The Death of the American Catholic Church

[ding]

At least I'm realistic and also giving you a chance that if you ever come up with real proof of your god, I'm open to changing my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.

It's you who can't come up with real proof so you attempt to mock me. I bet there's a passage in the bible about that.

Realistic? You?

At least my mind is open to new discoveries if anyone ever comes up with real proof either way about a god. If you have a brain that works properly, you'll come around.

You? Open minded?

My mind is wide open. The problem is, you have nothing and you've come to realize it, me thinks, so now you're on tilt. Again. You should go and lie down.

You can have this rube, he's pretty empty, gotta run.

Bye bye, Karl.

See you later!

 

[Mudda]

All of Creation and everything in it and everything that has occurred since space and time were created are my evidence.

...that your particular invisible friend who wants us to obey a book made everything? Um... no.

 

[ding]

Realistic? You?

At least my mind is open to new discoveries if anyone ever comes up with real proof either way about a god. If you have a brain that works properly, you'll come around.

You? Open minded?

How ironic. We're still waiting on you to elucidate your evidence. "You just wouldn't accept it" is pretty thin.

All of Creation and everything in it and everything that has occurred since space and time were created are my evidence.

That was basically a statement of "I have nothing". This is the problem with "believers", once they "believe" they are no longer thinking and questioning.

I see. Thank you for proving that socialism seeks uniformity and conformity. I much prefer the Christian way of free will.

 

[ding]

All of Creation and everything in it and everything that has occurred since space and time were created are my evidence.

...that your particular invisible friend who wants us to obey a book made everything? Um... no.

Then don't believe. Problem solved.

 

[Fenton Lum]

"In fact, the only things you attribute to religion are bad things. Your logical conclusion is that you do believe that religion should be abolished, blahbiddy blah blah."

I don't think you need me for this since you came here looking for a specific argument you did not find, and had to assign a "conclusion"/position to another hominid since you didn't get the response you wanted/baited for. Go pratctice in your mirror some more. Of particular note is the fact that you obviously cannot refute the observations of the Catholic Church's factual and historical offenses on humanity.

Wrong. I exposed the logical conclusion of your beliefs. Do you know why they stopped burning witches at the stake? It is because they realized they weren't witches. If we truly believed that they were witches intent upon doing evil, the logical thing would be to get rid of them. This is the logical conclusion of your argument. You believe religion is evil. Therefore, the logical thing would be to get rid of it. Now do you understand?

You telling me what I believe is not presenting evidence of your's. So why were the Puritans murdering women in mob activities again?

Is it because religion is evil and needs to be abolished?

There you go again, if that's your view, state it. You don't see me childishly saying you want Catholicism as the state religion.

I don't want a theocracy.

Do you know why they stopped burning witches at the stake? It is because they realized they weren't witches. If we truly believed that they were witches intent upon doing evil, the logical thing would be to get rid of them. This is the logical conclusion of your argument. You believe religion is evil. Therefore, the logical thing would be to get rid of it.

Let me give you an example... I believe that socialism is evil and we should get rid of it. See? Man, that felt good to say it out loud.

Your aristocracy won't hear of it, it's woven all through american society. It's just no good for the unsubstantial people.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expanse for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

You're all over the place with this shit, and by the way, you might need to have a word with the current pope about this wealth redistribution paradigm we're currently dealing with.

 

[Fenton Lum]

At least my mind is open to new discoveries if anyone ever comes up with real proof either way about a god. If you have a brain that works properly, you'll come around.

You? Open minded?

How ironic. We're still waiting on you to elucidate your evidence. "You just wouldn't accept it" is pretty thin.

All of Creation and everything in it and everything that has occurred since space and time were created are my evidence.

That was basically a statement of "I have nothing". This is the problem with "believers", once they "believe" they are no longer thinking and questioning.

I see. Thank you for proving that socialism seeks uniformity and conformity. I much prefer the Christian way of free will.

Christian way of "free will"? Hell, you can't even face how this land masss was come by, no wonder, have a nice day in your own little subjective head pard.

 

[Mudda]

All of Creation and everything in it and everything that has occurred since space and time were created are my evidence.

...that your particular invisible friend who wants us to obey a book made everything? Um... no.

The don't believe. Problem solved.

But why are you so upset? Because you can't get ANYONE to agree with your bogus god proof? Which boils down to basically "because the universe exists". I guess you're not as clever as you thought.

 

[ding]

Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful. Recently the term militant atheist has been used to describe adherents of the New Atheismmovement,[11] which is characterized by the belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed."[12]

1. Michael Hesemann, Whitley Strieber (2000). The Fatima Secret. Random House Digital, Inc.. Retrieved on 9 October 2011. “Lenin's death in 1924 was followed by the rise of Joseph Stalin, "the man of steel," who founded the "Union of Militant Atheists," whose chief aim was to spread atheism and eradicate religion. In the following years it devastated hundreds of churches, destroyed old icons and relics, and persecuted the clergy with unimaginable brutality.”
2. Jump up↑ Paul D. Steeves (1989). Keeping the faiths: religion and ideology in the Soviet Union. Holmes & Meier. Retrieved on 4 July 2013. “The League of Militant Atheists was formed in 1926 and by 1930 had recruited three million members. Five years later there were 50,000 local groups affiliated to the League and the nominal membership had risen to five million. Children from 8-14 years of age were enrolled in Groups of Godless Youth, and the League of Communist Youth (Komsomol) took a vigorous anti- religious line. Several antireligious museums were opened in former churches and a number of Chairs of Atheism were established in Soviet universities. Prizes were offered for the best 'Godless hymns' and for alternative versions of the Bible from which ... the leader of the League of Militant Atheists, Yemelian Yaroslavsky, said: "When a priest is deprived of his congregation, that does not mean that he stops being a priest. He changes into an itinerant priest. He travels around with his primitive tools in the villages, performs religious rites, reads prayers, baptizes children. Such wandering priests are at times more dangerous than those who carry on their work at a designated place of residence." The intensified persecution, which was a part of the general terror inflicted upon Soviet society by Stalin's policy, ...”
3. Jump up↑ Multiple references:Julian Baggini (2009). Atheism. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.” Karl Rahner (1975). Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “ATHEISM A. IN PHILOSOPHY I. Concept and incidence. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any possibility of knowing God. In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Kerry S. Walters (2010). Atheism. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Phil Zuckerman (2009). Atheism and Secularity: Issues, Concepts, and Definitions. ABC-CLIO. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.”
   
   Yang, Fenggang (2004). "Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China". Sociology of Religion 65 (2): 101–119. Sign In. "Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures. In practice, almost as soon as it took power in 1949, the CCP followed the hard line of militant atheism. Within a decade, all religions were brought under the iron control of the Party: Folk religious practices considered feudalist superstitions were vigorously suppressed; cultic or heterodox sects regarded as reactionary organizations were resolutely banned; foreign missionaries, considered part of Western imperialism, were expelled; and major world religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, were coerced into "patriotic" national associations under close supervision of the Party. Religious believers who dared to challenge these policies were mercilessly banished to labor camps, jails, or execution grounds.".
   
   Yang, Fenggang (2006). "The Red, Black, and Gray Markets of Religion in China". The Sociological Quarterly47 (1): 93–122. http://www.purdue.edu/crcs/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Yang3Markets.pdf. "In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as a dangerous narcotic and a troubling political ideology that serves the interests of antirevolutionary forces. As such, it should be suppressed or eliminated by the revolutionary force. On the basis of scientific atheism, religious toleration was inscribed in CCP policy since its early days. By reason of militant atheism, however, atheist propaganda became ferocious, and the power of “proletarian dictatorship” was invoked to eradicate the reactionary ideology (Dai 2001)".
4. Jump up↑ Multiple references:Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “ATHEISM A. IN PHILOSOPHY I. Concept and incidence. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.”
   
   Charles Colson, Ellen Santilli Vaughn (2007). God and Government. Zondervan. Retrieved on 21 July 2011. “But Nietzsche's atheism was the most radical the world had yet seen. While the old atheism had acknowledged the need for religion, the new atheism was political activist, and jealous. One scholar observed that "atheism has become militant . . . inisisting it must be believed. Atheism has felt the need to impose its views, to forbid competing versions."”
5. Jump up↑ Multiple references:Kerry S. Walters (2010). Atheism. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “ATHEISM A. IN PHILOSOPHY I. Concept and incidence. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Julian Baggini (2009). Atheism. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.”
6. Jump up↑ Multiple references:Harold Joseph Berman (1993). Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “One fundamental element of that system was its propagation of a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism. Until only a little over three years ago, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was the established church in what might be called an atheocratic state.” J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte (1996). Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “For seventy years, from the Bolshevik Revolution to the closing years of the Gorbachev regime, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union, and the Communist Party was, in effect, the established church. It was an avowed task of the Soviet state, led by the Communist Party, to root out from the minds and hearts of the Soviet state, all belief systems other than Marxism-Leninism.”
7. ↑ Jump up to:7.0 7.1 Alister E. McGrath. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. Random House. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “So was the French Revolution fundamentally atheist? There is no doubt that such a view is to be found in much Christian and atheist literature on the movement. Cloots was at the forefront of the dechristianization movement that gathered around the militant atheist Jacques Hébert. He "debaptised" himself, setting aside his original name of Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grâce. For Cloots, religion was simply not to be tolerated.”
8. Jump up↑ Multiple references:Gerhard Simon (1974). Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R.. University of California Press. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “On the other hand the Communist Party has never made any secret of the fact, either before or after 1917, that it regards 'militant atheism' as an integral part of its ideology and will regard 'religion as by no means a private matter'. It therefore uses 'the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of scientific materialism and to overcome religious prejudices..' Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities.” Simon Richmond (2006). Russia & Belarus. BBC Worldwide. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “Soviet 'militant atheism' led to the closure and destruction of nearly all the mosques and madrasahs (Muslim religious schools) in Russia, although some remained in the Central Asian states. Under Stalin there were mass deportations and liquidation of the Muslim elite.”
9. ↑ Jump up to:9.0 9.1 9.2 The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “Seeking a complete annihilation of religion, places of worship were shut down; temples, churches, and mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; sacred texts were burnt; and it was a criminal offence even to possess a religious artifact or sacred text. Atheism had long been the official doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party, but this new form of militant atheism made every effort to eradicate religion completely.”
10. Jump up↑ Rodney Stark; Roger Finke (2000). Acts of Faith: explaining the human side of religion. University of California Press. Retrieved on 16 July 2011. “The militant atheism of the early social scientists was motivated partly by politics. As Jeffrey Hadden reminds us, the social sciences emerged as part of a new political "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).”
11. ↑ Jump up to:11.0 11.1 11.2 Ian H. Hutchinson. Ian Hutchinson on the New Atheists. BioLogos Foundation. Retrieved on 29 September 2011. “Ian Hutchinson tells us in this video discussion that New Atheism -- a term used to describe recent intellectual attacks against religion -- is actually a misnomer. It is better, he says, to call the movement “Militant Atheism”. In fact, the arguments made by New Atheists are not new at all, but rather extensions of intellectual threads which have existed since the late 19th century. The only unique quality of this movement is the degree of criticism and edge with which its members write and speak about religion. According to Hutchinson, the books written by New Atheists in the past decade simply restate many of the same arguments which have emanated from atheist thinkers for decades. The militant edge of these arguments is what makes “New” Atheism unique and elevates it to a level of popularity within a subset of the population. It is because these Militant Atheists show no respect at all for religion, says Hutchinson, that they are receiving status as a new movement.”
12. Jump up↑ Multiple references:
    • Simon Hooper. The rise of the 'New Atheists'. Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.”
    Amarnath Amarasingam. Religion and the New Atheism (Studies in Critical Social Sciences: Studies in Critical Research on Religion 1). Brill Academic Publishers. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For the new atheists, tolerance of intolerance (often presented in the guise of relativism of multiculturalism) is one of the greatest dangers in contemporary society.” Stephen Prothero. God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter. HarperOne. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For these New Atheists and their acolytes, the problem is not religious fanaticism. The problem is religion itself. So-called moderates only spread the "mind viruses" of religion by making them appear to be less authoritarian, misogynistic, and irrational than they actually are.”

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, I suppose a frothy mouthed zealot's work is never done, paste away friend, in the name of jesus of course.

Sure.

Communism is naturalized humanism. Karl Marx

When you find this follower of Marx you came here with a burning desire to confront you can share that with him/her.

Not at all. I came here with a desire to present my evidence. That's what growth filled communities do. They explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Diversity of thought is critical to that process, brother.

And we're still waiting, guess ya got sidetracked with your missionary work here.

lol, I'm no missionary. Just awake.

You will have to wait a bit longer. I have to kill the alligators before I can drain the swamp, if you know what I mean.

 

[ding]

You? Open minded?

How ironic. We're still waiting on you to elucidate your evidence. "You just wouldn't accept it" is pretty thin.

All of Creation and everything in it and everything that has occurred since space and time were created are my evidence.

That was basically a statement of "I have nothing". This is the problem with "believers", once they "believe" they are no longer thinking and questioning.

I see. Thank you for proving that socialism seeks uniformity and conformity. I much prefer the Christian way of free will.

Christian way of "free will"? Hell, you can't even face how this land masss was come by, no wonder, have a nice day in your own little subjective head pard.

I thought you were leaving. What's the matter? Am I getting under your skin? Do you have an overwhelming urge to satisfy an animalistic urge?

Of course I can face the reality of how this land mass was come by. Can you? You act like I am somehow more responsible for it than you. My goodness, please get down off of your high horse because if you fall you might just break your neck. If I am guilty, then you are just as guilty. When are you going to make reparations? What is holding you back from doing so?

 

[ding]

Wrong. I exposed the logical conclusion of your beliefs. Do you know why they stopped burning witches at the stake? It is because they realized they weren't witches. If we truly believed that they were witches intent upon doing evil, the logical thing would be to get rid of them. This is the logical conclusion of your argument. You believe religion is evil. Therefore, the logical thing would be to get rid of it. Now do you understand?

You telling me what I believe is not presenting evidence of your's. So why were the Puritans murdering women in mob activities again?

Is it because religion is evil and needs to be abolished?

There you go again, if that's your view, state it. You don't see me childishly saying you want Catholicism as the state religion.

I don't want a theocracy.

Do you know why they stopped burning witches at the stake? It is because they realized they weren't witches. If we truly believed that they were witches intent upon doing evil, the logical thing would be to get rid of them. This is the logical conclusion of your argument. You believe religion is evil. Therefore, the logical thing would be to get rid of it.

Let me give you an example... I believe that socialism is evil and we should get rid of it. See? Man, that felt good to say it out loud.

Your aristocracy won't hear of it, it's woven all through american society. It's just no good for the unsubstantial people.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expanse for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

You're all over the place with this shit, and by the way, you might need to have a word with the current pope about this wealth redistribution paradigm we're currently dealing with.

lol, I am no fan of privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class. I would have thrown their butts in jail if I were president. Which BTW, can you remind me who you voted for in 2012 and why this wasn't an issue for you back then?

Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expanse for the "job creator" class? Same answer. I would have thrown their butts in jail if I were president. Which BTW, can you remind me who you voted for in 2012 and why this wasn't an issue for you back then?

Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses? Same answer. I would have thrown their butts in jail if I were president. Which BTW, can you remind me who you voted for in 2012 and why this wasn't an issue for you back then?

I'm all over the place with this shit? No, sweetie. That's you. I would have thrown their butts in jail if I were president. Which BTW, can you remind me who you voted for in 2012 and why this wasn't an issue for you back then?

I might need to have a word with the current pope about this wealth redistribution paradigm we're currently dealing with? Why? That is what you want, not me. You should call him. Don't forget to tell him that you believe religion is evil and should be abolished.

My aristocracy won't hear of it? It's woven all through american society? The evil that socialism represents will perish on its own. It is only a matter of time. Error can't stand. It eventually fails.

It's no good for the unsubstantial people? It is no good for anyone. It is pure evil.

 

[ding]

All of Creation and everything in it and everything that has occurred since space and time were created are my evidence.

...that your particular invisible friend who wants us to obey a book made everything? Um... no.

The don't believe. Problem solved.

But why are you so upset? Because you can't get ANYONE to agree with your bogus god proof? Which boils down to basically "because the universe exists". I guess you're not as clever as you thought.

I'm not upset. I couldn't care less what anyone else believes. Believe, don't believe. Makes no difference to me. At the end of the day we are the sum of our choices. I am happy enough for you to experience the consequences of practicing failed behaviors. It does not affect me one bit.

 

[ding]

You? Open minded?

How ironic. We're still waiting on you to elucidate your evidence. "You just wouldn't accept it" is pretty thin.

All of Creation and everything in it and everything that has occurred since space and time were created are my evidence.

That was basically a statement of "I have nothing". This is the problem with "believers", once they "believe" they are no longer thinking and questioning.

I see. Thank you for proving that socialism seeks uniformity and conformity. I much prefer the Christian way of free will.

Christian way of "free will"? Hell, you can't even face how this land masss was come by, no wonder, have a nice day in your own little subjective head pard.

Are you leaving for good this time?

 

[Mudda]

All of Creation and everything in it and everything that has occurred since space and time were created are my evidence.

...that your particular invisible friend who wants us to obey a book made everything? Um... no.

The don't believe. Problem solved.

But why are you so upset? Because you can't get ANYONE to agree with your bogus god proof? Which boils down to basically "because the universe exists". I guess you're not as clever as you thought.

I'm not upset. I couldn't care less what anyone else believes. Believe, don't believe. Makes no difference to me. At the end of the day we are the sum of our choices. I am happy enough for you to experience the consequences of practicing failed behaviors. It does not affect me one bit.

Failed behaviours? You mean like you, trying to convince people of your nonsense?

 

[ding]

All of Creation and everything in it and everything that has occurred since space and time were created are my evidence.

...that your particular invisible friend who wants us to obey a book made everything? Um... no.

The don't believe. Problem solved.

But why are you so upset? Because you can't get ANYONE to agree with your bogus god proof? Which boils down to basically "because the universe exists". I guess you're not as clever as you thought.

I'm not upset. I couldn't care less what anyone else believes. Believe, don't believe. Makes no difference to me. At the end of the day we are the sum of our choices. I am happy enough for you to experience the consequences of practicing failed behaviors. It does not affect me one bit.

Failed behaviours? You mean like you, trying to convince people of your nonsense?

lol, what part of I don't care if you believe or not do you not understand?

 

[ding]

Failed behaviours? You mean like you, trying to convince people of your nonsense?

Did you just use spell behaviors like the British do? OMG. That makes so much sense, lol.

 

[Mudda]

...that your particular invisible friend who wants us to obey a book made everything? Um... no.

The don't believe. Problem solved.

But why are you so upset? Because you can't get ANYONE to agree with your bogus god proof? Which boils down to basically "because the universe exists". I guess you're not as clever as you thought.

I'm not upset. I couldn't care less what anyone else believes. Believe, don't believe. Makes no difference to me. At the end of the day we are the sum of our choices. I am happy enough for you to experience the consequences of practicing failed behaviors. It does not affect me one bit.

Failed behaviours? You mean like you, trying to convince people of your nonsense?

lol, what part of I don't care if you believe or not do you not understand?

Your obsessive postings trying to convince everyone of your beliefs say different.

 

[yiostheoy]

Like Mark Twain said, reports of his death was vastly exaggerated.

Same is true of The Holy Church.

The Protestants on the other hand seem pretty dead to me.

 

[Mudda]

Failed behaviours? You mean like you, trying to convince people of your nonsense?

Did you just use spell behaviors like the British do? OMG. That makes so much sense, lol.

So now I've reduced you to criticizing spelling. At least you didn't dispute what I said. Good for you.

 

[ding]

Wrong. I exposed the logical conclusion of your beliefs. Do you know why they stopped burning witches at the stake? It is because they realized they weren't witches. If we truly believed that they were witches intent upon doing evil, the logical thing would be to get rid of them. This is the logical conclusion of your argument. You believe religion is evil. Therefore, the logical thing would be to get rid of it. Now do you understand?

You telling me what I believe is not presenting evidence of your's. So why were the Puritans murdering women in mob activities again?

Is it because religion is evil and needs to be abolished?

There you go again, if that's your view, state it. You don't see me childishly saying you want Catholicism as the state religion.

I don't want a theocracy.

Do you know why they stopped burning witches at the stake? It is because they realized they weren't witches. If we truly believed that they were witches intent upon doing evil, the logical thing would be to get rid of them. This is the logical conclusion of your argument. You believe religion is evil. Therefore, the logical thing would be to get rid of it.

Let me give you an example... I believe that socialism is evil and we should get rid of it. See? Man, that felt good to say it out loud.

Your aristocracy won't hear of it, it's woven all through american society. It's just no good for the unsubstantial people.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expanse for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

You're all over the place with this shit, and by the way, you might need to have a word with the current pope about this wealth redistribution paradigm we're currently dealing with.

My aristocracy? Remind me again which party had a supermajority in February 2008, lol?

 

[ding]

Failed behaviours? You mean like you, trying to convince people of your nonsense?

Did you just use spell behaviors like the British do? OMG. That makes so much sense, lol.

So now I've reduced you to criticizing spelling. At least you didn't dispute what I said. Good for you.

No. Making fun of you being British.