What is Digg?116 Comments
- tvhack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7 I'll bury it your god your hate your lies and malice. Stop trying to lead everyone elses' live and maybe youll get out of that trailor park
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5He likes showing his good Christian side. The whole 'love thy neighbor' really shines through
- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Okay... **cracking knuckles**
The USSR and China, while atheistic in nature, built cults of personality around their respective leaders (Lenin/Stalin and Chairman Mao). These cults of personality are also seen in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, North Korea and the Jonesboro cult (drink the Flavor-Aid...). In fact, the argument can be made that Christianity is a cult of personality that has merely gained widespread acceptance. All these cults of personality have/had the trappings of religion: thanking "dear leader" for the blessings they receive daily, a very high representation in art, music and literature (all positive), and dedication of the individual to serve "dear leader" wherever they lead. This absolutism, this horrifying subservience of the human spirit to the will of one person or organization is what religion represents.
If people could be spiritual on their own and not have to impede on anyone else's lives, I'd have no problem with that. Unfortunately, it just isn't that way. People think it is their moral duty to convert or otherwise chastise people they view as immoral or simply 'others', and this is where we get planes flying into skyscrapers, and zealots killing abortion doctors and bombing clinics, and fundamentalists rioting at the sight of a holy figure in a cartoon. In the case of rapists and child molesters and murderers, I would agree it is society's responsibility to contain that element which is unarguably dangerous to the community as a whole. But being homosexual does not cause anyone else pain or suffering. Being an atheist does not cause anyone else pain or suffering. Being a fundamentalist does. Being a bigot does. - tvhack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A loving, nurturing and healthy home, a home of acceptance and free from abuse is all that a child requires. Nothing about a persons sexuality or race stops a person from providing such an environment. only religion can change love to abuse, and the abusers strangely abuse in love, genital mutilation both male and female which is a practice of a number large of religions. and the preaching of intolerance which is a far more sinister abuse that its performed by all religion that continues to spiral into murder throughout the world. This intolerance is the greatest form of child abuse and is one that needs to stop today.
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Brownsville
You really dont understand the concepts of expanding discussions and looking at close parallels to help UNDERSTAND an issue? atheistacolyte is not saying the USSR or China worship god, he is rightly identifying clear similarities between "cults of personality" and religions
And using the deeds of Lenin and Mao to respond to the fact that Being an atheist does not cause pain or suffering is damn weak! - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Being an atheist doesn't make me or anyone else despotic leaders of fascist regimes anymore than you believing in a god makes you the pope. You're saying that atheism directly leads to these consequences. Well, it doesn't.
Those were all countries in Asia, too. Therefore, all Asian countries are despicable human-rights-violating regimes which cause suffering on the grandest scale. Tibet, anyone?
By the way, Pol Pot was Cambodia's leader.
Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Next time you try to engage someone in a battle of wits, try to bring more than the bit of straw you munch on. - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Either you think only you can read or everyone is stupid...."
Not everyone. Just you.
"First you want to compare these evil murders to Christianity then you say you don't. You made the comparison, not me. You got caught with a really bad argument, not me. Atheist countries has killed more people in the absent of religion than others."
Actually, I made a comment that suggested a link between the totalitarianism of the Chinese and Russian regimes and the totalitarianism of some Christian sects (Some others are actually peaceful, and I respect them far more than I respect those sects which try to make their 'morality' into secular law). I did not get 'caught with a really bad argument', because you obviously didn't refute it. Bring it on.
"They did. They forced atheism on everyone. They HARMED people, they killed people. They took away their freedom."
Once again, these regimes were totalitarian. Totalitarian governments, by definition, have heavy government involvement in the public and private lives of its citizens. It's ironic that fundamentalists want to create a totalitarian theocracy, since that will make it far more like Stalin and Mao than any government I would want. As an aside, Sweden has a very high proportion (something around 60-80%) of atheists in it's population, yet you don't hear anything about the Swedish massacres.
"btw.... Russia is in part Asia and Europe."
Such a small portion of Russia is in Europe, it can be considered either. The Gulags were in Siberia, an Asian territory.
"First, you asked."
Yes, *I* did. Not ANiceAtheist. To recap, you said:
"AniceAtheist:
You said....
"I'll bite. Why DID he say to sell all your worldly possessions?""
That was actually me.
"Second, where I am from, there is an old saying: Don't start none, wont be none."
I've got a saying where I'm from, too: I think, therefore I am.
"Third, On your rant, why do you care?"
Why aren't you rebutting my argument?
"Fourth: Did you not read what I wrote?"
I did. Can you read what I wrote?
"Lets look back for a second. Here is what was said by atheistacolyte:"
Well, at least you *DO* know when I'm writing something when it suits you.
'"Being an atheist does not cause anyone else pain or suffering." This is not true. You really have to have your head in the sand to believe this...'
And I'm waiting for some kind of support for this..... any day now.....
'He made a piss poor attempt to link Mao and Lenin to religion. The thing they BOTH tried to get rid of.'
Actually, it's not piss poor because you say it is. See, you actually have to refute something to have intelligent debate.
'Of course there is link between Golf and Baseball. His argument is to say that because they are both on ESPN they are the same.'
No, my point is to say they're both on ESPN because they're sports. Recognize them for what they are. You're missing the forest for the trees.
"The issue on this discussion is simple. 8yr old children do not need to learn and/or discuss if two people of the same sex should be called a married couple. Nor should sex be taught to 8yr olds period."
And your mind on this discussion is even simpler. No one here is advocating that the children be taught about sex, merely that the video they showed in the schools which describes the family structure of two heterosexual couples, single parents, remarriages and same-sex parents is a valid video. - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Brownsville
Youre really 'grabbing at straws now'!!
I think what tvhack meant - was that he would rather spend time with his children rather than read/respond to your drivel - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@atheistacolyte
I agree with everything you said - but sadly I dont think people like the submitter here, Himself, Jamerican, Brownsville etc will ever listen - why? because they dont WANT to - they would have to reTHINK reEVALUATE, change their opinion; thats much to stressful for their conditioned, controlled brains to handle. - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It is absolutely amazing to me that people like you can exist. I really, really hope you live to see the day when homosexuals are truly accepted within this society as human beings.
- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3First, it was me and not ANiceAtheist who asked.
Second, I didn't ask for a blow-by-blow retelling of the verses listed.
Third (and most relevantly), if the young man could have gone to the treasures of heaven with his possessions, why is it so hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? Presumably, a rich man could exercise those 6 commandments (the more sensible ones, by the way; I wonder why Jesus didn't espouse the following of those first 4?) and enter heaven (as you imply). Why, then, would this young man be immediately dejected by the fact that he has 'great possessions'? Wouldn't he rather be more elated that he's always been on the path to heaven? Or, do only those who sell everything and follow Jesus get to go to heaven? - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Homosexuals do not choose to be gay. They simply are who they are. Of course they choose to have sex with others of the same gender, and they choose to live together.
Same false choices heterosexuals make. They don't choose to be heterosexuals but they do choose to have sex with others of a different gender, and they choose to live together.
It is not liberal dogma, it is classic libertarian dogma (Do no harm, and if no real harm is committed mind your own business). Liberal dogma has a form of intolerance built in, through extreme tolerance. ie. 'tolerate even if real harm exists'
Do not confuse the two. You want to be intolerant to people that do no harm, other then your false assertion of mental or social harm which is based on unfounded personal hate or unfounded bible hate.
Liberals are intolerant of people who point out that their tolerance of harm is well... going to cause harm, for example pointing out hate and violence in islamic teachings (Which I do btw)
Prayer is not banned in any school in the country by the courts. Mandatory prayer is banned. If your child wants to pray they can pray in school quietly without making a fuss during class or however they want to during recess. No one will stop them, what has been stopped is mandating it. And yes forcing the real view that gays are a type of person, that they can be loving parents or mean parents. That they can be good or bad. That just like heterosexuals they can be anything and that their sexuality is not a positive or negative thing, it just is.
I am a fiscal conservative so don't use those terms as a badge or something. And as far as popping kids out, normally the poorer and more uneducated a group is the more children they have. A really funny satire on that is the movie Idiocracy. rent it.
You didn't expose me for anything. You exposed your own bias, you showed who you are and who you hate through your writing.
Thanks for playing - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Burying is not "Hiding the Truth". If your article gets buried - it means people dont agree - Stop putting a sad 'the pro-gays are beating us' spin on the title - Buried as Lame - there are many other threads dealing with this issue, no sense in repeating the same arguments here.
Im burying this because its lame - not because I want to hide the truth - the truth has already come out - just not the one that this author wants. - Michael9636, on 08/04/2008, -1/+4One more time, for those who might have not taken the time to read the article. Here is what it says, in part:
"That’s a Family! is a half-hour video that depicts children explaining their various family structures, including single parents, divorced parents, adoptive parents and others. The film also contains a segment on families headed by same-sex couples, which sparked the ire of some parents. School officials said the video was meant to teach diversity and respect for all families, as part of the state-mandated health curriculum."
There ARE families with two dads, or two moms. There ARE children living in loving families with two dads or two moms. Fact of life. Get over it. How can teaching diversity and respect for ALL families be a bad thing???
Preaching hatred against others who might not be like you, is (or should be) an abomination in the eyes of God. You who preach hatred against loving families who happen to have two dads, or two moms, should fear the wrath of God.
Are you really that blind to the hatred you are spreading? Do you really think your God is that full of hate? You people scare me... - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@brownsville
If they are good parents - yes - BUT what is so bad about showing a same sex couple - they show a hetero couple with no issue.
Simple Question:
Whats the big problem with showing a same-sex couple? - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@IndyCon -
"AIDS is spread most in America by gay men. The gay lifestyle is unproductive, immoral and spreading a problem that is proving to be very costly(AIDS)"
(1) Unproductive - Unproductive.... how?
(2) Immoral - What basis for this? The book that says (1 Samuel 22:18-19) "And the king [Saul] said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall upon the priests. And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod. And Nob, the city of the priests, smote he with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen, and asses, and sheep, with the edge of the sword."
And (1 Kings 11:1-3) "But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites: Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart."
Not exactly a moral beacon.
(3) Spreading a problem - Homosexuality existed for a very long time before HIV/AIDS. It even exists in the animal kingdom (mostly, if not entirely, among mammals, I believe). And it is not completely responsible for the problem at hand. A lot has to do with intravenous drug use, blood transfusions (especially in Africa) and even heterosexual contact (In Africa, more women are infected than men). In fact, transmission factors (in North America) OTHER than homosexual contact are at 65%. Food for thought.
@leatherscot -
Thanks. Keep up your good work. Lux sit! - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow, Brownsville. I think you are putting forward a better argument for abortion than I ever could.
Merely because two nations have one (among other things) in common, does not mean all the evils are due to that one thing. How's about this:
Enron = CORPORATION
WorldCom = CORPORATION
Both have entered bankruptcy due to accounting scandals. Therefore, by your logic:
CORPORATIONS = EVIL
Rwanda = AFRICAN
Congo = AFRICAN
Both have committed genocide. Therefore, by your logic:
AFRICAN NATIONS = EVIL
You are such an amazing idiot it staggers my mind. How about recognizing my point on Sweden?
Religion is not the cause of all evils; that's ridiculous. I pointed out that there is probably an element common to totalitarianism and organized religion which is a root cause of some pretty atrocious evils. Your atrophied brain seems incapable of comprehending this.
"I know, I made the correction some time ago on another reply..."
I just looked through all your replies. You didn't. Mentiroso.
"It all boils down to this:"
This is gonna be good...
"ATHEIST = Coward and will soon be a Muslim. Get your Koran ready"
You never fail to disappoint.
Brownsville = ignorant, bigoted and with any luck will remove his genes from the gene pool as soon as the opportunity presents itself - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Brownsville -
"LOL... I hope you have your Koran handy..."
What does this mean? I don't want to have to call you a bigoted *****, but if I must...
"The main point here by myself and a few others is that this (Same sex couples) should not be taught in schools. Let the PARENTS deal with it when they FEEL it is time."
Then why not have the PARENTS deal with mathematics when they FEEL it is time. Or writing. Or history. The public school has a responsibility not to the individual parent, but to the society which the parent belongs to, and to which (like it or not) homosexuals and their advocates belong. It has a responsibility to produce educated citizens who best reflect the ideals of the society around them (not that they succeed in this endeavor, but that's an argument for a different thread), not ones which best reflect the ideals of their individual parents.
"You want the Govt out of the bedroom but you want the Govt to discuss the bedroom in school."
Once again, there is no need to discuss homosexual behavior to discuss homosexual couples, just as there is no need to discuss heterosexual behavior to discuss heterosexual couples.
LOL... I hope you have your brain handy... - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Totally disagree - you dont have to explain heterosexual activities to an 8 year old - so why would you have to explain homosexual activities?
Heterosexual couples are also defined by their SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR - whats the difference?
I agree that you cannot teach on incomplete data at each level of the argument - but by not telling your kids about same-sex relationships - are you not giving incomplete data???
Are you scared that if your kid knew about same-sex couples - that they are in danger of being part of one - if so - you are sadly wrong - a kid cant 'decide' to be gay - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3---"Why the assumption that parents of 8 year olds who have an issue with them being taught about same sex marriage have "hatred in their hearts?""
They do not like an entire group of people for an irrational reason. That's why.
---"If gay groups want the law out of their bedroom (e.i. anti-sodomy laws) why do they demand that parents teach 8 year old children what goes on in their bedrooms?"
no one is saying teach 8 year olds about specific sex acts. As I already wrote you could just as easily explain without prejudice by something like this:
"they love each other.Like your cousin and her boyfried except that some boys like other boys instead of girls and some girls like other girls instead of boys. people a very different but in unimportant ways in the big scheme of things. What matters is that they love and respect others."
---Hey Indycon stop putting words in my mouth like you put misinformation in your head. Homosexuality is not a choice. Your Ted Haggard is as gay as your hairdresser, he's just back in the closet to keep seling his crap to keep making money and holding influence. - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Notice you must use the term "infertile" because typically a male and female can reproduce, PERIOD. Gays cannot.
No, not PERIOD. Typically, a male and female can reproduce, with exceptions. If we are discriminating on the basis of reproduction, we must discriminate against all those married couples who do not produce children. And besides, if we're comparing to the norm, a gay male can "typically" reproduce with a female, and vice-versa. In fact, they are better equipped to reproduce than an infertile man.
"Promoting hetrosexual[sic] couples to commit and raise children is not just sound social structure, it's been proven to work throughout human history."
Here we get to the heart of the matter. Marriage is not, and has never been meant to be exclusively for the 'raising of children'. If it were, we would take children from unwed mothers and give them to married couples. If it were, we would take marriage benefits away from childless couples until they produced or adopted children. Marriage is a societal contract between two consenting adults to spend the rest of their lives together. It is a positive experience because it is the basis for community-building; two people sharing their resources as one.
"A day after you choose whatever you are."
What exactly is this supposed to mean? You didn't answer my question.
"A male Baptist can marry a Pentecostal female BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OF THE SAME GENDER!!!"
A Baptist and a Pentecostal have CHOSEN their religions, just as you say homosexuals have CHOSEN their sexuality. But a Baptist and Pentecostal can get married, despite their choice. To expand it out a bit, a Jew and a Hindu can get married, despite restrictions from both religions on marrying "outside the faith". They can still run down to the local courthouse, have a marriage ceremony and receive all the benefits of a marriage. Homosexuals (who have chosen, as you say, their lifestyle just as the Jew and the Hindu did) cannot.
I think you have a problem with this because you are somehow threatened by other people's sexuality. But you would only be threatened by them if you were unsure of your own. I have many homosexual friends (in fact, one of them was Best Man at my wedding), and I see them as equals, not as subhuman deviants. They did not choose the lifestyle they have; they did not choose to be ostracized, they did not choose to be reviled, they did not choose to be discriminated against, and they definitely did not choose to be afraid that the next guy they ask out might bash their head in with an iron pipe. - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The crap continues....
Look at tvhacks Previous Post
A loving, nurturing and healthy home, a home of acceptance and free from abuse is all that a child requires. Nothing about a persons sexuality or race stops a person from providing such an environment. only religion can change love to abuse, and the abusers strangely abuse in love, genital mutilation both male and female which is a practice of a number large of religions. and the preaching of intolerance which is a far more sinister abuse that its performed by all religion that continues to spiral into murder throughout the world. This intolerance is the greatest form of child abuse and is one that needs to stop today.
Do you want to rethink your last comment Brownsville? - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@atheistacolyte
Excellent response - I like your style! - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Jamerican
I would reply - but Aniceathiest has done an excellent job for me! - tvhack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Firstly I have dealt with a great number of those who have been abused from early childhood. So don't judge my comment as trivializing the abuse of children. (p.s. those within these churches aren't exactly innocent in regards to the abuse of minors.)
But I also watched the twin towers fall watched the mass murder of the tottsies in Rwanda. The genocide of the former Yugoslavia. these are a fraction of the abuses that have happened in my lifetime. Not to mention those that have come before. These actions are systemic of the children abused and indoctrinated from the values taught by religion in early life. How many children of the world would you like to see suffering from loss of life and / or from the loss of one or both of their primary caregivers. All children are suffering because of this abuse. - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You are a bigot because you are a prejudiced person intolerant of those who disagree with you. I am not a bigot because I have no problem with religious people who do not impose their beliefs on my life. I have no problem with Jainists, Buddhists and many other religions which closer reflect a philosophical leaning than a religion. If you could just sit in your church and not do anything in the real world to harm anyone, I wouldn't have a problem with you. But you are purposefully impeding the social acceptance of a group of human beings because of your antiquated moral beliefs on homosexuality. The reason I don't have a problem with them is because they have consensual sex with people of the same gender. Not a problem for me if my kids are homosexual or not; it will just be who they are. I have a problem with rapists and molesters of any orientation because they cause harm and suffering.
You are ignorant because you are not able to grasp that this argument is about a ½-hour video ALREADY DESCRIBING FAMILY STRUCTURES to 8-year-olds. If heterosexual couples and single parents get mentioned, why can't homosexuals? If 8-year-olds can comprehend heterosexual couples, why can't they comprehend homosexual couples? If there is nothing inherently sexual in teaching about heterosexual couples, then there is nothing inherently sexual in teaching about homosexual couples.
Let me tell you something about cowardice. Cowardice is hiding behind an ancient book, claiming it's word as divine, cherrypicking phrases that support your ideology while not knowing or caring about phrases that contradict your ideology. Cowardice is labelling an entire group of people by the actions of a few. Cowardice is claiming to know what you don't know and not owning up to it.
At least atheists have the courage to stand up and say "I don't know what I don't know." At least they attempt to be rational. At least their philosophical stance is based on careful deliberation and rational processes. At least they understand that there is no next world, so we have to make this one the best it can be. At least I do know I cannot become an honest theist without extreme evidence showing me my position is incontrovertibly wrong.
I feel as though I'm shouting against the wind, or flailing wildly against the impregnable walls of your willful ignorance. I will no longer try to correct you, because you are beyond correction, beyond reason and beyond hope. The only positive I shall extract from this is that many people have enjoyed what I've written, and disliked what you have vomited from your keyboard.
Lux sit! - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Yes, we can allow the vast majority of parents (most of whom are responsible and know what's best for their own children) to raise their kids with as little outside (i.e. public school system) influence as possible. Attempting to override parental influence due to the possible actions of a select few "bad parents" is simply wrong."
That's a pretty big assumption there. How do you know the 'vast majority of parents' know what's best for their own children? How do you know you know what's 'best' for your children? Fact is, there's no way to know, no one knows, and to say that you know is irresponsible in and of itself. Parenting is nothing but stumbling around in the dark and hoping you're going in the direction you want to go.
"When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.... And how is not this the most reprehensible ignorance, to think that one knows what one does not know? But I, O Athenians! in this, perhaps, differ from most men; and if I should say that I am in any thing wiser than another, it would be in this, that not having a competent knowledge of the things in Hades, I also think that I have not such knowledge." -- Socrates, Plato's Apology
You only know what you want for your children, but is that truly what's best? We don't know. The only way we could know would be to involve the child in the decision, and perhaps one of the best ways is to teach the child *how* to think before you teach them *what* to think.
"The default should be to allow MORE freedom to raise your own child not less."
Now the question is, though, does a parent have the right to teach the child what they think, or does a child have the right to not be indoctrinated into a belief system (note that I don't specify religion; this can be liberalism or conservatism or environmentalism or atheism) before they know how to handle the world around them? Whose right is more important? - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@IndyCon -
1) Infertile couples cannot reproduce naturally (and some cannot reproduce, PERIOD), should we not consider them married?
2) When did you decide (choose, whatever you wish to call it) to be heterosexual? Why did you decide it, and at that time?
3) A Baptist can marry a Pentecostal; they both CHOSE to be their respective faiths, but we decided to let them marry. - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I also dont think that it is a generic disease - but I do believe it to be genetic and not a matter of choice
- McGrude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@IndyCon, no one is avoiding Jamerican's questions because he only posted one and answered it himself.
As a parent of a 9 year old, yes explaining the difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple will be difficult, but mostly because I have to explain sex and reproduction first.
Jamerican's assertion that there is a major difference between explaining homosexuality and racial differences is valid. - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The crap continues....
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Himself
What was the purpose/objective of your statement - or did you just want to feel good typing a message of hate? - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Your conclusion of having to teach sexual behavior to explain homosexuality is flawed. Children understand marriage (some understand divorce, and some even understand re-marriage, too) a lot earlier than they understand sexual habits of married couples. They also understand love and affection, as long as they have a semi-decent upbringing. "Harry loves Irene. Joe loves Karen. Laurel loves Michelle. Nick loves Owen." No further explanation necessary. If a question is asked, just follow along the lines ANiceAtheist put forward. "Some boys like girls. Some boys like boys. Some girls like girls." No need to talk about sexual positions or styles. Simple as that.
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Jamerican. I see what your saying, and your right. A parent would need to explain sex itself first to explain homosexual couples, You could start with saying
"they love each other.Like your cousin and her boyfried except that some boys like other boys instead of girls and some girls like other girls instead of boys. people a very different but in unimportant ways in the big scheme of things. What matters is that they love and respect others."
and wouldn't have to explain sex yet. - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Are you saying you wish to eradicate all who disagree with your view?"
No of course not. People can disagree with me whenever they want. What I wish to 'eradicate' is the indoctrination of children into hate.
I said evil in the context of the meme. Not as some magical mysterious force pervading the world, but of human choice that are damaging to others. So no supernatural gibberish thanks. So no I don't 'realize' that invisible elephants in doorknobs tell us what is evil or good, nor gods, nor irrational beliefs. What tells us what is good or bad is our rational mind and our loving hearts (Due to emotions). As far as the Jesus myth is concerned it really makes no sense that an omnipotent deity made himself be born form a virgin to be killed to save mankind from himself to sit beside himself in the 'hereafter'. Stop believing in fairytales - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I would totally agree with you if all parents were good parents - unfortunately that is not the case.
- AtheistAcolyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You know, that may be a nice-sounding sound bite, but it really has no substance to it. Liberalism, like conservatism, is a philosophy, not a religion of faith. Your religion may lead you to a philosophy, but it is not a religion.
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3First off your god is a myth. Second if your myth of a god only wanted people of the opposite sex together, why would he have animals that are homosexual (many mammals from sheep to monkeys). I'm pretty sure they aren't "Choosing" the lifestyle.
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah Indycon he is.
Would someone be a bad parent is they teached their kids that Asians (insert group here) are immoral, sinful and an abomination in the eyes of God?
You label a group of people with broad negative stroke and teach your children to do the same, your propagating hate and your a bad parent for doing so. - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Your delusional.
transcendental harm? I get it, you think a deity is real, Your specific deity hates gays, so you think teaching your kid that gays are ok will piss off your deity. Well then all that can be said is. Your delusional and your trying to pass on your delusion. Nothing that I have said in any other comment has changed your opinion because your opinion is rooted in your delusion. But I'm not going to break your delusion on a digg forum. What I will point out is keep your delusions to yourself because it is very harmful to society please and thanks.
PS: not all people demanding civil rights for blacks were black nor is everybody demanding equal rights for homosexuals, gay. But funny thing is everyone against civil rights was a Bigot, and everyone against equal rights for Gays is too. - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@indycon
You have exposed nothing other than your own ignorance, and ability to fuel hate - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Its not a good thing - but can you think of a better way? Anyway - what is immoral about a same-sex couple?
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We dont want to force 8 year olds in the bedroom - why cant they just be told 2 men can be a couple as well as a man and a woman. If the 8 year old has no knowledge of sex - why would they need to know more at this stage?
Regarding Children of Same-Sex couples not being happy? Indycon - do you have personal experience to base this on? A concrete Study? No - becuase the only official studies have taken place in Holland and the UK - and both studies were positive and dont support your statements.
As for all the bible quotes - well - thats a book in many versions, subject to interpretation thru translation. This has been thrashed out in nearly every thread on this issue here - lets not do it again - something original from the Religious Right maybe? - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And he also said that your supposed to hate your parents and your brothers and sisters.
Your also supposed to sell all your worldly possessions.
So unless your a poor hobo with no family your not following Jesus's word to the letter and thereby are a hypocrite. Using Jesus as cover for your hatred and ignoring him when you want to live in a big cushy home and love family. - Michael9636, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2@ atheistacolyte
Thank you for your thoughtful, reasoned comments. You have the patience of a saint - far more than I have. I look forward to reading your posts in other areas in the future.
Lux sit - You have shed a lot of light, thank you... Unfortunately, there are some here who are driven by emotions and blind fear. For them, your logic is futile. - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@indycon
I am a married man - married to a man - legally in the Netherlands. How can any state say its illegal that I call myself married.
And please - lets not have the natural/not natural - AIDS arguments again - they really show u are getting desperate - unable to continue a logical discussion.
Its people like you that damage kids - not the image of a same-sex couple! - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And the second part of the question - what is immoral about a same-sex couple - and why should children not know that they exist?
- leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Furthermore - Its even more sad that these people want to nurture the hate in future generations
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4FTA:
"That’s a Family! is a half-hour video that depicts children explaining their various family structures, including single parents, divorced parents, adoptive parents and others. The film also contains a segment on families headed by same-sex couples, which sparked the ire of some parents."
The Ire of hate ridden parents that don't want to teach their children about sex in any form. And then have teenage kids pregnant and blame it on media and not following abstinence. Teach your stupid kids about condoms and healthy lifestyle choice (including gay if they are) so that they don't grow up to be the next generations Hate mongers like you are. You can change the future if you get yours heads out from behind your bibles. I sound upset but these 'parents' spark my ire sorry.
buried - leatherscot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Isnt it sad that the religious nuts that have been defeated in the UK - still try to peddle their hate by posting here putting a 'negative spin' on the title so that if they do get dugg down - in their own limited brains they can claim some sort of victory?
Sad...
... Very Sad -
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is