“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#547560 Jun 17, 2013
??? Is this kind of thinking the product of your Atheistic teachings?? You definitely need to reach out to Dawkins for help Brackets can be used within another person's writings to clarify.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/parenthe...

My use of the () was to clarify Secular Humanism can mean Atheism as well...iyai!, I thought atheists were smart? where the set of you come from on this billboard I not know? oy!
[QUOTE who="scaritual"]< quoted text> You're still providing that fabricated portion of the statement you added in, even after it was pointed out you disingenuously and deceptively, did that.
Fascinating.
<quoted text>You should understand at this point what that footnoted observation by Justice Black meant, and that it didn't mean what you think it meant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum
<quoted text> Secular Humanists can be atheists, or agnostics, or hold various viewpoints, but they don't have to be atheists or agnostics to be Secular Humanists.
That's much like saying a Christian must believe in the triune, or that being a Christian means you go to church on Sunday.
Have you ever heard of Christian atheists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheis...
http://christianatheist.com/ <= That might be of interest to some Christians reading along.
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum
You should probably look at this, too. Peloza v. Capistrano School District, from 1994: "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are `religions' for Establishment Clause purposes."
In that above referenced case -(Peloza v. Capistrano School)- the Supreme Court refused to reverse a ruling that secular humanism is not a religion.
<quoted text> It's good to see you admit religions are invented by man.
<quoted text> No, you deserve the congratulations. Your admission speaks volumes.
<quoted text>
Why would I do that?
I don't let people think for me, or an organization or religion declare what I think.
That's what many theists do, however.
A religion not have anything to with whether you let people think for you or not. Atheism/Secular Humanism is a religion defined by the United States Supreme Court.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547561 Jun 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Goalpost change!
QUICK!
Lol

You may see it as that - it's not.

We're agreed that Christianity says mankind is inherently sinful.

I'm pretty sure we're also agreed that words like good, kind, considerate, loving, etc are not used by Christians when describing sin.

More often than not, they'll use words like: evil, wretched, damned, flawed, abominable, vile, etc.

Therefore, if mankind is inherently sinful then the less favourable words are what believers will use.

Are you trying to say that Christians will use nice words when describing the sins of mankind?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#547562 Jun 17, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>

But is it natural for human males to have long term sexual and monogamous relationships with women? In Africa is never was, and black people all over the world still have trouble to adapting to this European ideal.
Um....hmmmm.

Trying not to jump the gun here.

You can't possibly be suggesting that it is just black men who seem to have difficulty with monogamy can you?

Or that European men don't?

And please keep in mind divorce and marriage rates don't factor in undisclosed infidelity.

One could argue African Americans are more honest in that regard as they won't put up the front to satisfy some expected social obligation of marriage and monogamy.

Not that it necessarily means there are not unethical things that can also take place. Such as not supporting a child or things like that

But if you are saying what it appears like you are saying, what are the reasons you feel the struggle with monogamy is something more inherent to the black community and not men in general?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547563 Jun 17, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Your posts constantly prove that you worship Satan.
All you are is a hate filled liar.
Yes, that's about the size of it.

Like that German guy who had the meltdown, Trifecta's religion is defined by hatred.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547564 Jun 17, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>Who you think I worship is not important.
I think you worship the god of the bible.

It's nice to see you admit that he's not important.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#547565 Jun 17, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
Sadly, it would be better if it was just stupidity
Many in this group that came here lie
And to help Scaritual I will explain I call it a group because they travel in a pack
I came here of my own volition.

No one asked me to join. I don't travel with a pack. None of the atheists here "travel in a pack".

That's just a convenient catch phrase you use.
Skombolis wrote:
and are friends and not because it has anything to do with me. A group simply is a group. Ok some of it DEFINITELY is stupidity!
But a lot of it is their main objective seems to cover each other at all costs to their ethics. They will lie, be hypocritical, defy logic, etc so long as it helps one another out
They are in fact proud of this fact.
I cover no one.

I may offer my thought or view, but it isn't intended to 'cover' them. Unless you see pointing out what I find to be inaccurate observations made by others, directed towards another, to be unethical.

The observation you made concerning Catcher just isn't supported by any history I've seen with Catcher.

He will plainly state what he states. I've never seen an instance in which Catcher would use a proxy to say something he'd say without a proxy, which is his approach.

Why would he use a proxy to say what he plainly says or would say in all other instances, using his registered screen name?

Think what you will, it just doesn't add up.
Skombolis wrote:
They think that because they don't argue and share a bond of unethical behavior that somehow that is a good thing. You can always find people willing to group together in hate that will lie for one another in return for the same being done for them.
I lie for no one.

I don't see atheists lying for each other here, or in other venues, either.

Maybe you can point out where that has happened. Supply the link to the instance. I've asked for that before concerning myself, and I've seen others ask the same thing.

Both the atheist and theist have asked that of you.
Skombolis wrote:
The fact that Christians in here disagree shows we put principle and belief ahead of alliances
You're confusing a detail here.

Christians, from what I see, argue over aspects of their doctrinal differences and belief sets. Protestants, Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians etc..., have differing beliefs or views, and will disagree about or argue those points in personal beliefs.
Skombolis wrote:
Something most of the atheists here not only don't do but think it is stupid to do
That's probably due to this small, but very important detail; The only thing attached to atheism, is the lack of the theistic belief that deities exist.

That's it. Not much to disagree on.
Skombolis wrote:
Sad really to stand for so little that anonymous Topix friends means more to them than being honest and staying true to themselves
I'm true to myself. I see the other atheists here and elsewhere being true to themselves.

I understand you do not understand that.

This is because atheists are not a part of a "HIVE" mentality.

An atheist does not dictate how an atheist acts or should act, as long as it does not effect myself, or humanity in its expression of personal freedom.

That is a foreign concept to the theist, and difficult to grasp, as I'm almost positive you will not understand what I just stated.

Read that carefully, and consider what was stated.

Not what you believe was stated.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547566 Jun 17, 2013
wilderide wrote:

No, I'm saying that homosexual sex
Here, check it out:

Three gay guys are sitting in a hot tub and a big bubble of semen floats to the surface.

One gay guy asks, "Alright, who farted?"

HA HA !

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#547567 Jun 17, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an atheist but I'm not a secular humanist. Why are you lying?
A Christian, a Jew, and a secular humanist were sentenced to death by
beheading. As the Christian stood before the chopping block, he cried,
"I see the problem before me - but I believe God will spare me from this
fate."

The executioner said, "He better, because God is the only one who can
spare you now," and he pulled the switch. Down came the blade - until
it stopped just one inch from the Christian's neck. The executioner and
the crowd exclaimed, "God has spared this man; and so he must be released."

Then it was the Jew's turn. As he stood before the chopping block he,
too, said, "I see the problem before me - but I believe God will spare
me from this fate."

The executioner replied, "I don't think so," and pulled the switch. The
blade came down - and jerked to a halt an inch from the Jew's neck. So
in the belief that God had spared him, he, too, was released.

Finally the secular humanist faced the chopping block. And low and
behold he said, "I see the problem before me - it's right over there,
you forgot to remove the safety lock from the blade mechanism".

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547568 Jun 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh ya, my bad. Good catch, Catch.
Eagles are bad ass birds.
Last time I was in Scotland I saw some white-tailed eagles. They have wingspans of up to 8ft. Amazing birds.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547569 Jun 17, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, in those decisions, the court didn't make the declaration that atheism is or was a religion, but that for purposes of the protection clause, it was to be afforded the full protections that religion enjoys.
In - Torcaso v. Watkins - Roy Torcaso, a man who had been appointed by a Maryland Governor to a Notary Public office was asked to swear in, and would not make "a declaration of belief in the existence of God"(part of the wording in the swearing in/oath process).
That violated the "no religious test" portion of our U.S. Constitution.
Roy Torcaso was atheist. You can read more about the case, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watki...
That appears to be the rule or result in these "cited" court cases that theists often try to use in saying that atheism is a religion. The Courts didn't declare that atheism was a religion, or wasn't a religion, they declared that atheism was - afforded equal protection with religions - under the Establishment Clause.
These court cases were initiated and in response to, attempts or conditions that theists, or aspects of our theism saturated society in some way, trampled the rights of the atheist, which resulted when the atheist was discriminated against, or was denied a right or the liberties of the rights we all are supposed to enjoy, equally, and specifically because they(atheist) >- do not practice a religion -< at all.
"COURT RULES ATHEISM A RELIGION"

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/#MV3osEHu...

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#547570 Jun 17, 2013
scaritual wrote: You are a buffoon.
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
The last vestige of the the man who can't debate on merit!
I include insults simply because they are funny and do so in the middle of systematically using facts to prove my point or disprove the point of someone else
When you and many in your group are left scratching your rear-end trying to figure out how you can lie your way out of the newest hole you dug for yourself, this is what you normally end up having to resort to as you sure can't argue based on the facts!
Thank you for making it so obvious what I said in my post was true.
:)
That statement was due to you going off on a wild tangent in response to this post, http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR... , in which you highlighted your misunderstanding of what other people have stated.

You exampled the buffoon like nature of your ability to misconstrue what other people say(or is it intentional?)

I've not decided if it's intentional, or simply beyond your abilities to read and understand what is written.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547571 Jun 17, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! I'm pretty sure that, because the victim is male, he isn't going to be forced to marry his attacker. THAT would be an abomination after all! But forcing a female rape victim to marry her attacker is perfectly moral, obviously. Everyone knows that women fall immediately in love when they are raped. Oy.
:-)

Yes, that god of the bible really cares for women by forcing them to marry the guy who rapes them.

I'm sure Christian women see the logic in this and won't hesitate to marry the guy who rapes them.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547572 Jun 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, I'm not going to claim that I know the bible better than you do.
However, that scripture is all about what the bible god will do if people don't toe the line and worship him.
In other words he will make sure his people are enslaved again.
My point about free will still stands, though
But you must understand that you're taking a verse completely out of context and give it a different meaning by doing so.

Who was that scripture written about and why?
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#547573 Jun 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you worship the god of the bible.
It's nice to see you admit that he's not important.
You will be joining Judas unless you REPENT.
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#547574 Jun 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I was in Scotland I saw some white-tailed eagles. They have wingspans of up to 8ft. Amazing birds.
That's because the Lord Jesus Christ MADE them that way.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547575 Jun 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol
You may see it as that - it's not.
We're agreed that Christianity says mankind is inherently sinful.
I'm pretty sure we're also agreed that words like good, kind, considerate, loving, etc are not used by Christians when describing sin.
More often than not, they'll use words like: evil, wretched, damned, flawed, abominable, vile, etc.
Therefore, if mankind is inherently sinful then the less favourable words are what believers will use.
Are you trying to say that Christians will use nice words when describing the sins of mankind?
No. You claimed that the bible calls us evil, wretched, damned, flawed, abominable, vile, etc.

I asked you where'd you get that from.

It looks to me like you're filling in the blanks as you see fit....

Yes? No?

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#547576 Jun 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"COURT RULES ATHEISM A RELIGION"
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/#MV3osEHu...
))))helpless laughter))))lol---I wonder what the 'Eye' going to say to this one...lol
Rosa Winkel

Australia

#547577 Jun 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no... Please, not another holiday...
It doesn't matter if someone's a single parent or not, they're either a mother or a father.
And we already have Mother's Day and Father's Day.
Why not? Holidays are great.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#547578 Jun 17, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I was in Scotland I saw some white-tailed eagles. They have wingspans of up to 8ft. Amazing birds.
Ya? Cool, I'll check em out, thanks.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#547579 Jun 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"COURT RULES ATHEISM A RELIGION"
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/#MV3osEHu...
I see

So atheism = religion and religion = atheism

That makes sense.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 min eternalrock 828,591
Why do white men hate white women who want blac... (May '11) 6 min Johnny 3,008
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 9 min dollarsbill 3,501
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 35 min June VanDerMark 584,306
john wayne was gay (Nov '07) 41 min Ken in Dublin 233
News Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 44 min Gas Woman 121,663
Aztec Group Inc Florida Tokyo Japan Hong Kong R... 1 hr claygauxx 5
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Jac 98,987
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 3 hr Jewelry 442,872
More from around the web