You are clearly wrong on both points. Keep on bringing up the gaggle of dogs. lol I mean Ditzy is not stupid as to bring up 1/3, but you are so deluded that you think your failures are victories. Ditzy may still be reachable, you... you are way too far gone.
Athiests Obviously Believe in SOMETHING!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
You are clearly wrong on both points. Keep on bringing up the gaggle of dogs. lol I mean Ditzy is not stupid as to bring up 1/3, but you are so deluded that you think your failures are victories. Ditzy may still be reachable, you... you are way too far gone.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
I am clearly correct. Gaggle is a group, but all groups are not gaggles. Your sets are just off. That can be corrected with basic literacy courses.
It is not begging the question, you are just repeating your errors. It's interesting you bring up gaggle of dogs. You are pretending the "words" are more important than the concepts. You are pretending that philosophical horseshit is more important than the science.
I know gravity will work tomorrow because it has in the past and hads done so in a repeatable and predictable fashion. It's not like rain or something. No one gets up and says, "boy, I hope gravity works today. Better pray about it." That's as retarded as it is laughable.
If gravity suddenly does not work tomorrow then he we will find new knowledge to explain why.
But you are not seriously arguing we should test it. You do not go jumping off ten story buildings with the expectation that maybe gravity will not work today. You know it will. Are you going to drink gasoline to see if it has the same effect today that it did yesterday on some fool that died from it? Or do you know the answer? I know the answers to both. Go ahead and claim you do not if you like, I don't care. You WON'T be putting your money where your mouth is.
As Einstein put it, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
It's you who pretends the word is important. that unless gays can call theirs a marriage its' second class. You say that with gay marriage, the use of that word marriage is a civil right, and justice is incomplete without changing the meaning. YOU magnify words over reality.
You're dismissed. Go wallow in your lies.
And with babies. the science says it's always a living human being. You create words like fetus which you say mean, not a human. You use language to obscure and dehumanize.
Last edited:
Not going to repeat this over and over in this thread...
In this context, gaggle means group. It is commonly understood to mean a group of geese, but may not depending on the audience and speaker. For instance, military pilots might be assumed to be talking about a group of aircraft. There is no reason it cannot be used to describe a group of dogs, but you would probably need to qualify by saying the full "gaggle of dogs."
You are an idiot, who does not understand language or it's use, much like Ditzy does not understand numbers like 1/3 or .3333e.
The symbol is not important and gives no qualities to the existent or concept it attempts to describe. It's useful for communication, but that's it. The concept or existent is king to understanding.
You play word games to pretend knowledge and belief are the same thing. They are not. They are not meant to express the same concepts. Because knowledge is contextual and not eternally absolute does not mean its the same thing as belief. Belief is just a feeling without any proof.
Bullshit. I do not accept calling it anything other than marriage, in law, because doing so would lead to different legal definitions. Different legal definitions are not justified and whining about how using the word makes you or some religious quack feel bad is of no fucking interest to the state. Fuck the whiny bitches.
On abortion, I don't care what word you want to call the existent. Call it a baby if you like. I used "baby" in the discussion. It's not the same as a born baby. It's not even close until it has a functioning brain. Brainless unborn babies have no right to life. Brainless born babies have no right to life. We can use whatever word you want until you attempt to give the word legal meaning. That's when I will object. What most mean by baby is not the same as a fertilized egg.
YOU attempt to play word games. Not me.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
To bring people out of denial and help them enjoy fulfillment by connecting to their spirituality again. I could list all the studies, because they have done them, on how markedly better off people are emotionally, when they have a strong spiritual foundation. Less depression, less suicide, less dependency issues, less abusive, across the board in every aspect, people are much more content and stable, when they are in contact with their spirituality.
God is shaped like this. You don't get it do you? He exists as a form of energy which can be felt. This energy can move mountains. He most certainly exists! Question answered!
Yes, I do know what you believe, you may have some other people fooled, and you may have even fooled yourself, but as I demonstrated, your actions are revealing. They prove your denial, which is why you are spending this much time refuting me and spewing hatred my way, you're doing everything short of erecting a banner to say: Stringy is in Denial!
I haven't backpedaled on anything, I make a statement, you completely misunderstand it and take it out of context, I correct you, and then you claim I have backpedaled!
You telling me how people can live moral lives without spirituality doesn't make that so. You illustrate how people can live immoral lives and claim they are moral! It is you who wishes to poison our children with drugs, so you can indulge your personal decadence, it is your 'morality' which says it's okay to murder innocent babies so a woman can have choice, or terminate anyone who is of an inconvenience, and it is you who cheers on people in black robes as they force your perverted sexually-indulgent immorality on society against their will. You do all of this, and then with a straight face, call it morality? You're a fucking joke.
No, I am not calling my conscience God. I explained that this is about the only way I can think of to describe it to you in a way you can comprehend it. Apparently, you still weren't able to comprehend it! Sorry, I tried!
Again, it's NOT MY gut reaction! I am guided by the force of God, which I know is real, which I can feel and relate to, and sometimes even interact with. You're just not in connection with this power, and therefore unable to comprehend it.
No, God is infallible, and man is fallible. Men wrote the Bible, and the Bible is a religious document. I think I have made it clear at least a dozen times in this thread, I am not here to debate religious beliefs, this isn't about the belief in any particular religion. Why do you keep wanting to go back to a religious debate? Is it because you are more comfortable doing battle against Christians than God? Yeah, it's a little easier on your conscience to attack a book, than jumping on God Almighty himself. I understand, and I don't blame you for trying, but this conversation is about belief in God, or spiritual beliefs, not Religion, Christianity, or the Bible.
You know Stringy, you may have more success understanding me if you would stop trying to twist my comments into what you want to hear. No, that's not what I am telling you, that wasn't what I said, that wasn't what I meant, it was only what you wanted to hear me say, so you could ask another stupid irrelevant question, like the goob you are!
My response was to your assertion there is no reason to believe in God without religion, and I correctly pointed out that some religions don't believe in a God. The comment had nothing to do with morality, and I made no statement pertaining to morality there. So where did your mind derail itself?
No, it's not what I said! It's what you MISINTERPRETED! When I correct your MISINTERPRETATIONS, you are claiming that it is ME who is contradicting myself! I have never met someone so fucking arrogant in my life! You obviously have a problem interpreting the words I am writing, probably because you continue trying to interject your own thoughts into what I say, and derive something completely different, but the problem here is certainly not ME!
It doesn't matter, God has compassion for the mentally retarded. If you believe in ghosts and nothing else spiritual, you are obviously retarded. If you're not retarded, it still doesn't matter, because straw men can't exhibit morality.
LMAO, well you are half right.. Atheism doesn't say anything about morals or ethics. It's nice of you to finally admit that here. Religion is indeed a byproduct of spirituality, and while it often assimilates concepts of moral values, it is not required, only spiritual connection is needed.
It may or it may not, it depends what is in your heart.
WOW, you believe in the same thing that I believe, you just don't call it spiritualism. You can't provide any physical proof to support your idea, but so what? Right?
Nope, not about that.
Oh, I never implied you need God. You are living proof that you don't need God! Again, you have completely misinterpreted me. I explained, to the best of my ability, the energy force I define as "God" ....can't speak for others, I don't know what they believe, I can't read their minds.
But that isn't logical proof it will work tomorrow. That is strong evidence to suggest it probably will. Proof is something undeniable, it can't be refuted. You can't even prove there will BE a tomorrow, much less whether gravity will still work! The Sun could explode in the next 5 minutes, and wipe out our entire solar system, you have no PROOF that this won't happen.
Again, you are bringing up "spirituality" then running over to your box of religious criticisms to find an argument! We are not discussing religious philosophies here! How many times do I have to point that out to you? Human spirituality does indeed work a certain way, humans are hard-wired to worship and have spiritual beliefs. The evidence is found in every civilization we've ever unearthed. It's been like this for all of our history as a species.
I don't have a pastor, and my mental health has never been better. It is you who seems to have a profound problem understanding the written word. Perhaps this explains why you are so adamantly opposed to the Bible? If you have read it with the same 'stupidity filter' as you've read through my postings, it's no wonder you are against it! I recommend working on your reading comprehension skills.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Bullshit. YOu said it's demeaning to gays and makes them second class. Stop lying.
Nope. I don't much care about that. My concern is that it will be given legal distinction. There is no value in the different label, other than to make the hetero fundies feel superior, which is exactly what you and others claim they are. But you don't want the state to actually make legal distinctions. Sure, and we've been through the separate but equal nonsense before. You want to see if things have changed, but go jump off the fucking building and test it for yourself.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
So you're fine with 'civil unions'? That's distinct.
Separate but equal does not apply here because there are now actual separate and equal facilities in question.
Last edited:
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
bump.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
the government should recognize marriage and civil unions. And give them both the same rights. The accomodations are not separate. There is no separate, there is only equal.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
There is no discrimination. Marriage is a union of a male and female, and same-sex unions are not marriages. That is what the whole debate is about, whether or not we should make them equivalent to marriages. In order to do this, we must redefine the word 'marriage' to mean something else. To include a sexual behavior of questionable moral value. Once we do that, we are mandated by our Constitution to afford this 'right' to every American, regardless of their sexual preference, or whether it is of questionable moral value.
If we can redefine the word 'marriage' we can also redefine the word 'child' and the word 'consent' and we can establish a whole foundation of laws based on immorality and decadence. Once you can completely redefine the meaning of words, the word 'freedom' doesn't mean the same thing anymore...oh, it may for now, but if we establish that it's socially acceptable to redefine things we don't like, to accommodate our whims, then how can 'freedom' remain the same?
You can't point to one study that has used controls to ensure there is no other cause. I can tell you what the cause for all of that is. It's obvious. Discrimination against non believers! We are encouraged to hide our beliefs by a society that gets violently angry with us if we share them. It can be psychologically damaging as well as financially, if one is not strong enough to deal with it. It's difficult to form loving relationships with people who have been told that atheists are amoral Satan worshipers and other such nonsense. Doing business with them is no picnic either.
Don't come back at me with some sort of nonsense about whining. I have had little problem dealing with it, but that is partly because I have learned I have to shut my mouth sometimes. Not here though.
Are you arguing that God exist in your thoughts, yet you can't explain him?
When I said "they are shaped like this", my point was there was nothing for you to read if my thoughts did not exists. Where are the words of God? How do we know they are his words? Are you claiming that God speaks through you?
My thoughts can be measured, we can see their impact in moving my body and we are even learning how to read thoughts. Not through faith. Not through belief. Through knowledge and reason.
When has God's energy moved a mountain? How is it felt?
You have not answered. You have evaded, unless you are arguing that God is knowable through you. Again, seek help. You are not Jesus. If you insist on continuing your delusion, you would probably be better off believing that God speaks through some crackpot/charlatan that lived long ago.
What have you demonstrated? You have demonstrated nothing, accept your own psychosis.
BS. You claimed belief in an afterlife was necessary for moral beliefs and then you backpedaled when I pointed out that that was religious opinion. You do this same sort of thing all the time. Everyone here knows you do it.
I don’t wish to poison any children with drugs. What a load of horseshit. Part of the reason I support legalization is because it would be easier to control the ACTUAL problem of children using drugs with laws that are narrowly tailored to that purpose than to try to stop all drug use, which serves no useful purpose.
Again, you are using confirmation bias. You want reason to validate YOUR morality. You are not asking that it supply a morality. Reason, certainly, does not lead to YOUR morality. That does not mean it leads to no morality. Your morality is based on the Christian teachings you were brought up with and that dominate the culture in which you find yourself. You feel that they are right without much question or when you do question you cannot find a reasonable answer and so you turn to God.
I was raised the same way. But the morals that I can’t support with reason I have rejected or at least acknowledged my uncertainty concerning them until I could contemplate them further. The rest, I retain.
You want a morality to tell you why homosexuality, mj use (but not alcohol) etc. are evil not one based on reason. For that, you will need God.
I understand it just fine. You are calling your conscience God. You feel this or that is wrong and cannot explain it through reason. So you claim God is responsible for your feeling or conscience. He is not. Some of it is valid stuff you accepted without understanding; the rest is just cultural bias.
An example, I feel that gay sex between two dudes is icky. I feel that gay sex between two unattractive females is icky, but a little less so. I don’t feel that gay sex between two attractive females is icky. That’s not God. God is not telling me that gay sex is bad because I don’t like the thought of two dudes going at it. It’s just my bias for attractive females.
Listen to what I am saying Ditzy. If you think God exists in your conscience, then at least accept the fact that you might misunderstand him. Otherwise you are a danger to yourself and others. This isn’t about the debate. It’s about my concern that you are bordering the insane. I think you should go see a psychologist or if nothing else your pastor. I would not suggest the pastor if this was about the debate.
I am not dragging back to religion. You are. You are the one that demands God/spirituality is necessary for the products of religion, i.e., a definitive moral code, concepts of the afterlife and punishment for sin. These have nothing to do with God. They have to do with religion and what it claims to tell us about the wishes of God. If you claim that God alone tells you what is right and wrong then you are making up your own religion. That is fine, but then you can no longer claim that your religion is more objective or definitive than the moral code of atheists, developed through reason and knowledge. The question then becomes why do you need a God?
I misunderstood you, had a brain fart and confused Buddhism with Hinduism. My knowledge of eastern religions is not as good as Western ones, of course. They are still full of crap, but in my opinion Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism are more like philosophies that religion though they hold some sill spiritual beliefs.
Everyone knows that Damo is God, even if Damo does not and you believe he is immoral. You will claim otherwise but see below on the ghost.
But that does not apply to that point. It would apply to why a religion without a God, not why a God without a religion. Are you confused?
IT’S NOT A STRAW MAN. Where do you fools get the idea that an example is a straw man? I did not claim that was your argument.
I am asking you how one derives morality based on spirituality alone. Apparently you did not actually mean spirituality, but spiritual beliefs that agree with Christianity. So why do you think Damo is immoral.
You are so full of shit. It has been repeated to you numerous times in various debates that atheism says nothing about ethics. You are going to pretend that this is some sort of revelation… again. Maybe, the nubes will buy that shit, but those of us who have spent the last decade telling you this are not fooled.
Again, tell us how one derives morals from a belief in ghosts? You just claimed that spirituality alone is needed for morality.
You are just chasing your tail and apparently learning NOTHING.
There is no need for spirituality to explain cause and effect. For instance, some immoral behaviors can lead to death or disease. It’s not God punishing you. It’s reality. Reality is not really punishing, you are just suffering for ignoring reality.
I can provide physical proof of some of the external consequences of immoral behavior and I just alluded to some of them. I can not prove when I (or any sane person) feel guilt over getting away with something. Why should I care to in order to find morality? I am not seeking morality for you or some other sociopath, but for me. I don’t fucking care if you accept my morality.
Maybe, that is your problem. You want a morality that you can force others to follow or so they will give you kudos for following.
I should have explained more fully. You have not explained why you need a God to find or establish morality.
If you have explained your God to the best of your abilities, then God is nothing but your imagination. He has not definite traits, characteristics, wants or desires outside of what you imagine.
Proof is not absolute outside the context of knowledge. You are mistaken. This is why the courts operate on beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt anyone could possibly imagine. It’s absurd and pointless to expect that sort of proof or pretend that beyond a reasonable doubt is no different than randomly picking the guilty, or convicting based on what your gut tells you.
Of course, I cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that the Sun will not explode tomorrow. Why should I fucking care. Angels dancing on the head of a pin! There is no reason to believe it will. It’s not faith that propels me to assume it will not. It is knowledge and experience, though obviously I don’t even really consider the possibility on a regular basis. If we start having occasional explosions of the sun, I start to wonder when the next one might come.
You are very very very dense. The point is, spirituality does not lead to any form of definitive moral code, just as non-spirituality does not. Some atheists are moral and know their morality some are not. The same is true with theists. Belief in God or rejection of the belief does not say a thing about morals and neither does spirituality.
Dude, you have already proven you don’t have half the knowledge of the Bible that I do. Or maybe you will find where JC spoke against homosexuality in the shower.
Last edited:
Explain. CUs for gays and Marriage for heteros? No, I am not okay with that. Even if they claim to be equal the government will try to create legal differences between them. Until the courts or an amendment is passed that the state may not offer any different benefits or restraints between the two I would not support it.
Even with that assurance, I don't see the point. What purpose does it serve? Protecting the feelings of fucking whiny bitches that want to feel superior to others? Why should the state care? Their is no valid purpose in it.
Explain. What "facilities" are you talking about?
Here's a clue, make an assertion then provide argument or vice versa. That will help to make your point clear. It also furthers discussion.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
when you mention "separate but equal" as being unconsitutional, what is separate?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
They're not considered marriages YET; but you'll be fortunet enough to see it occur, in your lifetime.
Legally saying homosexuals are joined in a civil union and heterosexuals are joined in marriage, is separate. I would not much care if the court ruled or some sort of amendment were passed that the state and feds could not treat them differently, other than in the label. But again, I don't see the point in the different labels. Absolutely no purpose is served by the different label accept to throw up a separate but equal detour that would not be equal. It seems a waste of time for those who sincerely want equality.
It is not going to be long now until the marriage laws are overturned. The California ruling and the other (mass.... i think) will likely bring this to a head relatively soon and the homophobes are going to lose.
Last edited:
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
But the legal precedent was based on separate services and accomodations. There will be no separate services and accomodations here, So your reference to that case is ill advised, and legally irrelevant.