school bus massacre, the Ma’alot massacre, the Savoy Hotel Attack, Lod Airport massacre, the Kiryat Shmona massacre, the Munich massacre, the Coastal Road massacre, and the 1974 Nahariya attack.

    Wars are not caused by religion. They are caused by greed of power, land, and hate.

  199. on 05 Jul 2013 at 4:26 pm 199.The messenger said …

    193.Fluttershy, It was reported to have been cloudy that day, and therefore eliminates the possibility of stairing at the sun as the reason for the miracle, due to the fact that the sun was covers up for most of that time.
    Furthermore, does it sound a bit ridiculous that every person in that crowd was effected by this “starring at the sun theory”? I am certain that not every single person there was starring at the sun. It seems highly unlikely for that to have been the cause of this event.
    Whether or not the child is out of the mother is irrelivent. It is still a living human being with a soul. The parrents have no right to decide whether it lives or dies.
    Killing an unborn child is nothing like killing a fish. A fish cannot feel any emotion, and it does not have the same intelligence capability as a human. And lastly a fish does not have a soul. It is not murder to kill a fish and eat it.
    Most wars are not caused by religion, they are caused by people who are greedy for land. Napolian started wars because he wanted more land. Henry the 8th started wars because he wanted more land. The Muslims started the crusades because they wanted to steel land from the Byzantine empire. The Catholics fought back because they were political allies of the Byzantine empire. World war 1 was caused by Germany attacking other counties. World war 2 was stated because hitler wanted more land( aka the world ). The Vietnam conflict was started in order to stop communism. The palistanian Israeli wars were started because of Arab land greed, and palistanians who murderd innocent Israeli citizens, and many Israeli school kids in the Avivim school bus massacre, the Ma’alot massacre, the Savoy Hotel Attack, Lod Airport massacre, the Kiryat Shmona massacre, the Munich massacre, the Coastal Road massacre, and the 1974 Nahariya attack.
    Wars are not caused by religion. They are caused by greed of power, land, and hate.

  200. on 05 Jul 2013 at 4:43 pm 200.The messenger said …

    193.Fluttershy, if your theory regarding married couples(If the person already has a relationship with someone, they wont cheat on them…because…you know…they already have someone to have sex with, etc.) is true then why do so many husbands and wifes in the world commit adultery.

    Here are some examples of adultery occurring.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/tiger-woods-statement-adm_n_389457.html

    Michael Rubin: Mel Gibson: Adultery and Wedlock.

    Adultery in the Military – US Military – About.com

    I think I have made my point.

  201. on 05 Jul 2013 at 4:45 pm 201.The messenger said …

    195.Fluttershy, if they have sex because they are trying to have a child then it is alright if it fails. But if they have sex just to fuel their list then it is a sin.

  202. on 05 Jul 2013 at 5:38 pm 202.The messenger said …

    196.Fluttershy, GOD puts problems in our lives and plans out struggles in our lives so that we will learn good from evil, then eventually we will all go to heaven. GOD wants us to overcome evil.

    He is trying to teach us to not do evil, by showing us what evil is, how to combat it, and what the punishment of evil is.

  203. on 05 Jul 2013 at 10:43 pm 203.The messenger said …

    197.alex, GOD wants gay people to resist their desire for homosexual sex. He is teaching them to use will power.

    Mentally disabled people do not have to resist anything. They are given test of their own, some of which we do not know about.

    White and black people are both equal. GOD loves all people equally.

  204. on 05 Jul 2013 at 10:46 pm 204.DPK said …

    170.A said …

    “IF [ X = true ], THEN [ Object = Valid ]”
    40 YA,
    Another great challenge but no atheist here is interested in discussions requiring thought, logic or reason.”

    So “A” is going to once again dodge the challenge to put his brains where his mouth is and not use 40′s “process” which he thinks is “great” to prove his god exists. No surprise there.

    Tell you what, forget god… I challenge 40yr, or “A” or any of the theists to use 40′s challenge to prove the nonexistence of ANYTHING. Let’s start with a simple one: Leprachauns.

    Show us using 40′s formula that you can demonstrate the non-existence of Leprachauns using logic and reason. Show your work. If you can’t, well then what good is an intellectual exercise if it can’t even demonstrate something an 8 year old knows? Answer: None whatsoever.

  205. on 06 Jul 2013 at 12:15 am 205.Matt said …

    “Deduce Atheism using Science.”

    The 40 Year guy is an idiot. Since proves no gods exist therefore since does prove atheism. The rest of his claims collapse after that.

  206. on 06 Jul 2013 at 1:23 am 206.DPK said …

    Matt, the shill, returns.
    I’ll save Ass the trouble of having to change his screen name back to challenge himself, and in the process, divert attention from his latest embarrassment.
    Tell us Matt, er, Ass… Exactly how does science “prove no gods exist”?

  207. on 06 Jul 2013 at 2:39 am 207.Fluttershy said …

    “no, he don’t. gay people have choices. just like retards, blacks, poor people and tribesman. retards have a choice NOT to be mental. black people, if they pray hard enough, can be white. poor people just need to work harder and pick smart lottery numbers instead of the random shit the machine prints out. tribesman should have choiced to be born in the good ole u.s.a.
    see this shit? if messenger uttered these total bullshit, i bet not a single xtian motherfucker would say anything. if i said ALL atheists believe that ufos populated this planet, “bullshit” would be forthcoming.
    so, until you got some proof for that religious shit you’re teaching, insanity it stays.”

    Ummm alex….im on your side….

    I was saying how stupid “gods plan” is, being that if he had a plan, he deliberately sets people up to go to hell…

  208. on 06 Jul 2013 at 3:54 am 208.The messenger said …

    207.Fluttershy, GOD made those people gay so that they will learn to resist certain sexual desires. He is teaching them.

    You won’t go to hell for being gay. It takes much worse things to happen in order to cause that.

    It is not bad to be black. GOD loves all people nomatter what skin color they are.

    If GOD wanted them to become white he would make them white. The fact that he does not change them proves that he loves them just the way they are.

    GOD stated that being poor is good because they will never know greed. Being poor helps them realize that friends and family are more important than money.

    It is not bad to be rich either, but sometimes rich people will forget about friends and family, and they might become obsess with their money. But that us not always the case. A rich person must never loose respect for his power, and he must live family and friends more than his or her money.

    CHRISTIANITY and JUDAISM are the teaching of love, loyalty, forgivness, humility, kindness, and compassion.

    There is nothing bad about it.

  209. on 06 Jul 2013 at 3:58 am 209.The messenger said …

    GOD loves all people.

    He does not care about what their skin color is.

    GOD created all humans in his image, including black people.

    I do not understand why you think that he discriminates.

    GOD loves all people. He might not approve of their actions, but he will never stop loving them.

  210. on 06 Jul 2013 at 5:12 am 210.alex said …

    “Ummm alex….im on your side….”

    sorry, i guess my post wasn’t clear. i’m an atheist and english is my second language.

  211. on 06 Jul 2013 at 6:21 am 211.Fluttershy said …

    Its all good ;D
    To make mistakes is to be human xD

    Although…i have to admit, my post want very clear…

    Where ya from anyway?

    Im from australia.

  212. on 06 Jul 2013 at 6:25 am 212.The messenger said …

    210.alex, you use inlosh profanity alot.

    It would be better if you could not type or talk.

  213. on 06 Jul 2013 at 6:55 am 213.The messenger said …

    210.alex, you use English profanity alot.
    It would be better if you could not type or talk.

    I accidentally typed “inlosh”in comment 212 instead of the word “English.”

    I was tired.

  214. on 06 Jul 2013 at 12:08 pm 214.alex said …

    “Where ya from anyway?”

    i’m a transplanted filipino, the slant-eyed, noodle-eating, kung-fu fighting, bad-driving, computer-programming, buck-toothed, accented, korean, vietnamese, chinese, malaysian, foul-mouthed atheist.

    haters, start your engines.

  215. on 06 Jul 2013 at 3:08 pm 215.Fluttershy said …

    214
    Alex said
    *snip*

    Are you actualy filipino?

  216. on 06 Jul 2013 at 3:09 pm 216.Fluttershy said …

    “210.alex, you use English profanity alot.
    It would be better if you could not type or talk.”

    Who died and named you king?

  217. on 06 Jul 2013 at 3:11 pm 217.Fluttershy said …

    I happen to be a angler, bogan, non-drunk, blonde, thong (shoe, not panties) wearing, smart (at some things…) australian with a tulpa ;D

    Names Angus by the way…

  218. on 06 Jul 2013 at 4:15 pm 218.alex said …

    “Are you actualy filipino?”

    yep, big time catholic indoctrinated. early on, my righteous, hypocrite relatives predicted my hellish destiny. not impressed.

  219. on 06 Jul 2013 at 7:22 pm 219.The messenger said …

    216.Fluttershy, who came in the night and gave Alex brain trauma?

  220. on 07 Jul 2013 at 1:35 am 220.alex said …

    “..who came in the night and gave Alex brain trauma?”

    dumbass, is this your god proof? you, the temporary hell perpetrator? who said dinosaurs descended from the ark animals? yours truly, dipshit, messenger.

    why don’t you cut off your foreskin and offer it to your god? be generous and cut off an extra inch or two. then burn it because your bullshit god loves the aroma of burnt flesh, si?

  221. on 07 Jul 2013 at 1:46 am 221.Fluttershy said …

    “216.Fluttershy, who came in the night and gave Alex brain trauma?”

    Hmm…
    Didn’t know alex has brain damage.
    Likely suspect would either be a crazy theist, or a thief who likes to lobotomise people.

    Although, who died and named you king?
    Was it god?

    Back on topic.

    Messenger shot out….
    “Killing an unborn child is nothing like killing a fish. A fish cannot feel any emotion, and it does not have the same intelligence capability as a human. And lastly a fish does not have a soul. It is not murder to kill a fish and eat it.”

    First off, souls don’t exist, life as we know it is entirely a complex chemical reaction.
    Also, an unborn child is ironically less intelligent than a fish. Ever seen unborn children do complex tasks? because fish can…
    Also, an unborn child does not have any emotions, depending on what stage they are in, they don’t even have a brain, or a heart, don’t you believe that “souls” are in the heart or something?

  222. on 07 Jul 2013 at 1:59 am 222.Fluttershy said …

    Messenger also shot out of his gun….
    “You won’t go to hell for being gay. It takes much worse things to happen in order to cause that.”

    You dare defy the most sacred of books?
    The Holy Bible?

    Such hearsay will not be tolerated, may you be smite by god.

    In all seriousness, the bible states that being gay will equal hell.
    So don’t go saying that it says otherwise.

    “197.alex, GOD wants gay people to resist their desire for homosexual sex. He is teaching them to use will power.”

    What do you theists have against the gays?
    Did some rally of gays burn your house or something?
    Seriously, leave them alone…

    “GOD created all humans in his image, including black people.”

    God is said to be perfect, humans have serious design flaws, therefore god has design flaws, which means he is not perfect, and thus doesnt exist…

    “CHRISTIANITY and JUDAISM are the teaching of love, loyalty, forgivness, humility, kindness, and compassion.”

    Please tell me where stoning to death, slaves and animal sacrifice fit in to those….

    200.The messenger said …
    *snip*

    Wow….
    Huffington post….so reliable… A+ for effort.

    That aside, you know what that proves?
    It proves some people as simply not as nice as others, would i cheat on my wife? Hell no, she would deserve too much respect.
    Would other people? Possibly, they have their reasons, but its still pretty bad…

  223. on 07 Jul 2013 at 4:49 am 223.The messenger said …

    221.Fluttershy, can you prove that souls do not exist?

    I have given you proof of GOD, and therefore souls exist too.

    Tell me, why are humans the only creatures on earth that can feel love, compassion, greed, hate, fear, and anger?

    Can science explain why humans feel love, hate, compassion, or greed?

    Furthermore, can science explain why humans are the only features on earth that feel emotion? The bible explains all of this.

    Can science explain why humans feel shame about there reproductive organs? The bible explains this.

    There is much that science cannot explain, but the bible can explain

  224. on 07 Jul 2013 at 4:56 am 224.The messenger said …

    220.alex, tell me, have you ever been to a barbecue or eaten a hamburger?

    All of those things smell of burning flesh and you love the smell of it.

    GOD loves the smell of cooked animal meat, what is so bad about that?

    The removal of forskin is a mark that symbolizes a person’s relationship with GOD. There is nothing bad about it.

  225. on 07 Jul 2013 at 5:07 am 225.The messenger said …

    221.Fluttershy, souls inhabit the entire body, not just the heart.

    Visualize it this way. When you were in your mother’s whom you were one of these so called “brainless” creatures. Yet now you have an entire life, you have a job, you have a family, and friends. If you kill an unborn child you will also kill all of his, or her chances of acquiring any of that. Therefore you are not only commuting murder, you are also stealing his or her life.

  226. on 07 Jul 2013 at 5:36 am 226.The messenger said …

    222.Fluttershy, the bible does not state that gay people will go to hell, it only states that having gay sex is bad.

    You are a liar.

    We have nothing against gay people. We love all people. But I already told you that it causes nothing but lust, and lust causes people , such as tiger woods. To cheat and anger their spouses. Lust also causes people to go find hookers. And it can also cause young men and wemon to molest small children.

    Sex has one good perpose, reproduction. Gay sex does not cause reproduction, therefore can oly cause the filling things that I listed above.

    The word “image” means a representation of the EXTERNAL form of a person or thing. Therefore, GOD made all humans look like his outward apperiance. Therefore, mankind only looks like GOD, they are NOT PERFECT LIKE GOD.

    Humans only have the outward apperence of GOD. They do not have his knowlage or his perfection.

    Stoning is a metaphore used to represent a form of punishment. Not necessarily a death sentence.

    Jesus proved this in the new testement when he prevented a woman from literally being stoned to death.

  227. on 08 Jul 2013 at 1:49 am 227.Fluttershy said …

    “Tell me, why are humans the only creatures on earth that can feel love, compassion, greed, hate, fear, and anger?”

    Because we aren’t?
    You know that simpler creatures (Monkeys, elephants, etc.) also have emotions, although they are far less complex.

    “Can science explain why humans feel love, hate, compassion, or greed?”

    Indeed it can, its merely an adaption of behaviour, and is created by electrical impulses in your organic super computer called a “Brain”.

    “221.Fluttershy, can you prove that souls do not exist?”

    The mere concept is ridiculous, life is not from “souls” and having a “soul” doesn’t govern what has emotions. Life is just one complex chemical reaction, thats it.

    “Can science explain why humans feel shame about there reproductive organs? The bible explains this.”

    Ever thought of it being a side effect of our sentience?

    “”All of those things smell of burning flesh and you love the smell of it.”

    WRONG, you forgot to add tomato sauce in there.

    “Visualize it this way. When you were in your mother’s whom you were one of these so called “brainless” creatures. Yet now you have an entire life, you have a job, you have a family, and friends. If you kill an unborn child you will also kill all of his, or her chances of acquiring any of that. Therefore you are not only commuting murder, you are also stealing his or her life.”

    If you kill the unborn child, you never ruin anything, because it is dead, it never would have been born, and hence wouldn’t of ever had any chances.
    Learn how time works…

    “Sex has one good perpose, reproduction. Gay sex does not cause reproduction, therefore can oly cause the filling things that I listed above.”

    So me eating a chocolate sundae for pleasure and not food is a sin?
    Yeah, again, that is discrimination.

    “The word “image” means a representation of the EXTERNAL form of a person or thing. Therefore, GOD made all humans look like his outward apperiance. Therefore, mankind only looks like GOD, they are NOT PERFECT LIKE GOD.”

    Yeah, we have ALOT of external flaws, hence god is imperfect, also, CAPS LOCK DOESNT MAKE YOUR POST ANY MORE POWERFUL.

    “But I already told you that it causes nothing but lust.”

    You fail to see where two gays having sex causes a “relationship” and not lust *facepalm*

    “Jesus proved this in the new testement when he prevented a woman from literally being stoned to death.”

    The old testament is gods word, god is perfect, so thus the literal stoning is real.

    Care to explain why religious schools teach fiction as fact?

  228. on 08 Jul 2013 at 4:30 am 228.The messenger said …

    227.Fluttershy, have you ever seen a “elephant feel sorry for trampling a smaller creature? Have you ever seen a “monkey” express greed or jealousy? I have never seen any of those things happen. Have you ever seen a squeral express quilt? I quess you saw those things durring one of your shock therapy session at the mental ward.

    If we evolved from ape like creatures then why have we not seen any other types of intelligent life on earth besides humans?

    If GOD did not make humans the dominate speicies on earth, why do we not see other forms of dominate, intelligent beings on earth besides humans?

    How did our “sentience” cause us to feel shame?

    You stated that animals could feel emotions, therefore you apparently consider animals to be sentient as well. So if animals are sentient why do they not feel shame for their reproductive organs like humans do?

    How is that discrimination? We have nothing against gay people. We love all people. But I already told you that it causes nothing but lust, and lust causes people , such as tiger woods, to cheat and anger their spouses. Lust also causes people to go find hookers. And it can also cause young men and wemon to molest small children.

    The “no gay sex rule” prevents divorces, child molesting, using hookers, and cheating on spouses.

    Lastly, how is that discrimination when the rule applies to straight and gay people? And furthermore GOD opposes lust, and therefore sex should only be used for reproductive purposes(neither straight or gay people should have sex to get lust).

    Dating and conversations can cause a “reslationship” without causing lust.

    There are many starving people in the world. Therefore, if you eat more than what your body requiers to survive, you are being greedy and WASTEFUL. Therefore, yes it is a sin.

    Non of GOD’s laws stated anything about a litteral stoning. Stoning is just a metaphor that GOD used to teach the people to punish sinners.

    Yes, GOD never taught anyone to literally stone someone in the Old Testament, he only taught them to metaphorically stone a person.

    The new testement is also the word of GOD.

    The only testament also states that muder is a sin.

    The bible is fact, not fiction.

  229. on 08 Jul 2013 at 12:33 pm 229.phil said …

    If we care about humanity, we have a duty to stand up to the intolerant of the world, no matter what god they claim commands them to behave inhumanely. We also have a duty to oppose those who claim immunity from the prohibition of abusing children because of their belief in some god. To claim that children should not be educated in science or in the religious beliefs of others—or that they should not receive proper medical care—because their parents believe some god forbids it, is immoral.

  230. on 08 Jul 2013 at 10:17 pm 230.The messenger said …

    229.phil, my GOD loves all people, even if they do not believe in him.

    He gives the a choice to either believe in him or not. Either way he loves them.

    I am educated in science and I am a catholic.

  231. on 09 Jul 2013 at 11:05 am 231.freddies_dead said …

    228.The messenger said …

    227.Fluttershy, have you ever seen a “elephant feel sorry for trampling a smaller creature? Have you ever seen a “monkey” express greed or jealousy? I have never seen any of those things happen. Have you ever seen a squeral express quilt? I quess you saw those things durring one of your shock therapy session at the mental ward.

    I see you’ve decided to act as big a douchebag as the God you think exists is reported to act in the Bible. You want emotion in animals, well, here you go, start here.

    If we evolved from ape like creatures then why have we not seen any other types of intelligent life on earth besides humans?

    I get that when you look in the mirror you don’t see any intelligent life but that does not mean it does not exist.

    If GOD did not make humans the dominate speicies on earth, why do we not see other forms of dominate, intelligent beings on earth besides humans?

    There are plenty of intelligent species on the planet and some of them are plenty clever enough to dominate their respective ecological niches. That we are the most intelligent species on Earth is irrelevant.

    How did our “sentience” cause us to feel shame?

    It didn’t.

    You stated that animals could feel emotions, therefore you apparently consider animals to be sentient as well. So if animals are sentient why do they not feel shame for their reproductive organs like humans do?

    Because animals aren’t indoctrinated – usually by some bullshit religious cult or other – from an early age to feel ashamed about things they shouldn’t feel ashamed of.

    cont’d…

  232. on 09 Jul 2013 at 11:09 am 232.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    How is that discrimination? We have nothing against gay people. We love all people. But I already told you that it causes nothing but lust, and lust causes people , such as tiger woods, to cheat and anger their spouses. Lust also causes people to go find hookers. And it can also cause young men and wemon to molest small children.

    The “no gay sex rule” prevents divorces, child molesting, using hookers, and cheating on spouses.

    Ahh, the old favourite – falsely link homosexuality to child molestation – even for a Christian you really are a vile human being. You’re also a pathetic liar, just how does banning gay sex stop heterosexuals from cheating on their partners, getting divorced or using prostitutes? It doesn’t and it certainly hasn’t stopped the widespread practice of Catholic priests raping small children and having the Church cover up their despicable crimes.

    cont’d…

  233. on 09 Jul 2013 at 11:10 am 233.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    Lastly, how is that discrimination when the rule applies to straight and gay people? And furthermore GOD opposes lust, and therefore sex should only be used for reproductive purposes(neither straight or gay people should have sex to get lust).

    It doesn’t apply to straight and gay people – it’s only the gays that you don’t want to see have the right to marry and have sexual relationships.

    Dating and conversations can cause a “reslationship” without causing lust.

    Just not in gays right? Bigot.

    There are many starving people in the world.

    Another thing we can thank your douchebag God for…

    Therefore, if you eat more than what your body requiers to survive, you are being greedy and WASTEFUL. Therefore, yes it is a sin.

    Except, should your professed worldview be true, then it is God’s will that you eat more than what your body requires. Why does your God insist on forcing people to commit sins He knows will see them tortured for all eternity? I may have mentioned it already but your God sounds like a complete douchebag.

    cont’d…

  234. on 09 Jul 2013 at 11:10 am 234.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    Non of GOD’s laws stated anything about a litteral stoning. Stoning is just a metaphor that GOD used to teach the people to punish sinners.

    Yes, GOD never taught anyone to literally stone someone in the Old Testament, he only taught them to metaphorically stone a person.

    Lying again:

    And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

    If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

    If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her … and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say … these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. … But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

    If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers … thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10

    If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother … Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city … And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

    etc… etc… etc…

    There’s nothing metaphorical about “stone him with stones, that he die” you lying turd.

    The new testement is also the word of GOD.

    The only testament also states that muder is a sin.

    The bible is fact, not fiction.

    The Bible is a book of myths and bullshit … mostly bullshit.

  235. on 09 Jul 2013 at 1:59 pm 235.Fluttershy said …

    “There are many starving people in the world. Therefore, if you eat more than what your body requiers to survive, you are being greedy and WASTEFUL. Therefore, yes it is a sin.”

    So we should be afraid of Banna split sundaes? There’s a new one.

    “227.Fluttershy, have you ever seen a “elephant feel sorry for trampling a smaller creature? Have you ever seen a “monkey” express greed or jealousy? I have never seen any of those things happen. Have you ever seen a squeral express quilt?”

    I have seen an elephant cry over its dead baby, birds and fish express love and passion for each other and dogs showing happiness. Or are those not emotions in your viewpoint?

    “The “no gay sex rule” prevents divorces, child molesting, using hookers, and cheating on spouses.”

    Utter bullshit. Its discrimination and you should be ashamed for it.

    “We love all people.”

    You either hate atheists, other religions, and gays. Or you exclude them as people, which one is it?

    “Dating and conversations can cause a “reslationship” without causing lust.”

    You know what, your right, it can make relationships. You however, need to understand that people like to get closer in their relationships…

    “If we evolved from ape like creatures then why have we not seen any other types of intelligent life on earth besides humans?”

    If we were created by god, why isn’t there any other intelligent life besides humans? Also, cephalopods, birds and dolphins are pretty darn smart.

    “Non of GOD’s laws stated anything about a litteral stoning. Stoning is just a metaphor that GOD used to teach the people to punish sinners.”

    freddies_dead took the liberty of correcting this. (bible is such a wretched book)

    “If GOD did not make humans the dominate speicies on earth, why do we not see other forms of dominate, intelligent beings on earth besides humans?”

    Because there can only be one dominant species? Seriously, learn the english language….that, and sharks (and killer whales) dominate the seas, eagles dominate the air, and in terms of mass, ants dominate the ground, in all reality, we are kinda weak XD

    “The only testament also states that muder is a sin.”

    Good, that means that my slaves who are gay and hence cannot go into heaven will last longer as i cannot fatally whip them, also let me burn some flesh and cut some skin off my genitals. No seriously, circumcision is effed up, its merely disfiguring and serves no purpose…

  236. on 09 Jul 2013 at 2:15 pm 236.Angus and Alexis said …

    Hello, Fluttershy here, i am renaming myself to further gain attention to my tulpa and (when she gains sentience) express her opinion ;D

    “Have you ever seen a “monkey” express greed or jealousy?”

    had to reply to this.
    Yes, i have seen a monkey express greed and jealousy.
    He took an orange from another monkey and ate it, the other monkey got jealous, looked pissed off (anger as well) and stole a starfruit from the monkey that took his orange.

    Well, okay, it was an orang-utan, still a primate though.

    “How did our “sentience” cause us to feel shame?”

    It enabled our self awareness, hence we developed shame, embarrassment, etc. Heck, monkeys show shame after doing stupid stuff, and they aren’t fully sentient.

    “You stated that animals could feel emotions, therefore you apparently consider animals to be sentient as well. So if animals are sentient why do they not feel shame for their reproductive organs like humans do?”

    Emotions are not linked to sentience.
    For example, many creatures show sorrow, yet elephants are the only ones that can cry. Birds kiss and show love, Komodo dragons have love, and they cannot kiss. Humans can kiss, cry, laugh, smile, frown, the works, but we are sentient (which helps due to the self awareness).

    The reason for why animals do not care about their reproductive organs is simple. Their minds recognise taboos differently.

    An intelligent rabbit may look at our diet in disgust, yet we love eating meat (well, some of us…)
    An intelligent baboon may ponder why we dont show our asses off to the females for attention. (and might praise ruffians for Mooning XD)

  237. on 09 Jul 2013 at 9:16 pm 237.messenger said …

    234.Fluttershy, you can eat anything, but it has to satisfy your physical need for food.

    If you want eat ice cream you can eat ice cream, but it has to satisfy your daily need for food.

  238. on 09 Jul 2013 at 9:20 pm 238.messenger said …

    The reason that the monkey attacks the other monkey for the orange is because he is trying to consume the amount of food that he needs in order to survive. That is not greed or anger, that is just the need to consume food.

  239. on 09 Jul 2013 at 9:32 pm 239.messenger said …

    234.Angus and Alexis, tell me, how do you know that a rabbit can even feel discusted about anything?

  240. on 09 Jul 2013 at 9:44 pm 240.messenger said …

    234.Angus and Alexis, you did not give an answer to my question”how did our sentience make us feel shame for or reproductive organs?”, you only restated the question.

  241. on 09 Jul 2013 at 9:47 pm 241.messenger said …

    234.Angus and Alexis, for animals, crying is not a emotional thing, it is a physical thing. An elephant produces tears in order to prevent it’s eyes for drying out in certain situations. Other animals do not need to tear up because of the way that water is distributed throught their bodies and to their eyes.

  242. on 09 Jul 2013 at 10:00 pm 242.The messenger said …

    233.Fluttershy, humans are the dominate species on earth.

    Humans can squash ants by just taking a step, and we have the intelligence to make poisons that kill ants.

    Humans have hunted and killed whales and sharks for many centuries, even before we developed modern weapon systems.

    Humans dominate the air with planes, and we can easily kill eagles with guns.

    We have the ability to wipe out all life on earth with atomic bombs.

    We eat many different species on earth.

    We are dominate.

    If evolution is true then there could possibly be another species on earth that is equally dominate over animals. Therefore, why is there only one dominate speicies on earth?

  243. on 09 Jul 2013 at 10:36 pm 243.The messenger said …

    233.freddies_dead, the word “death” in that bible passage does not mean a litteral death, it means the death of the evil within that person.

    It is a metaphore.

    Have you ever heard the metaphorical phrase “cry me a river”? It does not mean literally crying a river, it means that a person is crying alot.

    I live by the bible, the bible states that lying is a sin, therefore I am not lying about this.

  244. on 09 Jul 2013 at 10:41 pm 244.The messenger said …

    234.Fluttershy, removing a forskin is a good thing. A foreskin is painful, and hard to clean under. It can also allow bacteria to grow underneath it, thus causing an infection.

    In biblical times, people removed their foreskins as a perminent mark on them, symbolizing a person’s loyalty to GOD.

  245. on 09 Jul 2013 at 10:59 pm 245.The messenger said …

    43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    The bible teaches people to not hate anyone.

  246. on 09 Jul 2013 at 11:01 pm 246.The messenger said …

    blessed are the merciful

    The bible states that we should be merciful.

    The Bible is good.

  247. on 09 Jul 2013 at 11:04 pm 247.The messenger said …

    The Parable of the Good Samaritan

    25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

    26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

    27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”

    28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

    29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

    30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

    36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

    37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

    Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

    The bible teaches us to help people.

    The bible is good.

  248. on 09 Jul 2013 at 11:07 pm 248.The messenger said …

    Thou shall not lie

    The bible teaches us to be honest.

  249. on 10 Jul 2013 at 2:27 am 249.The messenger said …

    Straight people are not allowed to have sex unless it is for reproduction, because the only other reason would be for lust, and lust causes people to cheat on their spouses(like a lot of celebrities), or find hookers, or molest children. Gay people are not allowed to have sex unless it is for reproduction(no same gender sex), because the only other reason would be lust, and lust causes people to cheat on their spouses, find hookers, or molest children.

    The same rules apply to both straight and gay people.

    It is not discrimination.

  250. on 10 Jul 2013 at 11:23 am 250.The messenger said …

    I will not be able to respond to my comment for 4 days due to fact that I will be away from my house to help out a friend.

  251. on 11 Jul 2013 at 12:05 pm 251.freddies_dead said …

    243.The messenger said …

    233.freddies_dead, the word “death” in that bible passage does not mean a litteral death, it means the death of the evil within that person.

    It is a metaphore.

    Have you ever heard the metaphorical phrase “cry me a river”? It does not mean literally crying a river, it means that a person is crying alot.

    I live by the bible, the bible states that lying is a sin, therefore I am not lying about this.

    Liar, liar, pants on fire. You are absolutely lying. You’re lying through your teeth. It’s laughable to me but other Christians should be horrified at how blatantly you’re lying about words you believe were inspired by your God.

    I repeat:
    There’s nothing metaphorical about “stone him with stones, that he die” you lying turd.

    They don’t stop stoning him when they they figure the evil is gone – they stone him until he is dead.

    You sir, are a fucking liar.

  252. on 11 Jul 2013 at 12:18 pm 252.freddies_dead said …

    244.The messenger said …

    234.Fluttershy, removing a forskin is a good thing. A foreskin is painful, and hard to clean under. It can also allow bacteria to grow underneath it, thus causing an infection.

    The liar is lying again. As someone who has a foreskin I’d like to point out that it’s not at all painful and really fucking easy to keep clean. Anyone with access to soap and water and a passing acquaintance with personal hygiene need not worry about bacteria.

    Stop fucking lying.

  253. on 11 Jul 2013 at 12:23 pm 253.freddies_dead said …

    249.The messenger said …

    The same rules apply to both straight and gay people.

    It is not discrimination.

    More fucking lies.

    Nowhere do we see Christians trying to ban sex/marriages with sterile people or couples who plan not to have children or older couples where the woman is no longer capable of bearing children.

    Sex does not automatically equal lust – even when it’s not for reproduction – you bigoted fuckwit.

  254. on 11 Jul 2013 at 12:28 pm 254.freddies_dead said …

    240.messenger said …

    234.Angus and Alexis, you did not give an answer to my question”how did our sentience make us feel shame for or reproductive organs?”, you only restated the question.

    I answered it. Sentience has no bearing on us feeling shame about our reproductive organs. Watch any small baby/child – not one of them show any sign of shame about being naked. It’s not until they are indoctrinated into whatever social statutes we have about nudity that they even become aware that nakedness is “wrong”. It then takes something as vile as religion to cause shame.

  255. on 11 Jul 2013 at 3:47 pm 255.Angus and Alexis said …

    HOLY FUCKBALLS MESSENGER IS THE MULTIPOST KING.

    Seriously, make one post, not shit tons.

    freddies_dead kindly replied to alot of your posts (freddie is correct about the foreskin issue), so i will reply to the ones i find are stupid lies.

    “233.Fluttershy, humans are the dominate species on earth.
    Humans can squash ants by just taking a step, and we have the intelligence to make poisons that kill ants.
    Humans have hunted and killed whales and sharks for many centuries, even before we developed modern weapon systems.
    Humans dominate the air with planes, and we can easily kill eagles with guns.
    We have the ability to wipe out all life on earth with atomic bombs.
    We eat many different species on earth.
    We are dominate.
    If evolution is true then there could possibly be another species on earth that is equally dominate over animals. Therefore, why is there only one dominate speicies on earth?”

    The word you are looking for is “Dominant”, not “Dominate”.

    Nuking all life would result in ourselves dying from the following nuclear winter, radiation and sheer loss of food supplies.
    Ants can indeed be crushed under your feet, but remember, for every human, there is over a million ants. The ant is often assumed to be the next dominant life form of earth, so give them some respect.
    I can sure as hell tell you that humans don’t “dominate” the seas, sharks and whales do. Scratch that, the damned algae in the ocean provides us with most of our air, so we rely on little one celled critters, so much for our dominance.
    Stop being one of those, “Humans are the best, screw other life forms” people and give other species some damned respect.
    A chimpanzee could literaly tear your arm off and in all ways superior physically for life without technology. I would enjoy seeing you in any other environment without technology and see how well you would cope with the weather without a house, food without shops, etc.

    Also, to answer your stupid last sentence, there is one damned dominant life form on earth (humans), dominant implying that there is a single species that rules others. While we are indeed the single most powerful species on earth, we are outmassed by insects, over powered by sharks and large animals, and the cost of fuel for air travel makes birds rule the skies.

  256. on 11 Jul 2013 at 4:01 pm 256.Angus and Alexis said …

    “The reason that the monkey attacks the other monkey for the orange is because he is trying to consume the amount of food that he needs in order to survive. That is not greed or anger, that is just the need to consume food.”

    Effing idiot, the monkey (orang-utan to be precise) could have simply got more damned fruit from the massive towering bowl of fruit set there to feed the things.
    Instead of getting more and leaving the other monkey to eat the fruit, he snatched back some fruit the other had stockpiled. He did it in anger and jealousy, not because he needed it.

    “234.Fluttershy, you can eat anything, but it has to satisfy your physical need for food.
    If you want eat ice cream you can eat ice cream, but it has to satisfy your daily need for food.”

    I eat chocolate sundaes because i feel like a snack, its completely unhealthy (ehh, im skinny anyway…), i do it for the sweet taste and chocolate (love chocolate ;D). You are saying i will go to hell for eating the sundae, therefore sundaes equate to eternal pain, making icecream a very scary food item.

    “234.Angus and Alexis, for animals, crying is not a emotional thing, it is a physical thing. An elephant produces tears in order to prevent it’s eyes for drying out in certain situations. Other animals do not need to tear up because of the way that water is distributed throught their bodies and to their eyes.”

    You dumbass, read some damned bok about elephants or something.

    The single animal other than humans that cry is the elephant.
    It only cries when it is sad, it also happens to only be sad when its baby is killed.
    Hence it is emotional. Unless you do not include “sad” as an emotion.

    “234.Angus and Alexis, tell me, how do you know that a rabbit can even feel discusted about anything?”

    I kinda took a quote from “war of the worlds” written by H.G Wells. ;D
    You seem incapable of understanding how the quote works so i will try to make it clear.

    Would you be disgusted by how a tiger, or perhaps a dung beetle eats? ( i hope so)
    Would you say that humans eat good, and the other animals eat bad? ( in terms of what we eat atleast)
    So an intelligent rabbit would scoff at our eating habits.
    Its more of a hypothetical thing really, made to teach you on viewpoints.
    Another example would be hitler, he thought he was saving the world by killing the jews and making his race of “aryans”, but you would say he was insane, correct?

  257. on 11 Jul 2013 at 4:08 pm 257.Angus and Alexis said …

    “234.Angus and Alexis, you did not give an answer to my question”how did our sentience make us feel shame for or reproductive organs?”, you only restated the question.”

    Please read slower to catch answers to questions….
    I DID write an answer.

    “The reason for why animals do not care about their reproductive organs is simple. Their minds recognise taboos differently.”

    How is this an answer?
    Because our taboos, say “nude=bad”.
    We are brought up with nude=bad, so we don’t go around wandering naked.
    Sentience only adds to it by a small part via the self awareness…
    9_9 See, my viewpoint changed, and hence did my answer.

  258. on 14 Jul 2013 at 12:13 am 258.The messenger said …

    251.freddies_dead, can you prove that I am lying?

    Can you prove that the verses about stoning are not metaphores?

    Are you crazy?

    The word “stoning” represents punishment(not a death sentence), and the word “death” represents the death of evil within a person. It does not mean a litteral stoning.

    Can you give any evidence to disprove my claim?

    P.S, the Jewish athorities durring Jesus’s time misunderstood the “stoning verses” and thought that it ment a litteral stoning. Jesus proved that the “stoning verses” were metaphorical when he prevented a young woman from being stoned.

  259. on 14 Jul 2013 at 12:28 am 259.The messenger said …

    252.freddies_dead, several of my friends have had problems with their forskins.

    They have experienced pain because of their forskins.

    They have developed infections under their forskins.

    Here is a paragraph written by a victim of diseases that can be developed because of forskin.

    (Just before Christmas I noticed some redness under my foreskin, which I assumed was thrush, as I’ve had this before, although not for a while. I applied Canestan, but it didn’t go a way. Did swab test, which revealed a bacterial infection of mixed pathology: all skin common infections, and no sign of thrush. I was prescribed oral antibiotics for a week, which made no difference. Then tried an anti-bacterial ointment called fuscidin, which also made no difference. Next, had a different oral anti-biotic for a week, but swab showed infection still there. Then tried Bactroban, another antibiotic ointent, which also did not work. The redness has now spread to my glans, and my doctor has said she doesn’t know what to do about it. She does not want to prescribe more anti-biotics as they’ve not worked so far. I’ve been referred to urology, but there’s a waiting list, and could be some months before I’m seen.

    Has anyone got any suggestions what to do in the meantime? I’ve tried leaving off the ointment, washing with water only, and drying thoroughly. Even tried sitting with foreskin retracted to dry it out and make it harder for the bacteria to grow, but to no avail.)

  260. on 14 Jul 2013 at 1:01 am 260.The messenger said …

    253.freddies_dead, you idiot, marage is not based on the ability to reproduce, it is based on love.

    Marrage does not equal sex. Marriage is not about having a reproduction partner. Although, when a person marries they cannonot have another reproduction partner because they would be cheating on their spouses.

    Infertile couples cannot reproduce, and therefore are unable to pass on their genes to another human. Therefore they have no reason to have sex.

    Older people tend to loose their testosterone, and therefore have a very low sexual desire level. Therefore they are not effected by lust, so their marriage is allowed because it would mostlikly be based on love.

    Alot of gay people can reproduce, therefore if a member of a gay couple wanted to reproduce, he would have to cheat on his or her spouse. Therefore gay marriage is bad because reproduction could only be archived if they cheated on each other.

    It is not discrimination because infertile couple are not able to reproduce with anyone, older couples have no desire to reproduce, couples who do not want to reproduce would not have any reason to reproduce, and gay couples can only reproduce if they cheate on their spouse.

  261. on 14 Jul 2013 at 1:16 am 261.The messenger said …

    254.freddies_dead, when I went to a public pool I saw one of my non religious friends show shame when she forgot to tie up her bikini correctly and she lost them infront of everyone.

    Therefore, religion is not the cause of shame.

    Angus stated that sentience was the cause of shame. You fellow atheist is lying.

  262. on 14 Jul 2013 at 2:39 am 262.The messenger said …

    255.Angus and Alexis, regardless, we still have the power to kill all life on earth.

    Ants do not have the metal capability to become the next dominate species on earth.

    Humans killed whales by the hundereds with nothing but primitive metal harpoons. Whales are far from dominate.

    Sharks can be killed very easily. Humans hunt and kill many sharks, and we sell their teeth in many gift shops around the world. They are not dominate.

    The survival of Single celled creatures are controlled by how humans treat the ocean. What we put into the sea controls the existance of single celled organisms, thus controls if we live. We dominate over them.

    We rule over all of the animals on earth.

  263. on 14 Jul 2013 at 4:25 am 263.The messenger said …

    256.Angus and Alexis, monkeys have very short attention-spans, therefore they focus on the first piece of food that they see, which happend to be a piece of food that another monkey had.

    If the monkey failed to squire the piece of food he would eventually forget about it and notice the “large bowl of food” again.

  264. on 14 Jul 2013 at 4:25 am 264.The messenger said …

    256.Angus and Alexis, monkeys have no emotions.

  265. on 14 Jul 2013 at 4:33 am 265.The messenger said …

    255.Angus and Alexis, humans are dominate due to the fact that GOD gave us the ability to create technology such as guns that can kill “chimpanzees” before they could rip my arms off. With a bow and arrow or a slingshot I could kill a chimp just as easy.

    Tell me, could a chimp build a gun, armor, swords, or spears? No they can’t, therefore humans are dominate due to our GOD given knowlage of defensive technology.

  266. on 14 Jul 2013 at 4:36 am 266.The messenger said …

    “256.Angus and Alexis, I would not be discusted by how another animal eats.

    I do not consider it discusting.

  267. on 14 Jul 2013 at 4:44 am 267.The messenger said …

    256.Angus and Alexis, how do you know if a elephant is really sad when it releases water near it’s eyes. They are most likly just cleaning their eyes out due to the dusty environment(Africa) that they live in.

    How do you know if death is really the cause of elephants crying?

  268. on 15 Jul 2013 at 1:02 pm 268.freddies_dead said …

    258.The messenger said …

    251.freddies_dead, can you prove that I am lying?

    You’re posting therefore you’re lying, it’s a pretty well documented fact on here.

    Can you prove that the verses about stoning are not metaphores?

    Why is it my job to show that the words in the Bible don’t actually mean what they say? That’s the job of bullshit preachers and fuckwits like you that want to twist the words to mean exactly what you want them to mean. Anyway, what the fuck is metaphorical about “stone him with stones, that he die”.

    Are you crazy?

    Asks the crazy person. Stop projecting your problems on to me.

    The word “stoning” represents punishment(not a death sentence), and the word “death” represents the death of evil within a person. It does not mean a litteral stoning.

    The words are abundantly clear “stone him with stones, that he die” there’s no ambiguity here, no context that subtly alters the meaning, the person is to be pounded with stones until they are dead. Why should I believe your ridiculous eisegesis over the actual words in the Bible? You know? The book you hold to be absolutely authoritative?

    Can you give any evidence to disprove my claim?

    It is your job to show how those words are metaphorical – all you do is assert that they are and give us your own confirmation bias as proof. That’s not good enough.

    P.S, the Jewish athorities durring Jesus’s time misunderstood the “stoning verses” and thought that it ment a litteral stoning. Jesus proved that the “stoning verses” were metaphorical when he prevented a young woman from being stoned.

    That’s a parable about hypocrisy you twerp. Nowhere does Jesus say stoning is wrong, he simply points out that every bugger there deserved stoning as much as the woman did. There’s nothing in there to show that stoning, with stones, until the stonee is dead is some subtle attempt to discourage people from being bad. It was, and still is, a death sentence. One that God Himself stated was such.

    Here He is in Exodus giving Moses some instructions for an upcoming gig:

    19:10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes,
    19:11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
    19:12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:
    19:13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.

    Harsh security dude.

    Here He is in Leviticus:

    24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

    Here He is in Deuteronomy:

    22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

    There’s a mention of getting evil away in that verse – unfortunately for you God’s way of getting rid of evil seems to be to “stone her with stones that she die”.

    It’s not a fucking metaphor, it’s a death sentence from your douchebag of a God.

  269. on 15 Jul 2013 at 1:17 pm 269.freddies_dead said …

    259.The messenger said …

    252.freddies_dead, several of my friends have had problems with their forskins.

    They have experienced pain because of their forskins.

    They have developed infections under their forskins.

    It’s not the foreskins fault that your friends are too stupid to manage basic hygiene.

    Here is a paragraph written by a victim of diseases that can be developed because of forskin.

    (Just before Christmas I noticed some redness under my foreskin, which I assumed was thrush, as I’ve had this before, although not for a while. I applied Canestan, but it didn’t go a way. Did swab test, which revealed a bacterial infection of mixed pathology: all skin common infections, and no sign of thrush. I was prescribed oral antibiotics for a week, which made no difference. Then tried an anti-bacterial ointment called fuscidin, which also made no difference. Next, had a different oral anti-biotic for a week, but swab showed infection still there. Then tried Bactroban, another antibiotic ointent, which also did not work. The redness has now spread to my glans, and my doctor has said she doesn’t know what to do about it. She does not want to prescribe more anti-biotics as they’ve not worked so far. I’ve been referred to urology, but there’s a waiting list, and could be some months before I’m seen.

    Has anyone got any suggestions what to do in the meantime? I’ve tried leaving off the ointment, washing with water only, and drying thoroughly. Even tried sitting with foreskin retracted to dry it out and make it harder for the bacteria to grow, but to no avail.)

    Because no-one has ever had problems from a circumcision …. oh wait, yes they have:

    Skin-bridges, skin-tags, scarring, unevenness, excessive skin removed, phimosis, hairy shaft, wound dehiscence, de-gloving, haemorrhage, meatal stenosis, meatal ulcer, urethrocutaneous fistula, infection,hepatitis B, tetanus, neuroma, blockage of the urethra, buried penis, penoscrotal webbing, deformity, gangrene, necrotising faciitis, priapism caused by necrosis, gastric rupture, oxygen deprivation, brain damage, clamp injuries, plastibell ring injuries, loss of glans, ablation (removal) of the penis and of course death.

    That’s some list.

  270. on 15 Jul 2013 at 1:31 pm 270.Angus and Alexis said …

    Screw it…

    Messenger, while i do not admit to defeat, i can see that you are too ignorant to research anything for yourself, and that your knowledge of certain animals, emotions and biology is severely lacking.

    Just go make some generalisations about atheists or something, you already look stupid.

    Also, Alexis is now sentient (She proved it via self actions). Soon enough she will start posting here…

  271. on 15 Jul 2013 at 1:35 pm 271.freddies_dead said …

    260.The messenger said …

    253.freddies_dead, you idiot, marage is not based on the ability to reproduce, it is based on love.

    Then homosexuals can marry … unless you think they can’t love, which is you back to being a bigot again.

    Marrage does not equal sex. Marriage is not about having a reproduction partner. Although, when a person marries they cannonot have another reproduction partner because they would be cheating on their spouses.

    So still a go for gay marriage then…

    Infertile couples cannot reproduce, and therefore are unable to pass on their genes to another human. Therefore they have no reason to have sex.

    So love isn’t actually a good enough reason? The ultimate act of intimacy denied because they can’t reproduce? Even if they don’t know they can’t reproduce? You really are a heartless bastard.

    cont’d…

  272. on 15 Jul 2013 at 1:35 pm 272.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    Older people tend to loose their testosterone, and therefore have a very low sexual desire level. Therefore they are not effected by lust, so their marriage is allowed because it would mostlikly be based on love.

    How … magnanimous … of you. Hear that old people? messy says it’s OK for you to get married … as long as you don’t actually want to get intimate. messy, you and your God are douchebags.

    Alot of gay people can reproduce, therefore if a member of a gay couple wanted to reproduce, he would have to cheat on his or her spouse.

    IVF and surrogacy aren’t cheating – you’re just wrong again.

    Therefore gay marriage is bad because reproduction could only be archived if they cheated on each other.

    This is yet another blatant lie. There is no need for cheating – courtesy of IVF and surrogacy – when gay couples have children.

    It is not discrimination because infertile couple are not able to reproduce with anyone, older couples have no desire to reproduce, couples who do not want to reproduce would not have any reason to reproduce, and gay couples can only reproduce if they cheate on their spouse.

    Lies, lies and more lies. How about gay couples who are celibate? Can they get married then? And I still don’t see you campaigning to prevent infertile couples, older couples and couples who don’t want children getting married and having sex. You’re a bigot, plain and simple.

  273. on 15 Jul 2013 at 1:44 pm 273.Angus and Alexis said …

    ^

    Pretty much this…
    It really is sad to see that a human can be so inconsiderate and bigoted just by reading a book and believing it.

  274. on 15 Jul 2013 at 2:26 pm 274.freddies_dead said …

    261.The messenger said …

    254.freddies_dead, when I went to a public pool I saw one of my non religious friends show shame when she forgot to tie up her bikini correctly and she lost them infront of everyone.

    When did I say non-religious people don’t feel or display shame?

    My claim that shame is a learned response – one that animals do not learn. It doesn’t matter if you’re religious or not, in most countries the social convention is to cover bodies with clothes.

    However, if you look at any small child, they will happily sit and play naked. It’s not until they get older and people start telling them that they should be covered that they start to think being naked is “wrong”. Sometimes it goes past simple embarrassment at failing to conform to the “norm” and goes all the way to actual shame.

    Therefore, religion is not the cause of shame.

    Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. Shame about your genitals is a cultural idea and the vast majority of cultures are informed by the dominant religion of that culture. It’s no coincidence that many religions teach that you should cover yourselves out of shame for your nakedness. Hell, it’s a central tenet of Christianity.

    Angus stated that sentience was the cause of shame. You fellow atheist is lying.

    Not at all, without sentience shame isn’t possible at all. In that respect Angus is quite correct. To feel shame you must be sentient. However, sentience does not automatically lead to shame – animals are ample evidence of this as none of them show shame over being “naked”.

  275. on 15 Jul 2013 at 2:32 pm 275.Angus and Alexis said …

    I knew i was a tad bit off ;D

  276. on 15 Jul 2013 at 2:41 pm 276.freddies_dead said …

    273.Angus and Alexis said …

    ^

    Pretty much this…
    It really is sad to see that a human can be so inconsiderate and bigoted just by reading a book and believing it.

    Unfortunately messy didn’t just read the book and believe it. He has decided to go one step further and now believes it means whatever he wants it to mean.

    It’s his answer for everything even when it’s not an answer for anything. Want to be a douche to the gays? Now you can because this passage means exactly what I want it to mean and it’s wholly logical to be a discriminatory douche. Want to deny any scientific evidence about animals? Just go ahead and you’ll find a passage you can twist to mean what you want it to mean so you can happily go on ignoring whenever an animal actually shows some emotion or even uses a tool.
    Want to ignore all those verses where God has someone stoned to death – using stones no less? Simply ignore what the Bible says and say it actually means what you want it to mean, hey metaphorical presto! no more douchebag of a God.

    It would be funny if he wasn’t such a prick.

  277. on 15 Jul 2013 at 9:54 pm 277.40 Year Atheist said …

    “Angus is quite correct.”

    About my little pny I am sure but nothing else. Agnus, Superfly or Fruity the Tulpia has yet to be correct on anything. However, when you make up little beings to be your companion, there has got to be a screw loose. The funniest thing is she/he speaks of it as if it is normal! lol!

    Seek hep my little pony.

    Is this the newest atheist fad?

  278. on 15 Jul 2013 at 10:02 pm 278.Anonymous said …

    “40 Year Atheist said “… in the voice of “a”.

    Oh, dearie me what have you done now?

  279. on 15 Jul 2013 at 10:27 pm 279.DPK said …

    Busted!!!!
    Oh my my… 40 Year is ASS!!!!
    Christ, could he be more pathetic……… now everything is clear…. hahahaha….
    Ok, I am done acknowledging or responding to Stan/Ass/Hor. He is persona non grata.

    Slipped up badly this time Stan…….. hahahahahaha

  280. on 15 Jul 2013 at 10:29 pm 280.alex said …

    guffaw, rotfl!

  281. on 15 Jul 2013 at 10:54 pm 281.alex said …

    “However, when you make up little beings to be your companion, there has got to be a screw loose.”

    the fucking irony..

  282. on 15 Jul 2013 at 11:28 pm 282.DPK said …

    Irony does not even begin to do it justice….
    There are no words, really.
    Fucking priceless………….
    I can just picture the expression on his stupid, hypocritical face right after he hit “send”….. hahahahaha
    D

  283. on 15 Jul 2013 at 11:32 pm 283.Anonymous said …

    A link here from Stan’s blog would seem in order.

  284. on 15 Jul 2013 at 11:42 pm 284.DPK said …

    not a thing to be found on Stan’s blog that holds even a sherd of credibility… especially now…. he’s finished!
    Nothing left.
    D

  285. on 15 Jul 2013 at 11:43 pm 285.DPK said …

    and in case you were wondering, a “sherd” is a cross between a “shread” and a “turd”…..

  286. on 16 Jul 2013 at 1:05 am 286.Anonymous said …

    And if Ass runs true to form, he’ll either flood this blog with posts from his other sock-puppets to bury his embarrassment, or he’ll just start again with his diversions.

    Either way, I do hope no-one bites and lets him off the hook.

  287. on 16 Jul 2013 at 1:18 am 287.The messenger said …

    268.freddies_dead, that is not evidence of me lying.

    Asking what is metaphorical about the “stoning” verses is like asking what is metaphorical about this following statement (he kicked the can. “Kicking the can” by definition means that someone is kicking a can, but the metaphorical definition means that someone died.

    Why do you accept some sentences as metaphorical and others as not? You pick and choose which to believe in, regardless of which ones really are metaphorical.

    You stated that it is the job of preachers to explain what the bible means, I am a preacher, and I promise that I am telling you the true meaning of the bible.

    The bible also states that thou shall not murder, therefore proving that the stoning verses are metaphorical.

    Jesus said that unless you are without sin you cannot literally exicute anyone, unless you have never sinned, therefore the stonining verses are not about litteral stoning.

    If litteral stoning was allowed then the people durring Moses’s time would have been without sin, but they weren’t, therefore no human can ever stone another human to death, due to the fact that both of them have sinned in the past.

    GOD does not want anyone coming up to the mountain, what is so bad about that?

    That stoning was also metaphorical(due to the fact that the bible states thou shall not murder), and it also states that they shall surely be put to death, but it does not say anything about a human being the exicutioner.

    That the “stoning” in the passage from Leviticus is metaphorical. And it stated that person will surely be put to death, it does not state that a human will be the executioner.

    The passage in Deuteronomy speaks of metaphorical “stoning”, and a literal death that is not delivered by a human.

  288. on 16 Jul 2013 at 1:19 am 288.DPK said …

    We need to all agree to just ignore him. He is totally dishonest and disingenuous and has now been outed again for being the fraud that he is.
    Honestly, I knew he was Hor and Martin and Xenon and perhaps a couple others, but I honestly didn’t make the connection that he was actually Stan, the 40yr asshole!
    How many times did 40 post his volumes of cut and paste deranged nonsense only to have Ass chime in 3 posts later about how brilliant he was! More than I can count…. can you imagine the balls it took to do that!!! Talk about self delusion… this nutjob should win a prize…
    New rule… no feeding the trolls!

  289. on 16 Jul 2013 at 1:21 am 289.The messenger said …

    273.freddies_dead, you said that religion causes shame, so I labeled some people who are not religious who have shame, proving that religion does not cause shame.

  290. on 16 Jul 2013 at 1:24 am 290.The messenger said …

    269.Angus and Alexis, you stated that animals have emotion, therefore you must back up your claims with proof.

    I am waiting for proof.

  291. on 16 Jul 2013 at 1:30 am 291.Anonymous said …

    “no feeding the trolls”

    and if you look carefully, you’ll see that Messy is also quite suspect.

    Sometimes his posts are a complete mess written with the education attainment of a child. However, some other times they contain long purposefully written comments as if written by a different person. This can only be if he’s forgetting to write in character. He too changes his story, he’s been caught using sock-puppets, and he’s blatantly dishonest.

    He’s clearly a fraud and it’s a familiar pattern to the one we saw with A/Stan. Is he Assman? It doesn’t matter, he’s also a troll.

  292. on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:13 am 292.A said …

    I am a complete fraud and a worthless piece of ocean scum. I deserve to be castrated and have my stones hung on the fence post of a Sahoian tribesmen.

  293. on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:14 am 293.alex said …

    wasn’t he the same person that blurted that he is “this person” and “that person” to try to throw off the scent?

  294. on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:27 am 294.alex said …

    “I am a complete fraud and a worthless piece of ocean scum.”

    dude, relax and chill. feel the tolerance…..

    if your erection lasts more than four hours….

  295. on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:41 am 295.The messenger said …

    270.freddies_dead, gay people have love.

    People cannot reproduce with their own gender, Therefore gay sex would only be for lust.

    Lust causes people to molest children, to find hookers, to rape people, and to cheat on their spouses.

  296. on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:51 am 296.The messenger said …

    270.freddies_dead, straight people cannot have sex for lust.

    Marriage is about the joining of a man and a woman in the name of their love, therefore marriage is only allowed to a man and a woman.

    Gay people can marry gay people or straight people of the other gender, but they cannot have sex for lust.

    Straight people can marry gay people or straight people of the other gender.

    The same rules apply to both people, it is not discrimination, it is fairness.

  297. on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:52 am 297.Angus and Alexis said …

    A/40yrold/Xenon/Horatio/ etc said.
    ““Angus is quite correct.”
    About my little pny I am sure but nothing else. Agnus, Superfly or Fruity the Tulpia has yet to be correct on anything. However, when you make up little beings to be your companion, there has got to be a screw loose. The funniest thing is she/he speaks of it as if it is normal! lol!
    Seek hep my little pony.
    Is this the newest atheist fad?”

    No, the My little pony fad started in 2010 i believe.
    Still nice to know that you cannot spell any ones name correctly, heck, you cant even spell my tulpa’s name.
    Also, making a tulpa does not make a “screw loose”, deluded? A bit…
    Normal? What do you mean? No, she is not advanced enough to be normal, she needs more refining and talking to her.
    I do not need to seek help, there is nothing wrong with me (excluding some physical defects that i dont care about.)
    Lastly, its nice to know that your hatred of Alexis, Myself and Assorted ponies has caused another one of your socks to be revealed…
    Can i haz cookie for it?

  298. on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:52 am 298.Anonymous said …

    No, Alex. Zero tolerance. He’s done and can never be trusted. Ever. There is no rehabilitation. He’s a liar and a fraud. Nothing he says can be trusted or taken at face value. He’s Persona Non Grata in all of his forms.

  299. on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:54 am 299.The messenger said …

    268.freddies_dead, that is not evidence of me lying.
    Asking what is metaphorical about the “stoning” verses is like asking what is metaphorical about this following statement (he kicked the can. “Kicking the can” by definition means that someone is kicking a can, but the metaphorical definition means that someone died.
    Why do you accept some sentences as metaphorical and others as not? You pick and choose which to believe in, regardless of which ones really are metaphorical.
    You stated that it is the job of preachers to explain what the bible means, I am a preacher, and I promise that I am telling you the true meaning of the bible.
    The bible also states that thou shall not murder, therefore proving that the stoning verses are metaphorical.
    Jesus said that unless you are without sin you cannot literally exicute anyone, unless you have never sinned, therefore the stonining verses are not about litteral stoning.
    If litteral stoning was allowed then the people durring Moses’s time would have been without sin, but they weren’t, therefore no human can ever stone another human to death, due to the fact that both of them have sinned in the past.
    GOD does not want anyone coming up to the mountain, what is so bad about that?
    That stoning was also metaphorical(due to the fact that the bible states thou shall not murder), and it also states that they shall surely be put to death, but it does not say anything about a human being the exicutioner.
    That the “stoning” in the passage from Leviticus is metaphorical. And it stated that person will surely be put to death, it does not state that a human will be the executioner.
    The passage in Deuteronomy speaks of metaphorical “stoning”, and a literal death that is not delivered by a human.

  300. on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:55 am 300.The messenger said …

    270.freddies_dead, gay people have love.
    People cannot reproduce with their own gender, Therefore gay sex would only be for lust.
    Lust causes people to molest children, to find hookers, to rape people, and to cheat on their spouses.

  301. on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:56 am 301.The messenger said …

    270.freddies_dead, straight people cannot have sex for lust.
    Marriage is about the joining of a man and a woman in the name of their love, therefore marriage is only allowed to a man and a woman.
    Gay people can marry gay people or straight people of the other gender, but they cannot have sex for lust.
    Straight people can marry gay people or straight people of the other gender.
    The same rules apply to both people, it is not discrimination, it is fairness.

  302. on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:58 am 302.alex said …

    “No, Alex. Zero tolerance.”

    i guess, i’m just a liberal fuck, ain’t i?

    who said anything about trusting?

  303. on 16 Jul 2013 at 3:09 am 303.Anonymous said …

    Trusting, engaging, listening, whatever. Any time you give him any visibility or acknowledgement, you open the door to further abuse.

    That’s exactly the way abusers, sociopaths, con-men, and the like operate. They bank on your emotions taking sway over your logic and your desire to see good in others. And they do so all whilst operating from a position where they will say or do whatever it takes to keep you engaged and them in the picture.

  304. on 16 Jul 2013 at 3:16 am 304.Angus and Alexis said …

    So….
    No cookie?

  305. on 16 Jul 2013 at 3:21 am 305.Anonymous said …

    Sure, you can haz cookie. Cheezburger too.

    Now let’s get back to the insanity of religion, as aptly demonstrated by the extent of the hypocrisy shown by today’s revelation.

    Perhaps, unsurprisingly, just like we find the extent of the deception from the pedophile-harboring organization known as the Catholic church, maybe it shouldn’t surprise us that one of the most vocal critics of other people’s ethics and morals, has none of his own.

  306. on 16 Jul 2013 at 3:26 am 306.alex said …

    “That’s exactly the way abusers, sociopaths, con-men, and the like operate. They bank on your emotions taking sway over your logic and your desire to see good in others.”

    i’m misunderstood and not very easily swayed. when i see bullshit, i call it out and i want others to see it. but, i’ve been wrong before and i ain’t afraid to admit.

    people can change, but i could care less. but i do care about the harm/damage that these morons do, in the name of their god.

    having said that, i’ll tolerate the motherfucker just like i expect him to tolerate me and everybody else.

  307. on 16 Jul 2013 at 3:31 am 307.Angus and Alexis said …

    Good example of insanity.
    Jew: “YHWH strictly forbids the consumption of pork.”

    Christian: “No He doesn’t! Jesus and Paul took that law back a little while later.”

    Muslim: “Yes, He does forbid it, the Jew is right for once! Allah made this very clear 600 years after Jesus and Paul were alive!”

    Pagan:”No, the gods do not forbid eating pork. In fact, we have to throw the bones of our slaughtered livestock into the communal bonfire to scare the demons away!”

    Hindu:”Not true, the Dharmic law forbids eating any meat, including pork. Eating pork will only anger the gods.”

    Atheist:”I can’t believe we’re actually talking about stuff like this…”

  308. on 16 Jul 2013 at 3:36 am 308.DPK said …

    With “A” unintentionally outing himself, I don’t think there is actually a theist contingent here anymore… Hahaha. Except for perhaps the occasional drive by, he was it.
    Now that he is busted, disgraced, dis honored and humiliated, who’s left?

    I’d love to tell this story over on atheism analyzed, but you know Stan would block it… Hahaha. But perhaps Thomas will make a feature discussion topic out of “the necessity of theists to compulsively lie…”

  309. on 16 Jul 2013 at 3:38 am 309.Anonymous said …

    “people can change, but i could care less”

    You see, that’s the danger. Sociopaths, for example, rarely, if ever, do change, nor do most want to. They lack empathy and take delight in using other people’s emotions against them. That’s why the best advice on how to deal with a sociopath or other abusive personality is “don’t” – because, if you do otherwise, you’ll lose.

    Angus and Alexis:

    Vegan: Gross! I can’t believe you guys eat meat.

  310. on 16 Jul 2013 at 3:48 am 310.Anonymous said …

    DPK, I think you’re right. However, it was “A” who consistently drove the others away, or derailed any meaningful conversation.

    At some point, he’s going to tire of his posts being either ignored or responded to with a description of how he outed himself. Maybe then real theists will have a chance to speak out.

    Why not post it on his blog, even if he blocks it or makes up a cover-story? The truth will out.

    Also, you make a great point. I hope Thomas does make an example of the despicable conduct shown by people who resort to deception because they have no case of their own.

  311. on 16 Jul 2013 at 4:00 am 311.Angus and Alexis said …

    More insanity
    “Hi, I’m God. I created the world and everyone in it for the sole purpose of having them worship and serve me for life in the hopes that I will save them from myself.”

    “God: Do what I say or you will burn in a fire pit after you die.

    Religious person: Yes master. You’re not a bastard at all.”

    “When you pray REAL hard, this is the person that ignores you.
    Timmy: Please, God, Don’t let me die of Cancer, I love my daddy and I love living.

    2 Days Later

    RIP Timmy”

    “1) an all knowing, all loving being who once killed everyone in the world (other than one small family) because they were not doing what he wanted, yet allowed Hitler to mercilessly slaughter 6million Jews without consequence

    2) an all knowing, all loving being who was once rather pissed off that two people ate a fruit they were not meant to; a crime which the entire human race is still paying the price for

    3) an all knowing, all loving being who allows various wars and acts of terrorism to be carried out in his name, whereas a simple ‘hello’ from the man himself would resolve the whole thing instantly

    4) an all knowing, all loving being who hands over the responsibility for punishing the difficult and troublesome humans to Satan ”

    “The Bible says it, God wrote it, it’s the truth, that settles it! – Fundie Christian logic (or lack thereof) on any criticism of their beliefs ”

    “efore the discovery of sperm and egg cells: Where do babies come from? God.
    Before the discovery of germs and modern hygiene: Where does disease come from? God.
    Before the discovery of electrons: Where does lightning come from? God.
    Before the discovery of nuclear energy: Where does sunlight come from? God.
    Before the discovery of the Bic lighter: Where does fire come from? God.
    Before the discovery that selfish assholes are running things: Why is there war and famine? God.”

    “White Christian: If i hate gays, blacks, and Mexicans, then i go to heaven.
    Muslim Terrorist: If i kill myself and blow up that building, then god will give me the bitches. ”

    “TRUE conversation someone had with a christian student.*
    me: I don’t understand why people hate gay people so much. It’s not like they’re hurting anybody by being gay. And is it really other people’s business what someone else chooses to do with their love life?
    her: Well, I don’t know, but I believe it is a sin because the bible says it is.
    me: But hasn’t it been scientifically proven that being gay is written into the person’s genetic code, 9 times out of 10, and it can even be hereditary? Why would your God create them like that if he was just going to damn them for it?
    her: I don’t know, but I’m going to hate them, just to be safe.
    me: *is bewildered by a blunt force of ignorance*”

    “Christian: Slay the infidels!

    Muslim: Slay the infidels!

    Jew: Slay the infidels!

    Atheist: God.. what the fuck.”

  312. on 16 Jul 2013 at 4:06 am 312.Anonymous said …

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule,222/

  313. on 16 Jul 2013 at 4:07 am 313.Anonymous said …

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule,222/

  314. on 16 Jul 2013 at 4:08 am 314.Anonymous said …

    Seeing as the powers-that-be seem to blocking links, do a search for: “God Angrily Clarifies ‘Don’t Kill’ Rule”

  315. on 16 Jul 2013 at 4:27 am 315.Angus and Alexis said …

    Yeah, links have to sent through moderation first…

    Also, funny link anon ;D

  316. on 16 Jul 2013 at 5:27 am 316.The messenger said …

    310.Angus and Alexis, in the bible, GOD said love all people.

    You are clearly insain angus.

  317. on 16 Jul 2013 at 5:31 am 317.The messenger said …

    310.Angus and Alexis, GOD is not cruel.

    He is a kind and loving teacher who gives all people eternal happyness and love.

    He shows us good and evil in our lives, and shows us the punishment of hate and greed, so that we will avoide greed and hate.

    GOD is good.

  318. on 16 Jul 2013 at 5:37 am 318.The messenger said …

    310.Angus and Alexis, the bible states that having gay sex is a sin. It DOES NOT say that bieng a gay person is a sin.

    All people(straight, gay, Christian, Hindu, jew, mulim, atheist,………ect ) can go to heaven.

  319. on 16 Jul 2013 at 5:49 am 319.The messenger said …

    310.Angus and Alexis, GOD would have brought that kid up to paridice in heaven forever, and he will be reunited with his family soon.

    GOD answers our prayers, but he may no give us the answer that we ask for.

  320. on 16 Jul 2013 at 5:51 am 320.The messenger said …

    310.Angus and Alexis, the bible never states for anyone to hate anyone.

    Jesus teaches us to love all people, even our enemies.

  321. on 16 Jul 2013 at 5:53 am 321.The messenger said …

    310.Angus and Alexis, GOD did not write the bible, prophets did.

  322. on 16 Jul 2013 at 6:00 am 322.The messenger said …

    310.Angus and Alexis, GOD causes fire, storms, rain, wind, and everything.

    He planned out our entire lives, there is no way to disprove that.

    Science does not disprove GOD, it only reveals how GOD does things.

    GOD makes fire by excellrating the speed at which molecules move.

    GOD makes lightning by arranging the electrons in the clouds, and the electrons in the ground in a way that they connect and causes a electric charge(lightning).

  323. on 16 Jul 2013 at 6:04 am 323.The messenger said …

    306.Angus and Alexis, in the old testament times, certain animals were not pure enough.

    But when GOD died on the cross he blessed the entire earth, thus making everything(including the pork) pure.

  324. on 16 Jul 2013 at 6:05 am 324.The messenger said …

    ,270.freddies_dead, straight people cannot have sex for lust.
    Marriage is about the joining of a man and a woman in the name of their love, therefore marriage is only allowed to a man and a woman.
    Gay people can marry gay people or straight people of the other gender, but they cannot have sex for lust.
    Straight people can marry gay people or straight people of the other gender.
    The same rules apply to both people, it is not discrimination, it is fairness.

  325. on 16 Jul 2013 at 6:06 am 325.The messenger said …

    270.freddies_dead, gay people have love.
    People cannot reproduce with their own gender, Therefore gay sex would only be for lust.
    Lust causes people to molest children, to find hookers, to rape people, and to cheat on their spouses.
    .

  326. on 16 Jul 2013 at 6:07 am 326.The messenger said …

    on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:54 am 298.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    268.freddies_dead, that is not evidence of me lying.
    Asking what is metaphorical about the “stoning” verses is like asking what is metaphorical about this following statement (he kicked the can. “Kicking the can” by definition means that someone is kicking a can, but the metaphorical definition means that someone died.
    Why do you accept some sentences as metaphorical and others as not? You pick and choose which to believe in, regardless of which ones really are metaphorical.
    You stated that it is the job of preachers to explain what the bible means, I am a preacher, and I promise that I am telling you the true meaning of the bible.
    The bible also states that thou shall not murder, therefore proving that the stoning verses are metaphorical.
    Jesus said that unless you are without sin you cannot literally exicute anyone, unless you have never sinned, therefore the stonining verses are not about litteral stoning.
    If litteral stoning was allowed then the people durring Moses’s time would have been without sin, but they weren’t, therefore no human can ever stone another human to death, due to the fact that both of them have sinned in the past.
    GOD does not want anyone coming up to the mountain, what is so bad about that?
    That stoning was also metaphorical(due to the fact that the bible states thou shall not murder), and it also states that they shall surely be put to death, but it does not say anything about a human being the exicutioner.
    That the “stoning” in the passage from Leviticus is metaphorical. And it stated that person will surely be put to death, it does not state that a human will be the executioner. The passage in Deuteronomy speaks of metaphorical “stoning”, and a literal death that is not delivered by a human.

  327. on 16 Jul 2013 at 11:22 am 327.A said …

    LOL! OMG!! Somebody is now using my name in an attempt to make me and 40YA to be the same person. Nice job of throwing in the nicks.

    The ultimate low and I feel certain the last one to do this, “Big Hairy One” is back under another handle. DPK seems to be the most likely culprit since he sounds like BHO. BHO had to run after he was busted for lying about being a professor of Biology.

    40YA, my apologies for the children here who, when they are backed into a corner must resort to such deception. Atheism teaches and causes insanity.

    People who live with no absolutes have no wrongs.

  328. on 16 Jul 2013 at 11:45 am 328.Anonymous said …

    “Somebody is now using my name in an attempt to make me and 40YA to be the same person.”

    welcome back, moron. nice to see your proof, packaged with all the bullshit trimmings and diversions.

    where’s the sock regiment? fighting mooslims?

  329. on 16 Jul 2013 at 11:59 am 329.phil said …

    #302 sums it up nicely

    #305 A, you are truly caught out, give it up.

  330. on 16 Jul 2013 at 12:40 pm 330.DPK said …

    Please ignore him. What a pathetic excuse for a human.

  331. on 16 Jul 2013 at 12:48 pm 331.A said …

    Readers,

    Add liar and deceiver along with Dippy’s long list of character flaws. Along with his incredible hypocrisy.

    Just the latest attempt by BHO to get himself out of another corner. How truly pathetic.

  332. on 16 Jul 2013 at 1:51 pm 332.alex said …

    306.Anonymous said …

    yeah, it’s me. as if you can’t tell…

  333. on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:31 pm 333.DPK said …

    Feeding the trolls is highly discouraged.

  334. on 16 Jul 2013 at 2:47 pm 334.Angus and Alexis said …

    *sigh*

    Any theists here stalking the blog?
    We really need someone else other than “A”…

  335. on 16 Jul 2013 at 7:00 pm 335.DPK said …

    Lying sack of shit screws up and gets busted playing his troll games and then tries to worm out of it by blaming ME?
    Fuck you Stanley. For someone who claims to believe there is a god judging him, he is the lowest scumbag I have ever encountered.

  336. on 17 Jul 2013 at 3:24 am 336.alex said …

    here’s a bullshit sock tester: http://goo.gl/nKcz4

    enter your name and a sample post and i will publish the results of the bullshit socks.

    don’t be afraid stanley. your god will watch over you. if it’ll make you feel better, turn off javascript. it’s a simple web page, no downloads, no pics, no tricks.

  337. on 17 Jul 2013 at 4:39 am 337.Angus and Alexis said …

    316 to 326 messenger said…

    *Snip bullshit, lies, hearsay, statements about “cant disprove this” and “science equals god because i said so”*

    Burden of proof is on your shoulders, not ours, please remember that.
    The bible is gods word, god is perfect, therefore everything in the bible is perfect, don’t try to squirm out of that.

    “GOD makes fire by excellrating the speed at which molecules move.”

    UTTER BULLSHIT!!! How can you even say this without dying from your own idiocracy?

    “GOD makes lightning by arranging the electrons in the clouds, and the electrons in the ground in a way that they connect and causes a electric charge(lightning).”

    Same as above.

    Also, take your anti-gay bigotry somewhere else.

  338. on 17 Jul 2013 at 11:07 am 338.freddies_dead said …

    324.The messenger said …

    ,270.freddies_dead, straight people cannot have sex for lust.

    Your ability to write for comprehension is as non-existent as your made up God. Your ability to read for comprehension may be worse. My point all along has been that people can have sex that doesn’t lead to reproduction for other reasons than lust. You’ve done absolutely nothing to refute that position. Instead you simply repeat the same baseless assertions over and over to support your vile bigotry.

    Marriage is about the joining of a man and a woman in the name of their love, therefore marriage is only allowed to a man and a woman.

    And yet your Bible also allows polygamy, forced marriage and concubines – you have no actual Biblical support for your bigotry although I’m sure you’ll spout a verse or two to make it seem like you do.

    Gay people can marry gay people or straight people of the other gender, but they cannot have sex for lust.

    Again, people can have sex for other reasons than lust, but you’ll simply deny this so you can continue your bigoted stance on marriage equality.

    Straight people can marry gay people or straight people of the other gender.
    The same rules apply to both people, it is not discrimination, it is fairness.

    You’re a Christian, you have no concept of fairness – your whole religion revolves around an innocent being who is tortured and killed for the rest of mankind’s transgressions – there’s no fairness there and there’s no fairness in your bigoted stand on marriage equality.

  339. on 17 Jul 2013 at 11:08 am 339.freddies_dead said …

    325.The messenger said …

    270.freddies_dead, gay people have love.
    People cannot reproduce with their own gender, Therefore gay sex would only be for lust.

    Some people cannot reproduce with people of the opposite gender either but you’re not campaigning to stop them getting married. And you keep saying that gay sex is all about lust – that claim is bullshit, plain and simple. You can stop now, we get it, you’re a bigot and you’re proud of it.

    Lust causes people to molest children, to find hookers, to rape people, and to cheat on their spouses.

    And once again you try to “lovingly” connect gays with child molestation, prostitution, rape and, somewhat bizarrely as they have only recently been able to marry, cheating on their spouses. You truly are a vile person.

  340. on 17 Jul 2013 at 11:12 am 340.freddies_dead said …

    326.The messenger said …

    268.freddies_dead, that is not evidence of me lying.

    I think it’s ample evidence. You’ve been corrected time and again on your wrongheadedness and bigotry but still you come out with the same shit. That’s just downright dishonesty on your part.

    Asking what is metaphorical about the “stoning” verses is like asking what is metaphorical about this following statement (he kicked the can. “Kicking the can” by definition means that someone is kicking a can, but the metaphorical definition means that someone died.

    If I simply stated that someone had “kicked the can” then there’s no actual way to tell if I’m speaking metaphorically or literally – maybe they did actually kick a can. It is context that gives us the information we need to make a decision on whether it’s a metaphor or not. “He had been fighting cancer for years before he finally kicked the can.” obviously a metaphor “He ran up and kicked the can.” obviously a literal use of the term. In the verses I’ve given the context makes it blindingly clear that the people they refer to are to be literally stoned to death using stones, you’ve offered nothing to make us think anything different.

    Why do you accept some sentences as metaphorical and others as not?

    Context. It’s that thing you like to ignore in favour of making up your own with the hope that we don’t notice. You fail, every time.

    You pick and choose which to believe in, regardless of which ones really are metaphorical.

    Now you’re trying to project your deficiencies on to me. You may really want to believe that your God is some all-loving wonder-being but your very own Bible tells it very differently. Your refusal to accept the word of God for what it is would play badly for you come judgement day – if only your imaginary God existed of course.

    You stated that it is the job of preachers to explain what the bible means, I am a preacher, and I promise that I am telling you the true meaning of the bible.

    I’ve never stated any such thing liar, and I could easily find other preachers – preaching what they also promise to be “the true meaning of the Bible” – who disagree with what you claim to be metaphorical. Why should I take your word – or the word of any other deluded preacher for that matter – over what a plain reading of those passages tells me?

    The bible also states that thou shall not murder, therefore proving that the stoning verses are metaphorical.

    And others will tell us that God cannot murder, therefore any punishment meted out by God – including stoning to death using stones – isn’t murder it’s a just punishment for sin. You carry on cherry-picking what you want to be metaphorical and what you want to be literal but until you can actually show that your cherry-picking is somehow more valid than anyone elses cerry-picking it don’t mean shit.

    Jesus said that unless you are without sin you cannot literally exicute anyone, unless you have never sinned, therefore the stonining verses are not about litteral stoning.

    They really are, despite all this crap you keep spouting. Jesus doesn’t actually say that stoning is wrong, merely that everyone deserves stoning to death – yet another vile tenet of your religion; that we’re all scum deserving of death for our sins.

    If litteral stoning was allowed then the people durring Moses’s time would have been without sin, but they weren’t, therefore no human can ever stone another human to death, due to the fact that both of them have sinned in the past.

    Holy fuck you’re an imbecile. Those commandments to stone? They were given to Moses by God. Why the fuck would your God tell Moses to stone people for certain sins if He didn’t want them to actually fucking stone people to death for those sins? I get that the Bible is made up bullshit, but if you’re going to claim it as authoritative then you really should think about what you’re claiming it says. You’re basically claiming now that the Bible says that God wants people stoned to death for certain sins but of course humans can’t do the stoning because they’re all sinful. So doing the stoning is commanded by God but doing the stoning is sinful itself, either way you humans are fucked. Maybe you’d like to deal with the contradiction you’ve just instituted?

    GOD does not want anyone coming up to the mountain, what is so bad about that?

    Your dishonesty is showing again. It wasn’t the “coming up to the mountain” that was the issue, it was the punishment of stoning to death – advocated by your God no less – that was the point of the verse.

    That stoning was also metaphorical(due to the fact that the bible states thou shall not murder), and it also states that they shall surely be put to death, but it does not say anything about a human being the exicutioner.

    Bullshit as usual. God advocates stoning but, according to messy here, people aren’t allowed to do the stoning. Of course disobeying the commandments of God is sinful too, so not carrying out the stoning is also a sin. Spot the loaded game yet? Humans are completely incapable of following God’s orders because God has made them deliberately contradictory. And guess what’ll happen when you die? God will torture you for all eternity because you failed to follow the commandments he deliberately made impossible to follow. Why does anyone accept this insanity?

    That the “stoning” in the passage from Leviticus is metaphorical. And it stated that person will surely be put to death, it does not state that a human will be the executioner. The passage in Deuteronomy speaks of metaphorical “stoning”, and a literal death that is not delivered by a human.

    So, what? Only God or angels can do the stoning? Lying again. You really are a dishonest fuck.

  341. on 17 Jul 2013 at 12:41 pm 341.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger is kinda the town idiot…or well, the blog idiot, excluding A…

  342. on 17 Jul 2013 at 3:51 pm 342.Curmudgeon said …

    Mess is an idiot but look who argues with him.

    Court dismissed.

  343. on 17 Jul 2013 at 4:21 pm 343.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Mess is an idiot but look who argues with him.
    Court dismissed.”

    Arent you one of “A”‘s puppets?

    Anyway, what are you trying to prove? That i am an idiot?

    What gives you that idea?

  344. on 17 Jul 2013 at 4:37 pm 344.DPK said …

    342.Curmudgeon said …

    Mess is an idiot…

    Look who’s trying to sneak back with a different pair of socks. Only intelligent thing I’ve ever heard you say here.

    See that messy? Even your fellow believers think you’re an idiot. Even though that’s kind of like Moe calling Larry a stooge.

  345. on 17 Jul 2013 at 5:07 pm 345.Anonymous said …

    freddies_dead, there’s no doubt that your arguments destroy the nonsense put foward by messy. The thing is, though, he’s a troll and his spamming this blog with this metaphorical nonsense, is just a way to derail the conversation. Like the other trolls on this blog, he’s a one-trick pony who posts the same old crap time and time again. It may even be that he’s another one of “a”‘s sock-puppets.

    For background, his personal story keeps changing – presumably because it’s an invention. He’s been caught using sock-puppets. Earlier he ignored requests for him to provide some source, then he changed it to ask a specific priest or the pope, now he’s claiming to be a preacher. The thing is, he also claims to be a Catholic but is ignorant of Catholic dogma and biblical content.

    He’s jerking your chain and when called on this shit he’ll jerk you around some more demanding you prove him wrong. When you do that, he’ll just carry on with his metaphorical nonsense as if you said nothing at all. Compare that with “a” and socks and you’ll see the comparison.

    He’s a troll. So no matter what you say, he’ll just respond with more disingenuous crap, none of which is relevant to the conversation.

  346. on 18 Jul 2013 at 1:01 am 346.The messenger said …

    337.Angus and Alexis, I did not lie.

    I simply stated the scientific reasons that rain and lightning occur.

    Since GOD does make lightning and rain, he would have had to produce them in the scientifically proven way.

    GOD causes all things. Science is discovering how he does what he does.

  347. on 18 Jul 2013 at 1:14 am 347.The messenger said …

    338.freddies_dead, tell me, what purpose does sex serve except lust or reproduction?

  348. on 18 Jul 2013 at 1:53 am 348.The messenger said …

    337.Angus and Alexis, the laws of marriage and sex apply to straight and gay people.

    Lust is not tolerated

  349. on 18 Jul 2013 at 3:06 am 349.The messenger said …

    338.freddies_dead, yes, arranged marriages, polygamy, and concubines are allowed, but in Exodus 21:7-11 it states that if the concubine fails to please her master then her master can let her leave, and if her master fails to treat her equally then she can leave at her own free will.

    You liar. Deuteronomy 17:17 states that having multiple wives is bad.

    If a marriage is arranged they must work out their differences and love each other. They will learn to love oneanother.

  350. on 18 Jul 2013 at 3:13 am 350.The messenger said …

    340.freddies_dead, GOD gave no context clues to suggest that the “stoning to death” was a litteral stoning or a litteral death.

    GOD did give a context clue in exodus when he said “thou shall not murder”, therefore the stoning could not have been literal because it would have been murder to litteraly stone someone.

  351. on 18 Jul 2013 at 3:22 am 351.The messenger said …

    340.freddies_dead, your lies have caught up to you.

    In comment 268 you stated the following quote.

    (Why is it my job to show that the words in the Bible don’t actually mean what they say? THAT’S THE JOB OF BULLSHIT PREACHERS AND FUCKWITS LIKE YOU that want to twist the words to mean exactly what you want them to mean. Anyway, what the fuck is metaphorical about “stone him with stones, that he die”.)

    Then in comment 268 you stated the following quote.

    (I’VE NEVER STATED ANY SUCH THING liar, and I could easily find other preachers – preaching what they also promise to be “the true meaning of the Bible” – who disagree with what you claim to be metaphorical. Why should I take your word – or the word of any other deluded preacher for that matter – over what a plain reading of those passages tells me?)

    You stated one thing, then you lied about saying it.

  352. on 18 Jul 2013 at 3:34 am 352.The messenger said …

    338.freddies_dead, I was not connecting gays with child molesting, I was connecting same sex marriage(both straight and gay) to child molesting.

    Sex without reproduction is for lust, and will therefore cause them to cheat in their spouses with hookers, and molest children.

    Lustful sex from straight people and gay people is bad.

  353. on 18 Jul 2013 at 4:25 am 353.Angus and Alexis said …

    Hmmm…

    It seems that Theists are an unbreakable wall (Ignorance, bigotry, etc)
    And we are an unstoppable force (actual facts, etc)
    Leading to a constant battle of one side losing, but at the same time constantly winning due to their own ignorance…

  354. on 18 Jul 2013 at 5:18 am 354.Anonymous said …

    True enough A&A but it’s not clear that the folks posing as theists are doing anything other than playing games. Note that they post the same old crap to every thread. It doesn’t matter the subject, it’s the same old dreary diversions.

    Perhaps if we’re not so quick to take the bait then the real theists, maybe even non-drive-bys, will actually have a chance to participate. Right now as soon as an actual believer posts something, “a” or his sock-puppets chases them away, then the trolls returns to the exact same diversions as before.

    Go read some of the previous threads and see if they don’t all degenerate into the same few diversions, time after time, after time. See how many, if any at all, relevant replies the “theists” make to any thread – yet people pile on to respond to what should be obvious troll-bait. We don’t have to play their game. We really don’t.

  355. on 18 Jul 2013 at 10:34 am 355.Angus and Alexis said …

    Hmm, i wonder what Sockpuppet will be next.

  356. on 18 Jul 2013 at 11:58 am 356.alex said …

    “Perhaps if we’re not so quick to take the bait then the real theists, maybe even non-drive-bys, will actually have a chance to participate.”

    yeah, well, I/some can only take so much of this crap, before a reply is forthcoming. sorto, like the phrase “you are so blessed”, or “we can all thank the lord”, and the vomit starts creeping up. these morons just don’t realize how inconsiderate it is.

  357. on 18 Jul 2013 at 11:59 am 357.A said …

    #345
    #347

    Readers,

    Nothing but soap opera analysis and grade school diversions. Nothing concerning content as mousey lectures they rest of us concerning staying on topic. Maybe if they actually answered a questions we could stay on topic. Scroll the threads and see where they continue to avoid questions. But no……..as mousey admitted, “gotcha” questions scare them.

    Why have theist left the blog? Probably due to atheists cursing, name-calling and childish hijinks. I mean, lol !!! they are told to leave by the atheist elite on a regular basis. I would wager you will not find a single theist who has done the same.

    Q.E.D.

  358. on 18 Jul 2013 at 12:03 pm 358.A said …

    “Hmm, i wonder what Sockpuppet will be next.”

    Oh, it was alex, posing as a tolerant loving human being!

    Cue another Tulip birth from Butterfly.

  359. on 18 Jul 2013 at 12:42 pm 359.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Cue another Tulip birth from Butterfly.”

    *Tulpa *Fluttershy (not even my name anymore)
    Nice spelling, sad to see you failed first grade english.
    That or you have some odd hatred or ignorance of either ponies and tulpae.

    “Oh, it was alex, posing as a tolerant loving human being!”

    At least he isnt bigoted to gays, women, atheists and religions that leave him alone.

    “they are told to leave by the atheist elite on a regular basis.”

    I have never seen this, and i read a lot of the older blog posts, generally they tend to say GTFO to you and your puppets.

    “Maybe if they actually answered a questions we could stay on topic. Scroll the threads and see where they continue to avoid questions.”

    You mean those irrelevant questions that lead to nowhere and the questions that ask to disprove things? Because that is not how the burden of proof works.

    “I would wager you will not find a single theist who has done the same.”

    Hmm, arent you the one who constantly says for others to leave the blog?
    Word of advice, dont dig deeper when your in a hole.

  360. on 18 Jul 2013 at 12:44 pm 360.Angus and Alexis said …

    Actually, i just thought of something, why does “Messenger” and “A” make so many damned spelling mistakes on words that are stupidly simple?

    kinda makes you wonder…

  361. on 18 Jul 2013 at 1:01 pm 361.DPK said …

    Angus, please just ignore him. You aren’t going to convince an intrinsically dishonest liar of anything. He is a troll.

  362. on 18 Jul 2013 at 1:25 pm 362.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Angus, please just ignore him. You aren’t going to convince an intrinsically dishonest liar of anything. He is a troll.”

    What would you advise instead?…

    Perhaps we should simply write down more stuff that disproves god or something? (and of course ignore A and his puppets)

  363. on 18 Jul 2013 at 2:15 pm 363.Curmudgeon said …

    A

    Looking back on who has been asking posters to leave the blog we have Alex who cussed out every theist. Over on the other thread he made an exchange with one who will not be back. Then A&A who attempted to have a poster banned.

    All of them have asked 40Y to leave. Anyone who intellectually embarrasses them is asked to leave. A&A, Alex and Matt are an embarrassment to the others. I’m sure the others hope they leave.

    I also know 40Y is not you A. I checked his blog. We have a hijacker and I have my suspicions.

  364. on 18 Jul 2013 at 4:32 pm 364.alex said …

    “…we have Alex who cussed out every theist.”

    wrong, moron. look at the context. all we get here are idiots like you, nothing to offer, but regurgitated vomit.

    “Alex and Matt are an embarrassment to the others.”

    the usual expected bullshit, that’s why you get the obligatory “shithead” moniker. believe me, if i embarassed anybody, i’d be called out for it. unlike you morons, who endlessly put up with your idiot “messy”, oops, i fergit, socks match.

    why are you back? you missed my cursing? you dumb motherfucker, want more?

  365. on 18 Jul 2013 at 4:36 pm 365.Anonymous said …

    Angus and Alexis, just respond to the new posts as they come up. Ignore Ass and his sock puppets. He was busted on this thread alone for posting as Martin and 40YA. He’ll throw a fit, post shit, agree with himself via his other selfs, but in the end it’s clear that he’s just an angry old man. A curmudgeon, if you know what I mean.

  366. on 18 Jul 2013 at 5:32 pm 366.The messenger said …

    340.freddies_dead, your lies have caught up to you.
    In comment 268 you stated the following quote.
    (Why is it my job to show that the words in the Bible don’t actually mean what they say? THAT’S THE JOB OF BULLSHIT PREACHERS AND FUCKWITS LIKE YOU that want to twist the words to mean exactly what you want them to mean. Anyway, what the fuck is metaphorical about “stone him with stones, that he die”.)
    Then in comment 268 you stated the following quote.
    (I’VE NEVER STATED ANY SUCH THING liar, and I could easily find other preachers – preaching what they also promise to be “the true meaning of the Bible” – who disagree with what you claim to be metaphorical. Why should I take your word – or the word of any other deluded preacher for that matter – over what a plain reading of those passages tells me?)
    You stated one thing, then you lied about saying it.

  367. on 18 Jul 2013 at 7:49 pm 367.DPK said …

    “I also know 40Y is not you A. I checked his blog.”

    hahaha… what, did he write on his blog “I am not the capital “A” Astrophysicist that posts under 6 different aliases on WWGHA.”?

    I guess that proves it huh?

    Get the fuck out with your bullshit Stan/Hor/Ass/Martin/Crum/Xenon. We got your number, your credibility is shot. No one will engage your nonsense here anymore. You have been outed as a deceitful liar and no amount of squirming gets you take seriously ever again. Fraud.

  368. on 18 Jul 2013 at 8:42 pm 368.The messenger said …

    359.Angus and Alexis, women are respected and powerful in the Catholic Church.

    Hillary Clinton is a member of the Catholic Church, and she is a very powerful woman.

    PS, Tell me, what have I misspelled?

  369. on 18 Jul 2013 at 9:14 pm 369.Anonymous said …

    Oh and Curmudgeon “checked his blog” yet it was A who posted to it. Then Curmudgeon tries the worn-out “hey other me, I know it wasn’t you, but I’m going to play a game of ‘I know something you don’t'”. He previously tried pretend remorse which failed miserably, then came back with his standard vitriol and projection. FFS, so much fail and self-destructive behavior. As DPK says, you’re done, and in all your guises.

    Theists, real-ones, ones who want to defend or explain their beliefs. Let’s have a real conversation in line with the purpose of this site,

  370. on 18 Jul 2013 at 9:46 pm 370.A said …

    Cur,

    I have been over to his blog as well. A nice change from the stupidity and child-like rants produced by the haters here. Logic, reason and facts. Nice! Difficult to navigate on a phone.

    I’m pretty sure I know the hijacker here. BHO is no other than DPK. I always suspected it.

    I see Mousey is attempting to be the blog cop. Mousey keep the mouths of your minions shut. They add nothing to the conversation. Feel free not to post too!

    Finally!

  371. on 18 Jul 2013 at 9:53 pm 371.Anonymous said …

    “He’ll throw a fit, post shit, agree with himself via his other selfs, but in the end it’s clear that he’s just an angry old man”.

    Prediction confirmed. Time to just let him rant until he cries himself to sleep.

  372. on 18 Jul 2013 at 10:06 pm 372.alex said …

    362.Anonymous said …

    blah, blah, blah, from the same set of asshole socks.

    moron, take my test: http://goo.gl/nKcz4

    but you’re afraid, cuz you know i’ll figure out who you are, ya dipshit. i tolya before, no more putting up with bullshit motherfuckers like you.

    here’s my prediction: the same fuckhead theists won’t have anything new, cept the same old shit, lookey here, lookey there, divert from the bullshit god.

  373. on 18 Jul 2013 at 10:36 pm 373.A said …

    Alex couldn’t agree with you more about anonymous. Be easy on him. He is challenged

  374. on 18 Jul 2013 at 11:46 pm 374.alex said …

    364.A said …

    i see your ass going to my website, but you too scared to enter something. ya know, i’ll figure your motherfucking ass out. go ahead, scared fuck.

    congrats Angus and Alexis. like you said, you’re from australia. you entered “Yeah, links have to sent through moderation first”. no secret here.

    theist motherfuckers are afraid. why? your god will protect you. go ahead: http://goo.gl/nKcz4

  375. on 19 Jul 2013 at 12:22 am 375.DPK said …

    What is this? Guess who I’m pretending to be now?
    http://www.parade.com/images/-v5/health-and-food/2011/0703/main-sock-puppet.jpg

    what a pathetic excuse for a human being. He gets caught with his pants down and then tries to put the blame on someone else. Typical of the Christian mentality… “It wasn’t my fault, Pope.. that little 7 year old boy came on to me… and he was dressed very provoctavily.. it’s HIS fault I put my dick up his ass, not mine!” Remember this is not the 1st time he’s been outed for his multiple personality disorder. Everyone is wise to him and nobody believes his bullshit.
    A/Curm/40/Martin/Xenon/Hor…This is why everyone is ignoring you.. you are not worth anybody’s attention.

  376. on 19 Jul 2013 at 1:59 am 376.The messenger said …

    340.freddies_dead, your lies have caught up to you.
    In comment 268 you stated the following quote.
    (Why is it my job to show that the words in the Bible don’t actually mean what they say? THAT’S THE JOB OF BULLSHIT PREACHERS AND FUCKWITS LIKE YOU that want to twist the words to mean exactly what you want them to mean. Anyway, what the fuck is metaphorical about “stone him with stones, that he die”.)
    Then in comment 268 you stated the following quote.
    (I’VE NEVER STATED ANY SUCH THING liar, and I could easily find other preachers – preaching what they also promise to be “the true meaning of the Bible” – who disagree with what you claim to be metaphorical. Why should I take your word – or the word of any other deluded preacher for that matter – over what a plain reading of those passages tells me?)
    You stated one thing, then you lied about saying it. ‘

  377. on 19 Jul 2013 at 2:21 am 377.DPK said …

    I’m pretty sure I know the hijacker here. BHO is no other than DPK. I always suspected it.

    Hahaha… Well, you can add that to the long list of things you think ou know, about which you are completely wrong.
    There is no hijacker, there is only you who simply forgot to change your screen name when replying to a post under a different persona. The only deceit going on here is yours. You are busted, outed and declared persona non grata. Completely discredited and inconsequential.

  378. on 19 Jul 2013 at 2:42 am 378.Angus and Alexis said …

    “congrats Angus and Alexis. like you said, you’re from australia. you entered “Yeah, links have to sent through moderation first”. no secret here.”

    Sorry, bit too busy fighting crocodiles and stingrays, will reply on this soon enough.

    ” *all the other random posts above this one about blogs, puppets and “A”*”

    Ok, so lemme get this straight, “A” is some old guy named “Stan” and he uses the puppets “Xenon” “40yr old atheist” “horatio” “Martin” and “curmudgeon”? And how he pretty much fails to answer any relevant questions, drives away other theists and fails to spell any ones names correctly on almost all of his puppets?

  379. on 19 Jul 2013 at 4:41 am 379.Anonymous said …

    Close enough Angus and Alexis, but you’re only just scratching the surface of how many sock-puppets he’s been using or, indeed, has been known to use in any one thread.

    By the way, when you look at how many times the exact same list of questions has been posted to him without even an acknowledgment, then “pretty much fails to answer any relevant question” becomes an understatement of astonishing proportions.

  380. on 19 Jul 2013 at 6:54 am 380.Angus and Alexis said …

    ““pretty much fails to answer any relevant question” becomes an understatement of astonishing proportions.”

    Okay..
    How about “Fails to answer even the most trivial questions that any 5 year old with education can answer without any worries of failure or embarrassment so long as they tell the truth”?
    Still an understatement? ;P

    Do we still have Messenger here?
    Sure he is a buffoon, but at least his rambling, incoherent posts were entertaining to reply to…

    Also, to anyone bored enough to write about tulpae, what are your opinions of myself and my tulpa? Would you view it as insane, similar to god, etc?

  381. on 19 Jul 2013 at 7:33 am 381.Anonymous said …

    Yes, still an understatement.

    I might be mistaken, but I didn’t think Tulpas had a claim to creating existence, answered prayers exactly if if they didn’t exist, were omnipotent but with a weakness for kryptonite iron chariots, had a foreskin fetish, condemned you to eternal torment for not believing in fairy stories, or were their own biological fathers. Hence, it’s hardly in the same ballpark as a god. Maybe a discussion for a different forum, though?

  382. on 19 Jul 2013 at 8:25 am 382.Angus and Alexis said …

    Wow…still an understatement ehh?…

    I guess its for a different forum, but i know that theists have some odd hate of tulpae, so i found it relevant to see how others think about tulpae, and why theists think tulpae is insanity ;D

  383. on 19 Jul 2013 at 8:36 am 383.Angus and Alexis said …

    You know…due to the entire “something not physical is speaking to me and you cant see it” part of tulpae…

    Also, now that we are out of theists, what are we going to talk about?…

  384. on 19 Jul 2013 at 9:23 am 384.Anonymous said …

    They’re not dead, they’re jest restin’.

    http://goo.gl/BkUkv

  385. on 19 Jul 2013 at 9:36 am 385.Anonymous said …

    Oh, and metiphorically [sic], this is for freddies_dead.

    http://goo.gl/cf1fz

  386. on 19 Jul 2013 at 10:24 am 386.The messenger said …

    384.Anonymous, stop wasting my time with some stupid comedian video.

  387. on 19 Jul 2013 at 10:27 am 387.The messenger said …

    359.Angus and Alexis, women are respected and powerful in the Catholic Church.
    Hillary Clinton is a member of the Catholic Church, and she is a very powerful woman.
    PS, Tell me, what have I misspelled?

  388. on 19 Jul 2013 at 10:27 am 388.The messenger said …

    340.freddies_dead, your lies have caught up to you.
    In comment 268 you stated the following quote.
    (Why is it my job to show that the words in the Bible don’t actually mean what they say? THAT’S THE JOB OF BULLSHIT PREACHERS AND FUCKWITS LIKE YOU that want to twist the words to mean exactly what you want them to mean. Anyway, what the fuck is metaphorical about “stone him with stones, that he die”.)
    Then in comment 268 you stated the following quote.
    (I’VE NEVER STATED ANY SUCH THING liar, and I could easily find other preachers – preaching what they also promise to be “the true meaning of the Bible” – who disagree with what you claim to be metaphorical. Why should I take your word – or the word of any other deluded preacher for that matter – over what a plain reading of those passages tells me?)
    You stated one thing, then you lied about saying it. ‘

  389. on 19 Jul 2013 at 10:56 am 389.freddies_dead said …

    385.Anonymous said …

    Oh, and metiphorically [sic], this is for freddies_dead.

    http://goo.gl/cf1fz

    BLASPHEMER!!!! Brilliant, I always did love the Pythons. Although I’m guessing messy will still say they stopped when the evil was gone.

  390. on 19 Jul 2013 at 10:57 am 390.freddies_dead said …

    Oh goody, messy’s back, back again…

    And I know Anonymous would rather we didn’t feed the trolls but the Christians pulled out of this conversation a long time ago so while I’m enjoying showing messy up for the vile human being that he is I think I’ll carry on for a while longer.

    347.The messenger said …

    338.freddies_dead, tell me, what purpose does sex serve except lust or reproduction?

    Easy, an expression of love. Despite what you keep insisting, sex does not automatically = lust when it’s done for something other than reproduction. I’d also like to point out that it’s quite possible to conceive during a sex act that is the product of lust.

    349.The messenger said …

    338.freddies_dead, yes, arranged marriages, polygamy, and concubines are allowed, but in Exodus 21:7-11 it states that if the concubine fails to please her master then her master can let her leave, and if her master fails to treat her equally then she can leave at her own free will.

    So the Bible allows for more than just the 1 man, 1 woman definition of marriage that you hold to in order to deny gays the right to marry. Thanks for conceding that your bigotry isn’t actually Biblical but just down to your personal preference.

    You liar. Deuteronomy 17:17 states that having multiple wives is bad.

    Hold on. You just said above that the Bible allowed polygamy. Now you’re saying the Bible is against multiple wives. Which is it messy? And why does your Bible have this contradiction when it is supposedly inspired by an omniscient deity?

    If a marriage is arranged they must work out their differences and love each other. They will learn to love oneanother.

    Irrelevant, you’ve already conceded that your bigotry isn’t Biblical in origin despite you trying to make out that it is.

  391. on 19 Jul 2013 at 10:57 am 391.freddies_dead said …

    350.The messenger said …

    340.freddies_dead, GOD gave no context clues to suggest that the “stoning to death” was a litteral stoning or a litteral death.

    Liar. Lets take a look at Dueteronomy 22:23-24 shall we?

    “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.”

    The context is quite clear. Bring them to the gate of the city and stone them – with stone – until they are dead. There’s nothing there that suggests they’re only going to be lightly stoned until they repent of their sin. It’s a full on literal death sentence.

    GOD did give a context clue in exodus when he said “thou shall not murder”, therefore the stoning could not have been literal because it would have been murder to litteraly stone someone.

    And, as I’ve already pointed out, any commandment, issued by God, that requires you to kill another person isn’t considered murder. It’s a just punishment for sin. If you think this is wrong then why aren’t you condemning God himself for his insistence on commanding people to commit murder or his own genocidal exploits in the flood etc…?

    351 and again at 366 and then again at 376.The messenger said …

    340.freddies_dead, your lies have caught up to you.

    I haven’t lied at all.

    In comment 268 you stated the following quote.

    (Why is it my job to show that the words in the Bible don’t actually mean what they say? THAT’S THE JOB OF BULLSHIT PREACHERS AND FUCKWITS LIKE YOU that want to twist the words to mean exactly what you want them to mean. Anyway, what the fuck is metaphorical about “stone him with stones, that he die”.)

    Then in comment 268 you stated the following quote.

    It was actually comment 340 but lets not let facts get in the way eh?

    (I’VE NEVER STATED ANY SUCH THING liar, and I could easily find other preachers – preaching what they also promise to be “the true meaning of the Bible” – who disagree with what you claim to be metaphorical. Why should I take your word – or the word of any other deluded preacher for that matter – over what a plain reading of those passages tells me?)

    You stated one thing, then you lied about saying it.

    Wrong. Let’s see what you accused me of in comment 326 shall we?

    You stated that it is the job of preachers to explain what the bible means

    And we can quite clearly see from what you’ve quoted that what I actually said about preachers was that “it’s their job to show that the words in the Bible don’t mean what they actually say”. That’s not them explaining what the Bible means, that’s them twisting the words of their God so that they reflect what they want them to mean.

  392. on 19 Jul 2013 at 11:09 am 392.Angus and Alexis said …

    Freddie 1
    Messenger 0

    Follow us next time as theist “Messenger” tries to beat “Freddie” in a battle of biblical proportions, will he succeed? Will he fail? Who will know.

  393. on 19 Jul 2013 at 11:10 am 393.freddies_dead said …

    352.The messenger said …

    338.freddies_dead, I was not connecting gays with child molesting, I was connecting same sex marriage(both straight and gay) to child molesting.

    Straight same sex marriage? Just what would that be exactly?

    cont’d (because wordpress is being an arse)…

  394. on 19 Jul 2013 at 11:10 am 394.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    And your denial is simply an admission that you were connecting homosexuality to child molestation through same sex marriage. Is there something about the institution of marriage that you think will turn homosexuals into monsters? If so then can you please explain it to the rest of us? Just what is it about a wedding that’ll turn gays into hooker-banging pedophiles?

    I’d ask for your evidence that gay marriage leads directly to child molestation but I already know that you don’t have any and instead it’s your hatred of gays that makes you want to make such a vile and unwarranted accusation.

    Sex without reproduction is for lust, and will therefore cause them to cheat in their spouses with hookers, and molest children.

    Now you’re just repeating the same tired bullshit over and over in the hope that people will agree with your disgusting fallacy.

    cont’d…

  395. on 19 Jul 2013 at 11:11 am 395.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    Lustful sex from straight people and gay people is bad.

    I’m beginning to think you just need to get laid a bit more so you’re not obsessing on other people’s sex lives so much.

  396. on 19 Jul 2013 at 11:30 am 396.Angus and Alexis said …

    To messenger.

    Please give up the the lust/gay/sex/marriage, you are not correct, gays are no different than normal (i must stress that the description “normal” doesnt really exist…) people, sure their sex may be different, but if you hate them due to it, i am afraid that is discrimination.

  397. on 19 Jul 2013 at 5:09 pm 397.The messenger said …

    390.freddies_dead, within comment 338 you stated that polygamy was allowed in the bible( you lied). When I responded to comment 338 I accidentally included polygamy in my statement about at arranged marriages and concubines.

    Polygamy is not allowed, according to the bible.

  398. on 19 Jul 2013 at 5:18 pm 398.The messenger said …

    396.Angus and Alexis, I never said that I hate gay people. I love all people.

    The bible does not state anything about hating gay people, it only states that having sex with the same gender is bad.

    GOD does not hate gay people either, he just do not approve of gay sex.

  399. on 19 Jul 2013 at 5:41 pm 399.The messenger said …

    391.freddies_dead, here is comment 268, thus proving that you made that statement in comment 268.

    (251.freddies_dead, can you prove that I am lying?
    You’re posting therefore you’re lying, it’s a pretty well documented fact on here.
    Can you prove that the verses about stoning are not metaphores?
    Why is it my job to show that the words in the Bible don’t actually mean what they say? That’s the JOB OF BULLSHIT PREACHERS and fuckwits like you that want to twist the words to mean exactly what you want them to mean. Anyway, what the fuck is metaphorical about “stone him with stones, that he die”.
    Are you crazy?
    Asks the crazy person. Stop projecting your problems on to me.
    The word “stoning” represents punishment(not a death sentence), and the word “death” represents the death of evil within a person. It does not mean a litteral stoning.
    The words are abundantly clear “stone him with stones, that he die” there’s no ambiguity here, no context that subtly alters the meaning, the person is to be pounded with stones until they are dead. Why should I believe your ridiculous eisegesis over the actual words in the Bible? You know? The book you hold to be absolutely authoritative?
    Can you give any evidence to disprove my claim?
    It is your job to show how those words are metaphorical – all you do is assert that they are and give us your own confirmation bias as proof. That’s not good enough.
    P.S, the Jewish athorities durring Jesus’s time misunderstood the “stoning verses” and thought that it ment a litteral stoning. Jesus proved that the “stoning verses” were metaphorical when he prevented a young woman from being stoned.
    That’s a parable about hypocrisy you twerp. Nowhere does Jesus say stoning is wrong, he simply points out that every bugger there deserved stoning as much as the woman did. There’s nothing in there to show that stoning, with stones, until the stonee is dead is some subtle attempt to discourage people from being bad. It was, and still is, a death sentence. One that God Himself stated was such.
    Here He is in Exodus giving Moses some instructions for an upcoming gig:
    19:10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes,
    19:11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
    19:12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:
    19:13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.
    Harsh security dude.
    Here He is in Leviticus:
    24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
    Here He is in Deuteronomy:
    22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
    There’s a mention of getting evil away in that verse – unfortunately for you God’s way of getting rid of evil seems to be to “stone her with stones that she die”.
    It’s not a fucking metaphor, it’s a death sentence from your douchebag of a God.)

  400. on 20 Jul 2013 at 2:11 am 400.Angus and Alexis said …

    “The bible does not state anything about hating gay people, it only states that having sex with the same gender is bad.”

    WHICH IS DISCRIMINATION YOU DUMBSHIT…

  401. on 20 Jul 2013 at 3:59 pm 401.The messenger said …

    400.Angus and Alexis, gay people are not allowed to have sex with the same gender.

    Straight people are not allowed to have sex with the same gender.

    Ps, there are better ways to show love than having sex.

  402. on 20 Jul 2013 at 5:00 pm 402.The messenger said …

    Jesus stated that he would give his stone( the authority to literally stone a person ) to the first person who can say that they have never sinned.

    All humans have sinned, therefore GOD is the only person who can literally stone someone.

  403. on 22 Jul 2013 at 1:43 pm 403.the messenger said …

    389.freddies_dead, are you stupid?

    The “stoning” mentioned in the bible had nothing to do with actual stones.

    The verses about stoning are metaphores meaning punishments. It has nothing to do with actual stones.

  404. on 22 Jul 2013 at 5:03 pm 404.freddies_dead said …

    397.The messenger said …

    390.freddies_dead, within comment 338 you stated that polygamy was allowed in the bible( you lied). When I responded to comment 338 I accidentally included polygamy in my statement about at arranged marriages and concubines.

    Polygamy is not allowed, according to the bible.

    I didn’t lie. The old testament is full of patriarchs and prophets who had multiple wives – Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Elkanah, Ashur, Abijah and Jehoiada and nothing in there that admonishes them for doing so.

    Exodus 22:10 states “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.”

    It was allowed in the Bible.

  405. on 22 Jul 2013 at 5:15 pm 405.freddies_dead said …

    399.The messenger said …

    391.freddies_dead, here is comment 268, thus proving that you made that statement in comment 268.

    You cited 2 comments in your failed attempt to show I lied.

    You said:

    In comment 268 you stated the following quote.

    Then in comment 268 you stated the following quote.

    You got it wrong messy. That second comment that I made was actually post 340 – not 268. You can’t even keep the post numbers straight so why should we believe anything you say about more complex issues?

  406. on 22 Jul 2013 at 7:27 pm 406.Anonymous said …

    freddies_dead, BTW, you do a superb job of putting Messy and others in their place with respect to their non-nonsensical arguments.

    It’s just a shame that the current contributors claiming to be theists, are mostly trolls who make up shit as they go along.

    Let’s hope that as Ass and his socks gasp to be fed due to the “no troll food” diet, real believers will come back and join in the conversation. “Shall we pray?” ;)

  407. on 22 Jul 2013 at 7:55 pm 407.A said …

    Messenger

    You must think as an atheist. Anything you disagree with is hate to an atheist. They hate all things they do not like therefore you must as well.

    I could of pulled out one of mu army of posters but decided to stick with A.

    Lol!!!!

  408. on 22 Jul 2013 at 11:56 pm 408.the messenger said …

    407.A, thank you for the advise.

  409. on 23 Jul 2013 at 12:06 am 409.the messenger said …

    on 22 Jul 2013 at 5:03 pm 404.freddies_dead, you lied.

    This is what exodus 22 :10 states.

    Show resourcesAdd parallel
    Exodus 22:10
    New International Version (NIV)
    10 “If anyone gives a donkey, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to their neighbor for safekeeping and it dies or is injured or is taken away while no one is looking,

    <<

    >>

    New International Version (NIV)
    Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

    Exodus 22:10 in all English translations

  410. on 23 Jul 2013 at 12:42 pm 410.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Ps, there are better ways to show love than having sex.”

    In your opinion, please think of others.

    “400.Angus and Alexis, gay people are not allowed to have sex with the same gender.
    Straight people are not allowed to have sex with the same gender.”

    Straight people aren’t allowed?
    Last time i checked, you can have sex with any gender and no one can do anything about it…

    Again, bigot.

  411. on 23 Jul 2013 at 1:23 pm 411.the messenger said …

    Lamech had multiple wife and was justified because it was before GOD made the law against polygamy.

  412. on 23 Jul 2013 at 1:31 pm 412.the messenger said …

    Hagar was not Abraham’s wife.

    She was a concubine.

  413. on 23 Jul 2013 at 1:36 pm 413.the messenger said …

    Abraham married Keturah after the death of his fist wife, sarah.

    It is not considered polygamy because he married keturah after his first wife died. Therefore he only had one wife at a time.

  414. on 28 Jul 2013 at 7:18 am 414.remrem.nl said …

    Great goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you are just extremely magnificent. I actually like what you’ve acquired here, really like what you’re stating and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it wise. I cant wait to read much more from you. This is really a terrific web site.

  415. on 28 Jul 2013 at 7:37 pm 415.A said …

    Thanks remmy.

  416. on 28 Jul 2013 at 8:56 pm 416.DPK said …

    Mr. “A” the science guy can’t even recognize a spam bot when one shows up and thinks “remmy” is paying him a compliment.
    God, he is such a complete asshole.

  417. on 28 Jul 2013 at 9:51 pm 417.alex said …

    “God, he is such a complete asshole.”

    him thinks the bot is one of his socks. i’m just waiting for him to post as remrem and congratulate hisself. if he does that, i finna lose it.

    when busted again, the motherfucker would prolly go out and try to shoot up an atheist church. good luck.

  418. on 28 Jul 2013 at 11:53 pm 418.Anonymous said …

    “God he is such a complete asshole”.

    Which one? Atum, Thor, Ra?

    Meanwhile, in an excess of complete assmanship, we have the following. On the other thread he is so desperately in need of being contrary, he actually said:

    “Mousey pretending there ate two of him. How quaint. The MO is the same, no answer.”

    Just how fucking stupid do you have to be to tell someone, as he did? No, no, no! You are not using Sock Puppets. No, No, No. You are not pretending to be someone else.

    This must be the first in in ever that a troll (“assman”) accused someone of *not* being a troll!

    What a complete and utter asshole.

  419. on 29 Jul 2013 at 1:21 am 419.alex said …

    “God he is such a complete asshole”.

    “Which one? Atum, Thor, Ra?”

    methinks, he was referring to the sockmaster. the one thanking the intelligently designed bot.

  420. on 29 Jul 2013 at 3:08 am 420.Anonymous said …

    I know that! I was just taking the piss out of the term “God”. ;)

    Still, it’s really, REALLY, funny to see the puppet-master having a conversation with a bot. Not very intelligent is he?

    Now what is it Hor (aka “a”, Ben, Biff, Boz… martin… 40YA, etc) says at this point.

    Oh yes… LOL

  421. on 29 Jul 2013 at 3:30 pm 421.freddies_dead said …

    409.the messenger said …

    on 22 Jul 2013 at 5:03 pm 404.freddies_dead, you lied.

    No messy, I simply misquoted the number of the relevant chapter – it should have been Exodus 21:10 not 22:10. Do you have any actual response to your Bible happily allowing polygamy?

  422. on 29 Jul 2013 at 4:11 pm 422.freddies_dead said …

    411.the messenger said …

    Lamech had multiple wife and was justified because it was before GOD made the law against polygamy.

    Chapter and verse for this law please.

    412.the messenger said …

    Hagar was not Abraham’s wife.

    She was a concubine.

    Odd then that Genesis 16:3 states: And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

    Even if I grant you Abraham, due to differing translations of what Hagar was to him, that still leaves Lamech (waiting on that chapter and verse for the law that bans polygamy), Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Elkanah, Ashur, Abijah and Jehoiada (to name but a few). I’m fairly comfortable sticking with my claim that the Bible shows polygamy as a perfectly good version of marriage.

  423. on 30 Jul 2013 at 12:10 am 423.the messenger said …

    421.freddies_dead, here is the text leading up to exodus 21 10, and after.

    7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

    The text is not referring to polygamy. It is referring to the rights of a woman who has been rejected by her fiancé, thus she never married him.

  424. on 30 Jul 2013 at 10:29 am 424.freddies_dead said …

    What on earth are you talking about messy? Exodus 21 has rules for slave owners and verse 10 states quite clearly that if the slave owner takes another wife he’s not allowed to deprive the old wife of her food, clothing and, most importantly, marital rights. Why would they mention those marital rights if they’d never gotten married? It’s polygamy messy, plain and simple.

  425. on 31 Jul 2013 at 1:10 pm 425.the messenger said …

    424.freddies_dead,exodus 21 9 talks about a man selecting a servant(not a slave) to marry his son.

    Exodus 21 10 states that if the son chooses to marry another girl instead of the one that his father selected for him, he is to treat her well.

    Exodus 21 10 states that the son decided to marry another woman, therefore meaning that he did not marry the one that his father selected for him.

    This passage gives no indication that the son of the servant master decided to marry the woman that his father selected for him, therefore is means that he only married the woman that he choose and that he rejected the woman that his father selected for him.

    These are not slave rules, these are servant rules and arranged marriage rules.

  426. on 31 Jul 2013 at 3:32 pm 426.freddies_dead said …

    425.the messenger said …

    424.freddies_dead,exodus 21 9 talks about a man selecting a servant(not a slave) to marry his son.

    You don’t buy servants, you buy slaves.

    Exodus 21 10 states that if the son chooses to marry another girl instead of the one that his father selected for him, he is to treat her well.

    Exodus 21:10 states nothing of the sort. It’s talking about the slave owner getting another wife.

    Exodus 21 10 states that the son decided to marry another woman, therefore meaning that he did not marry the one that his father selected for him.

    21:10 doesn’t mention the son at all. The ‘he’ in that verse is the ‘he’ that bought the woman in the first place and that ‘he’ is told quite specifically that should ‘he’ marry another woman ‘he’ must not deprive the first woman of her marital rights.

    The old ‘marital rights’ are going to get you every time messy.

    This passage gives no indication that the son of the servant master decided to marry the woman that his father selected for him, therefore is means that he only married the woman that he choose and that he rejected the woman that his father selected for him.

    You are now reading things into the verse that simply aren’t there. It does not talk of the son refusing the marriage at all. It’s a set of rules for the owner and it states quite clearly that should the owner marry another woman he can’t deprive the other one of her ‘marital rights’.

    Why do you keep ignoring those marital rights messy? Is it because they destroy your argument so completely?

    These are not slave rules, these are servant rules and arranged marriage rules.

    I repeat: you do not buy servants, you buy slaves.

  427. on 01 Aug 2013 at 2:36 am 427.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, the words “buy” and “sell” are used in that passage to express how dependent and close that the servants were to their employers.

    The word “slave” is nowhere in that passage.

    The workers in that passage are referred to as “servants”, not “slaves”.

  428. on 01 Aug 2013 at 3:27 am 428.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, here is exodus 21 9-10.

    9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

    Exodus 21 9 talks about a man who has arranged for one of his servants to marry his son.

    Exodus 21 10 talks about a person marrying another woman, indicating that he decided to marry her instead of the first girl.

    Due to the fact that verse 9 and 10 speak of marriage, it is logical to conclude that the man in verse 10 is the same man within verse 9.

    Furthermore, verse 10 states that a man married another girl, thus hinting that he did not marry the servant girl that his father selected.

    Exodus 10 does not label the 2nd girl as the man’s wife, thus proving that he did not marry her and that he rejected her as his spouse to be.

    Can you give any proof within this text that can disprove my statements listed above?

  429. on 01 Aug 2013 at 3:37 am 429.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, tell me, where in Exodus does it say that the “he” in verse 10 is also the man in verse 9?

    Verse 9 talks about a servant girl being selected to be married to her master’s son.

    Verse 10 talks about a man marring one girl instead of the other.

    Due to the fact that verse 9 talks about a woman who has been selected to marry a son, it is logical to conclude that she is also the woman in verse ten who was not chosen to be married.

  430. on 01 Aug 2013 at 3:42 am 430.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, tell me, does exodus 21 state that he married both of those women?

    It clearly states that he married another woman, therefore proving that he did not marry the first woman and that he chose a different woman to marry(aka he only married one of them).

  431. on 01 Aug 2013 at 9:33 am 431.freddies_dead said …

    427.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, the words “buy” and “sell” are used in that passage to express how dependent and close that the servants were to their employers.

    They’re used to denote the exchange of money for ownership of a human being – that’s slavery.

    The word “slave” is nowhere in that passage.

    The workers in that passage are referred to as “servants”, not “slaves”.

    I know what they’re referred to as, it’s just that buying and selling human beings is slavery no matter how you try and avoid the term.

  432. on 01 Aug 2013 at 9:57 am 432.freddies_dead said …

    428.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, here is exodus 21 9-10.

    9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

    Exodus 21 9 talks about a man who has arranged for one of his servants to marry his son.

    And? Where have I said it says otherwise?

    Exodus 21 10 talks about a person marrying another woman, indicating that he decided to marry her instead of the first girl.

    It specifically mentions the first girl’s MARITAL RIGHTS – you keep ignoring that phrase like crazy but it’s still there to piss all over your argument. ‘He’ (the owner) marries the first girl which gives he MARITAL RIGHTS, then, should he marry another woman he’s told not to screw over the first girl’s MARITAL RIGHTS.

    Due to the fact that verse 9 and 10 speak of marriage, it is logical to conclude that the man in verse 10 is the same man within verse 9.

    The only logical thing to conclude is that the ‘he’ in 9 is the same ‘he’ in 10. ‘He’ is not the son, ‘he’ is the man who bought the slave and, if ‘he’ bought her for his son ‘he’ is to treat her as a daughter, whereas, if ‘he’ bought her for himself, ‘he’ is told specifically to preserve the girl’s MARITAL RIGHTS should he choose to marry someone else as well. It couldn’t really get any clearer.

    Furthermore, verse 10 states that a man married another girl, thus hinting that he did not marry the servant girl that his father selected.

    That man who marries another is the owner – not his son. The verse says nothing about the son, nor about him possibly rejecting his father’s choice of bride. 9 and 10 are separate rules. 9 concerns the owners responsibility should he have bought the girl for his son i.e. he must treat her as a daughter. 10 has nothing to do with his son and specifies quite clearly that the owner should preserve the girl’s MARITAL RIGHTS should he choose to marry another woman. It wouldn’t mention MARITAL RIGHTS if they didn’t get married.

    Exodus 10 does not label the 2nd girl as the man’s wife, thus proving that he did not marry her and that he rejected her as his spouse to be.

    MARITAL RIGHTS, MARITAL RIGHTS, MARITAL RIGHTS. Why would it mention MARITAL RIGHTS if they weren’t married? Why messy? Can you actually answer that? Or will we see you doing yet more mental gymnastics to deny the words you claim to believe come from your God.

    Can you give any proof within this text that can disprove my statements listed above?

    The text itself disproves your statements. It’s blatantly fucking obvious to everyone but you it seems.

  433. on 01 Aug 2013 at 10:01 am 433.freddies_dead said …

    429.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, tell me, where in Exodus does it say that the “he” in verse 10 is also the man in verse 9?

    It’s the same ‘he’ from Exodus 21:8 through to 21:11 – the owner/master, the one who buys the girl. How can you not see this?

    Verse 9 talks about a servant girl being selected to be married to her master’s son.

    And ‘he’ is told to treat her as a daughter.

    Verse 10 talks about a man marring one girl instead of the other.

    No it doesn’t. MARITAL RIGHTS messy. You’re still ignoring them but they’re not just going to disappear. ‘He’ must marry the girl (MARITAL RIGHTS!) and is told that should he wish to marry another ‘he’ cannot deprive the first girl of her MARITAL RIGHTS.

    Due to the fact that verse 9 talks about a woman who has been selected to marry a son, it is logical to conclude that she is also the woman in verse ten who was not chosen to be married.

    Only if your logic comes from Mars.

  434. on 01 Aug 2013 at 10:07 am 434.freddies_dead said …

    430.the messenger said …

    426.freddies_dead, tell me, does exodus 21 state that he married both of those women?

    It states quite clearly that he cannot deprive the first woman of her MARITAL RIGHTS. Why would it mention MARITAL RIGHTS if he hadn’t married the first woman? C’mon messy, tell us why it does that?

    It clearly states that he married another woman, therefore proving that he did not marry the first woman and that he chose a different woman to marry(aka he only married one of them).

    It states nothing of the sort. It’s an instruction that should he choose to marry another woman he’s not allowed to deprive the first woman of her MARITAL RIGHTS.

    You’re ignoring the first woman’s MARITAL RIGHTS!

    MARITAL RIGHTS, MARITAL RIGHTS, MARITAL RIGHTS.

    The first woman has them and he can’t deprive her of them if he marries a second wife. It’s so clear even a child could see it.

  435. on 01 Aug 2013 at 10:10 am 435.freddies_dead said …

    W00t! This is fun. Can any of the other theists here (if there are actually more than 1 of them of course) help messy out and explain why the verse mention’s the first woman’s MARITAL RIGHTS if the owner didn’t actually marry her?

  436. on 01 Aug 2013 at 12:34 pm 436.Angus and Alexis said …

    Sadly freddie….the only other theist is “A” and his army of puppets…

    Makes me wonder where solomon, and all the others from the archive went…

  437. on 04 Aug 2013 at 1:40 am 437.the messenger said …

    434.freddies_dead, the words “marital rights” do not appear anywhere in that verse.

    You liar.

  438. on 04 Aug 2013 at 2:02 am 438.the messenger said …

    434.freddies_dead, forget what I said in comment 437.

    I was a bit tired when I typed that comment. I was not thinking straight.

  439. on 04 Aug 2013 at 2:15 am 439.the messenger said …

    431.freddies_dead, the word “servant” means a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.

    The person in the text is labeled as servants.

    They are not slaves, they are servants.

  440. on 04 Aug 2013 at 2:37 am 440.the messenger said …

    431.freddies_dead, if the owner of a company decides to sell his company, he can also include his employees in the deal too.

    If the owner of the company changes, the employes of the company now work for someone else. Therefore they are under a different ownership.

    Within company they are in a way owned, but they are not truly owned.

    That is the kind of ownership that they are referring to in exodus.

  441. on 07 Aug 2013 at 3:56 am 441.thorin said …

    434.freddies_dead, making your letters bigger does not help your argument sound any less ridiculous.

  442. on 07 Aug 2013 at 3:59 am 442.the messenger said …

    on 01 Aug 2013 at 10:07 am 434.freddies_dead, to inform you, I thought that I should change from the old name, but I decided to switch back to being called the messenger.

    Thorin is longer my name on this site.

  443. on 07 Aug 2013 at 4:02 am 443.the messenger said …

    431.freddies_dead, the word “servant” means a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.
    The person in the text is labeled as servants.
    They are not slaves, they are servants.

  444. on 07 Aug 2013 at 4:21 am 444.the messenger said …

    434.freddies_dead, the text does not contain the words “second wife”, you liar.

    10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

    If the text ment that he married both women, it would have stated the following instead.
    (If he marries another woman as well as the first one)

    The text does not say the sentence above.

    The words “chose another” can be interpreted in many ways. It can be understood as he choose one thing, or person, over a different one, thus only having one. It can also be understood as he chose more than one thing, thus he chose both.

    The wording of this text can be interpreted in two different ways, therefore I suggest that we abandon this debate because neither of us can prevail.

  445. on 07 Aug 2013 at 4:29 am 445.the messenger said …

    270.Angus and Alexis, stop pouting like a 3 year old child.

    You made the claim that animals feel emotion, therefore it is your job to prove it and research it.

    Show me proof that animals feel emotion.

    PS, arn’t you a little old for pouting. I think I made you cranky. Maybe your rattle will cheat you up little man.

  446. on 09 Aug 2013 at 11:42 am 446.freddies_dead said …

    439.the messenger said …

    431.freddies_dead, the word “servant” means a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.

    I know what a servant is, messy, but you don’t buy servants, you hire them.

    The person in the text is labeled as servants.

    In that translation, yes. There are others – such as the English Standard Version (ESV) – that use the more accurate term “slave”.

    They are not slaves, they are servants.

    You do not buy servants, you buy slaves.

  447. on 09 Aug 2013 at 11:42 am 447.freddies_dead said …

    440.the messenger said …

    431.freddies_dead, if the owner of a company decides to sell his company, he can also include his employees in the deal too.

    Not true. The new company takes over the employment contracts (if they are to continue), that is not the same as buying/selling the employees.

    If the owner of the company changes, the employes of the company now work for someone else.

    If they agree to the move, yes. They are allowed to refuse and come to an agreement about the ending/cancellation of the employment contract.

    Therefore they are under a different ownership.

    Nope, at no time are the employees ever “owned” by anyone.

    Within company they are in a way owned, but they are not truly owned.

    They are not ever, in any way, “owned”. They have an agreement to work for a company for appropriate remuneration, that is all.

    That is the kind of ownership that they are referring to in exodus.

    No, it isn’t. In Exodus people are bought and sold, as slaves.

  448. on 09 Aug 2013 at 11:43 am 448.freddies_dead said …

    441.thorin (messy) said …

    434.freddies_dead, making your letters bigger does not help your argument sound any less ridiculous.

    Firstly, the emphasis needs to be made because you insist on overlooking what the passage actually says in your misguided attempt to defend the Bible on the issue of polygamy. I understand why, it’s because it is devestating to your claim.

    Secondly, you have yet to provide any evidence that supports your assertion that my argument is ridiculous. The passages in Exodus are part of the evidence that the Bible condoned polygamy. The passages in question confirm that, should a man take another wife, he’s not allowed to deprive the first wife of her MARITAL RIGHTS. Nowhere have you addressed this issue.

  449. on 09 Aug 2013 at 11:43 am 449.freddies_dead said …

    444.the messenger said …

    434.freddies_dead, the text does not contain the words “second wife”, you liar.

    What a bizarre accusation. How can I be a liar when I’ve never claimed that the text contains the words “second wife”? It is simply an inference based on what the text does tell us i.e. that should the man marry another woman he must not deprive the first woman of, among other things, her MARITAL RIGHTS.

    10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

    If the text ment that he married both women, it would have stated the following instead.
    (If he marries another woman as well as the first one)

    The text does not say the sentence above.

    Holy crap but you’re dense. How could he deprive the first woman of her MARITAL RIGHTS if he didn’t marry her? This is what you keep ignoring. It’s a huge elephant sat in the room and you’re doing everything possible to avoid mentioning it. I know why, it’s because you have no answer, no way to spin the phrase to support your misguided claim.

    The words “chose another” can be interpreted in many ways. It can be understood as he choose one thing, or person, over a different one, thus only having one. It can also be understood as he chose more than one thing, thus he chose both.

    I believe you mean the words “marries another”, as “chose another” isn’t part of the text in question but yes, it can be interpreted in different ways. However, in this case, the context tells us that it’s the latter meaning – that he married both – when it points out the other woman’s MARITAL RIGHTS.

    The wording of this text can be interpreted in two different ways, therefore I suggest that we abandon this debate because neither of us can prevail.

    What debate? As I’ve already noted, the context gives us the correct meaning – that the man marries both women. Unless, of course, you have some way of explaining why the text mentions the first woman’s MARITAL RIGHTS when, according to you, she never married?

  450. on 09 Aug 2013 at 12:51 pm 450.Angus and Alexis said …

    “270.Angus and Alexis, stop pouting like a 3 year old child.
    You made the claim that animals feel emotion, therefore it is your job to prove it and research it.
    Show me proof that animals feel emotion.
    PS, arn’t you a little old for pouting. I think I made you cranky. Maybe your rattle will cheat you up little man.”

    Haha, nice post necro…

    Anyway, animals feel emotion.

    You have a pet dog? Perhaps a bird?

    Rub the dogs belly, or feed the bird some nice fruit, if you cant take in that they are in a state of complete bliss and happiness during so, reply, and i will give up, not because i am defeated, by because there is no reason having a debate with a person who cannot realise emotions.

    Or secondly, search “Emotion in animals” in wikipedia (i know wikipedia is not reliable, but i skimmed through the page and it checks out fine).

    And pouting?
    I admitted defeat due to your ignorance, it takes serious balls to just give up peacefully despite the opposition being an idiot.

  451. on 09 Aug 2013 at 10:50 pm 451.the messenger said …

    446.freddies_dead, if an employee signs a contract that states he must work for that company for several years, he is bound to that company(aka, the company tecnichly hold a form of power over him).

    If a man sells that company, the workers that are bound in that company by contract, now technically “sold” to the new employer.

    Once again, they are servants, not slaves.

  452. on 09 Aug 2013 at 10:55 pm 452.the messenger said …

    447.freddies_dead, the employer does not have to come to an agreement with the employee. He could simply refuse to end the contract.

    If the worker refuses to work, even though his contract is still active, the employer can sue the employee and have him arrested for not abiding by their legal agreement(aka, the contract.

  453. on 10 Aug 2013 at 3:20 am 453.the messenger said …

    450.Angus and Alexis, rubbing a dog’s belly causes a physical form of bliss, not an emotional form of bliss.

    A person can feel emotionally well, but can feel physically awful at the same time.

    Yes, I did have a pet dog, his name is sabre. I pray that when I die GOD will give him a soul so that I can see my old companion again.

  454. on 10 Aug 2013 at 3:22 am 454.the messenger said …

    450.Angus and Alexis, it takes balls to never except defeat, even when the enimies are as delusional as you.

  455. on 13 Aug 2013 at 10:36 am 455.the messenger said …

    446.freddies_dead, if an employee signs a contract that states he must work for that company for several years, he is bound to that company(aka, the company tecnichly hold a form of power over him).
    If a man sells that company, the workers that are bound in that company by contract, now technically “sold” to the new employer.
    Once again, they are servants, not slaves.

  456. on 19 Aug 2013 at 1:26 pm 456.freddies_dead said …

    451 and 455.the messenger said …

    For the purposes of this discussion I’ll be assuming English employment contract law … because I’m English. I’m fairly sure that American employment contract law is similar and I’m certain that neither of them allow people to be bought and sold as chattel i.e. as slaves.

    446.freddies_dead, if an employee signs a contract that states he must work for that company for several years, he is bound to that company(aka, the company tecnichly hold a form of power over him).

    He has a contract with that company. They do not own him. The only power they have is ending the contract and even then they must have a good reason. An employer or an employee can break the contract any time that they want and the worst that can happen is that the other party can pursue them through the courts for breach of that contract. If anything employment contracts give the employee a great deal of power – totally unlike being a slave who is bought and sold without any personal rights.

    If a man sells that company, the workers that are bound in that company by contract, now technically “sold” to the new employer.

    No, they are not. There’s no buying and selling of people. Employment contracts are “transferred” as part of the organisational unit that is being sold but, due to said sale, the terms of those contracts change. The employees must be consulted about this change and they can object to the transfer if they wish. If they object, the contract is terminated. The reason it’s a “transfer” is to ensure the employees “period of continuous employment” isn’t broken (which is all about maintaining their statuatory rights) not because they’ve been “sold” to the new company. The fact that most workers stay on after a company is sold is a personal choice i.e. they would rather just stay where they are than go searching for a new job.

    Once again, they are servants, not slaves.

    Once again, people being bought and sold as chattel are slaves, not servants.

  457. on 19 Aug 2013 at 1:41 pm 457.freddies_dead said …

    452.the messenger said …

    447.freddies_dead, the employer does not have to come to an agreement with the employee.

    Yes, they do.

    He could simply refuse to end the contract.

    No they can’t. If an employee objects to transferring then the contract is terminated.

    If the worker refuses to work, even though his contract is still active, the employer can sue the employee and have him arrested for not abiding by their legal agreement(aka, the contract.

    Even if we ignore the facts that a) breach of contract is a civil matter not a criminal offence and b) the police will not arrest you for breach of contract, there is no broken contract if you object to transferring your contract to new owners when a company is sold. The contract gets terminated and everyone goes their separate ways.

  458. on 19 Aug 2013 at 2:00 pm 458.Angus and Alexis. said …

    “450.Angus and Alexis, it takes balls to never except defeat, even when the enimies are as delusional as you.”

    No, that would take stupidity to not admit defeat, the point of admitting defeat is to show the opposition has beaten them.
    Not win, beaten, in this case, by your brainwashed opinion of emotions.

    “450.Angus and Alexis, rubbing a dog’s belly causes a physical form of bliss, not an emotional form of bliss.”

    right, so that is why it rubs its tail, licks your face and seems to be in a good “mood”?
    Ohh please, first you say elephants cry because stuff gets in their eyes, that monkey’s dont have emotions, and now dogs dont have emotions?

    “A person can feel emotionally well, but can feel physically awful at the same time.”

    Not sure about your mindset, but if i feel like shit, i usually am pissed off, sad , or angry…
    If you get happy from a broken leg or from throwing up, please stay away from public areas…

    “Yes, I did have a pet dog, his name is sabre. I pray that when I die GOD will give him a soul so that I can see my old companion again.”

    Going to burst your bubble here, but you aint seeing him again, he is dead, his very physical matter no longer is alive, the very chemical reactions and electrons that made him move are no longer existent. The same will happen to you, myself, and every living thing. Live with it.

  459. on 10 Sep 2014 at 9:26 pm 459.cinedux said …

    The human brain seems to have enlarged beyond it’s owner’s capacity to use it rationally.It will be the author of the species destruction. What an interesting episode in “the record of the rocks” we will make!;-)

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply