A Plea to Atheists: Pedophilia is next on the Slippery Slope . . .

[NGSamson]

wrong again assumption man...googleing the bible for me would be overkill..i grew up in a "religious"home i've read the bible, the koran, the talmud etc.
I have no ax to grind..but you have proven that many "christians" like you only read the parts of the bible that you like and disregard the rest..if that's not the very definition of "pseudo intellectual" there isn't one.
Btw congratulations on another fine dodge!

you have read shit, and you are a bad liar. I bet you are buds with rdean as well.

Pseu·do·in·tel·lec·tu·al
   [soo-doh-in-tl-ek-choo-uhl] show ipa
noun
1.
A person exhibiting intellectual pretensions that have no basis in sound scholarship.
2.
A person who pretends an interest in intellectual matters for reasons of status.

pseudointellectual | define pseudointellectual at dictionary.com

this fits you, and your ilk to a "t". I bet you also hang out at starbucks sipping black tea with a copy of one of friedrich nietzsche's books on the table that you grabbed off the discount rack so you look smart with your sarah palin glasses on. Sorry dude, your self esteem issues are glaring. This definition fits you better then pseudo intellectual does.

Definition for internet troll:
In internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, , or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response.

Isn't it time to get more starbucks money from mommie now ?or better yet, you can go stroke meaow's ego and have a rep orgy so you guys can fell better about what you wish you were. Ya, schmendrik.

lamo....and still wrong!

Still responding. What a douche.

 

[NGSamson]

You are a looser

So the problem here is that you're illiterate...

Of course not, how silly.

So genocide is okay?

It entails the judgment of a depraved society by a righteous God putting an end to said depravity.

Through genocide and the slaughter of children... and that was okay?

you still have nothing. Your googlefoo was useless.You did the neg rep thing, it was useless and now the spelling thing. Sad. You and Daws need to get more money from mom for more Starbucks. You are a douche as well. you re a l-o-s-e-r. That unbind your panties ?

 

[Avatar9]

So all you got is shouting lalala as loudly as possible?

 

[NGSamson]

So all you got is shouting lalala as loudly as possible?

Ok. If you insist little one. Run along now.

 

[Avatar9]

Hi, you have received -3 reputation points from NGSamson.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Go fuck your self douche wagon.

Regards,
NGSamson

Note: This is an automated message.

Need a tissue?

 

[NGSamson]

Na. I'm satisfied now. I even spell checked it for you.

 

[catzmeow]

you still have nothing. Your googlefoo was useless.You did the neg rep thing, it was useless and now the spelling thing. Sad. You and Daws need to get more money from mom for more Starbucks. You are a douche as well. you re a l-o-s-e-r. That unbind your panties ?

You have provided zero evidence of your positions. You clearly don't know what the Bible says on these subjects, in spite of your repeated attempts to explain what the Bible says. If you're going to use the Bible as the source of your morality, you should make an effort to familiarize yourself with its teachings. You haven't. Now, you're resorting to these sorts of pathetic insults, which aren't even funny.

At least there's one plus on this thread...you've learned to spell loser properly.

 

[NGSamson]

you still have nothing. Your googlefoo was useless.You did the neg rep thing, it was useless and now the spelling thing. Sad. You and Daws need to get more money from mom for more Starbucks. You are a douche as well. you re a l-o-s-e-r. That unbind your panties ?

You have provided zero evidence of your positions. You clearly don't know what the Bible says on these subjects, in spite of your repeated attempts to explain what the Bible says. If you're going to use the Bible as the source of your morality, you should make an effort to familiarize yourself with its teachings. You haven't. Now, you're resorting to these sorts of pathetic insults, which aren't even funny.

Sad...

I did not try to explain shit. Now go get your Starbucks and a clever book so you look smart and feel good about your self. Run along now little one. Oh,and so you know, I attempted to prove nothing. You and the other douche wagons in your little rep circle jerk attempted to bait me into a theological debate and lost. It was pointed out that your only intention was to troll. You are to stupid to pull it off,

 

[catzmeow]

Nope. It may to you, but personally, I dont know any one who stole there woman while they were picking grapes. You are not trying to get tho the bottom of anything, you are trying to make a point as you see it. All the power to you.

I'm addressing your point which is that "everyone has always known that rape is wrong." It's historically inaccurate. In the old testament, it was god-approved to kill an enemy and take his virgin daughter, and make her your wife or concubine against her consent. That's rape.

So, no. Not everyone has always known that rape is wrong. That's a modern construct.

NGSamson:

Arguments unsupported by evidence are meaningless. You claim that the Bible says specific things. When asked to provide evidence that this is the case, you refuse. It's clear that you don't really know what your Bible says, and you're just regurgitating your own beliefs and prejudices in place of having actual knowledge of Biblical teachings.

No one is fooled by these games. If you are going to claim that your views and prejudices are from the Bible, then you have a responsibility to be sure that your positions are actually in line with the Bible. They aren't. Like so many American Christians, you're a lazy thinker who doesn't even really know what the Bible teaches, but is sure that the Bible is in agreement with your personal views. It's sad how illiterate you people are about your own faith.

 

[NGSamson]

Nope. It may to you, but personally, I dont know any one who stole there woman while they were picking grapes. You are not trying to get tho the bottom of anything, you are trying to make a point as you see it. All the power to you.

I'm addressing your point which is that "everyone has always known that rape is wrong." It's historically inaccurate. In the old testament, it was god-approved to kill an enemy and take his virgin daughter, and make her your wife or concubine against her consent. That's rape.

So, no. Not everyone has always known that rape is wrong. That's a modern construct.

NGSamson:

Arguments unsupported by evidence are meaningless. You claim that the Bible says specific things. When asked to provide evidence that this is the case, you refuse. It's clear that you don't really know what your Bible says, and you're just regurgitating your own beliefs and prejudices in place of having actual knowledge of Biblical teachings.

No one is fooled by these games. If you are going to claim that your views and prejudices are from the Bible, then you have a responsibility to be sure that your positions are actually in line with the Bible. They aren't. Like so many American Christians, you're a lazy thinker who doesn't even really know what the Bible teaches, but is sure that the Bible is in agreement with your personal views. It's sad how illiterate you people are about your own faith.

Yes, Yes, run along now. Its boring.

 

[G.T.]

Dude, get off it. She's quoting the Bible and instead of engaging in the discussion like an adult (i.e. explaining why, in context, you feel said quotes don't mean what she thinks they mean)..............you're ducking, dodging and deflecting.

If that's the way you're going to be, you may as well stop hitting reply. It's pretty annoying that you can't just have the conversation. "you wouldn't understand.......you dont wanna understand....etc etc." are not responses, they're dodges. You're dodging. Stoppit.

 

[NGSamson]

Dude, get off it. She's quoting the Bible and instead of engaging in the discussion like an adult (i.e. explaining why, in context, you feel said quotes don't mean what she thinks they mean)..............you're ducking, dodging and deflecting.

If that's the way you're going to be, you may as well stop hitting reply. It's pretty annoying that you can't just have the conversation. "you wouldn't understand.......you dont wanna understand....etc etc." are not responses, they're dodges. You're dodging. Stoppit.

Posting out of context to make what you say right in your mind does not constitute fact.

 

[G.T.]

Dude, get off it. She's quoting the Bible and instead of engaging in the discussion like an adult (i.e. explaining why, in context, you feel said quotes don't mean what she thinks they mean)..............you're ducking, dodging and deflecting.

If that's the way you're going to be, you may as well stop hitting reply. It's pretty annoying that you can't just have the conversation. "you wouldn't understand.......you dont wanna understand....etc etc." are not responses, they're dodges. You're dodging. Stoppit.

Posting out of context to make what you say right in your mind does not constitute fact.

Not explaining the true context or even challenging it, but instead putting your fingers in your ears and calling it dumb, is the child's way out of the discussion, yet you do STAY in the discussion, which is sort of like , retarded.

 

[NGSamson]

Dude, get off it. She's quoting the Bible and instead of engaging in the discussion like an adult (i.e. explaining why, in context, you feel said quotes don't mean what she thinks they mean)..............you're ducking, dodging and deflecting.

If that's the way you're going to be, you may as well stop hitting reply. It's pretty annoying that you can't just have the conversation. "you wouldn't understand.......you dont wanna understand....etc etc." are not responses, they're dodges. You're dodging. Stoppit.

Posting out of context to make what you say right in your mind does not constitute fact.

Not explaining the true context or even challenging it, but instead putting your fingers in your ears and calling it dumb, is the child's way out of the discussion, yet you do STAY in the discussion, which is sort of like , retarded.

Tell you what i will do. I will go to the original post, and go from there to ware you guys said that morals are not tough in religion. I have to go hand out paychecks .

 

[G.T.]

Posting out of context to make what you say right in your mind does not constitute fact.

Not explaining the true context or even challenging it, but instead putting your fingers in your ears and calling it dumb, is the child's way out of the discussion, yet you do STAY in the discussion, which is sort of like , retarded.

Tell you what i will do. I will go to the original post, and go from there to ware you guys said that morals are not tough in religion. I have to go hand out paychecks .

I don't even know if that sentence is english, do you mean taught in Religion?>

Nobody said they weren't taught in Religion.

What was said was, they didn't originate from Religion. They came from Humanity itself, through the vehicles of sentience and instinct.

 

[NGSamson]

Not explaining the true context or even challenging it, but instead putting your fingers in your ears and calling it dumb, is the child's way out of the discussion, yet you do STAY in the discussion, which is sort of like , retarded.

Tell you what i will do. I will go to the original post, and go from there to ware you guys said that morals are not tough in religion. I have to go hand out paychecks .

I don't even know if that sentence is english, do you mean taught in Religion?>

Nobody said they weren't taught in Religion.

What was said was, they didn't originate from Religion. They came from Humanity itself, through the vehicles of sentience and instinct.

You are right. You guys said that religion says that its acceptable to commit rape. As for as your lack of understanding, I was in a hurry because unlike you I work, and I have employees who work and needed to be paid.

 

[lilbug]

Let us turn back before it's too late
By Rabbi Moshe Averick
08/31/2011
Jewish World Review


One can reasonably predict that as the infatuation with skepticism and atheism grows among the influential "intellectual elite" of our society, so too will their readiness to embrace more radical changes in moral values. Religious believers expressing dismay and horror at the ominous moral storm clouds looming on the horizon are met with smug derision, hysterical counter-accusations, or utter indifference. There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting --- including the sexual molestation of children.

No doubt, this assertion will appear preposterous to some atheists, and will spark outrage. Yet the logical and philosophical consequences of atheists' belief systems are inescapable. When asked by journalist William Crawley if he thought that pedophilia was "just wrong." Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University — a world-famous philosopher of "ethics" — responded as follows:

"I don't have intrinsic moral taboos. My view is not that anything is just wrong…You're trying to put words in my mouth. "​

Singer went on to explain that he is a "consequentialist." For the benefit of the philosophically challenged let me explain "consequentialism" in a nutshell: If you like the consequences it's ethical, if you don't like the consequences it's unethical. Thus, if you enjoy child pornography and having sex with children it's ethical, if you dislike child pornography and having sex with children it's unethical. In an article entitled "Heavy Petting," Singer likewise gave his stamp of approval to bestiality. As a reward for producing such pearls of wisdom, he has been granted the privilege of teaching our children "ethics" at an Ivy League university. Moreover, he is by no means the only atheistic philosopher industriously engaged in greasing the precarious slope on which Western society totters. Hence, my "plea" to atheists, for the philosophical groundwork for the acceptance of pedophilia has already been put in place by such philosophers.

LINK

The pseudo-intellectualism of the barbaric and depraved on display. . . .

First let me say, I am not an atheist, but this is the kind of crap that generally keeps me out of the religion discussions and why my backside has not met with the top side of a church pew in many years.

This is total crap and hardly worth the 12 pages of dialog it generated. This kind of thinking does more harm than good for religion.

God and their religion, or lack thereof, is the very last thing on a pedophilie's mind when they are violating children and has no bearing whatsoever on their affliction. One does not become a pedophile because he took a pass on attending Sunday services.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Let us turn back before it's too late
By Rabbi Moshe Averick
08/31/2011
Jewish World Review


One can reasonably predict that as the infatuation with skepticism and atheism grows among the influential "intellectual elite" of our society, so too will their readiness to embrace more radical changes in moral values. Religious believers expressing dismay and horror at the ominous moral storm clouds looming on the horizon are met with smug derision, hysterical counter-accusations, or utter indifference. There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting --- including the sexual molestation of children.

No doubt, this assertion will appear preposterous to some atheists, and will spark outrage. Yet the logical and philosophical consequences of atheists' belief systems are inescapable. When asked by journalist William Crawley if he thought that pedophilia was "just wrong." Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University — a world-famous philosopher of "ethics" — responded as follows:

"I don't have intrinsic moral taboos. My view is not that anything is just wrong…You're trying to put words in my mouth. "​

Singer went on to explain that he is a "consequentialist." For the benefit of the philosophically challenged let me explain "consequentialism" in a nutshell: If you like the consequences it's ethical, if you don't like the consequences it's unethical. Thus, if you enjoy child pornography and having sex with children it's ethical, if you dislike child pornography and having sex with children it's unethical. In an article entitled "Heavy Petting," Singer likewise gave his stamp of approval to bestiality. As a reward for producing such pearls of wisdom, he has been granted the privilege of teaching our children "ethics" at an Ivy League university. Moreover, he is by no means the only atheistic philosopher industriously engaged in greasing the precarious slope on which Western society totters. Hence, my "plea" to atheists, for the philosophical groundwork for the acceptance of pedophilia has already been put in place by such philosophers.

LINK

The pseudo-intellectualism of the barbaric and depraved on display. . . .

First let me say, I am not an atheist, but this is the kind of crap that generally keeps me out of the religion discussions and why my backside has not met with the top side of a church pew in many years.

This is total crap and hardly worth the 12 pages of dialog it generated. This kind of thinking does more harm than good for religion.

God and their religion, or lack thereof, is the very last thing on a pedophilie's mind when they are violating children and has no bearing whatsoever on their affliction. One does not become a pedophile because he took a pass on attending Sunday services.

Good post.

 

[Woyzeck]

If the only thing stopping you from thinking child molestation is a-okay is the expectation of eventual punishment after you're dead and not, say, the fact that it's disgusting on several levels because it's child molestation, you're a pretty fucked up human being.

And if you think that's the author's point, you're morally and intellectually bankrupt.

His point is quite clear, linking atheism with a lack of morality, leading to the justification of child molestation.

There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting --- including the sexual molestation of children.

 

[Sky Dancer]

If the only thing stopping you from thinking child molestation is a-okay is the expectation of eventual punishment after you're dead and not, say, the fact that it's disgusting on several levels because it's child molestation, you're a pretty fucked up human being.

And if you think that's the author's point, you're morally and intellectually bankrupt.

His point is quite clear, linking atheism with a lack of morality, leading to the justification of child molestation.

There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting --- including the sexual molestation of children.

Explain pedophile priests and ministers then.