DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Religious Freedom.

A man with such a tenuous grasp on the English language that his primary means of expression are reduced to posting from the Bible line by line in separate posts and images based on scatalogical humor?

I think that's certainly something to see, as far as I'm concerned.

On what basis do you make this conclusion?

I wonder if people realize that Jesus was probably the most famous socialist there is.

The argument that modern atheism lacks an ethical code and is influenced by hedonism and nihilism is not one I make with empirical evidence at this moment.

I thought I had some evidence on the basis of charitable donations but apparently a review of that study lead to counter evidence in a study by MIT.

My argument in this area has more to do with observations by Nietzsche and the degree to which philosophy drifted towards post-structuralist and socialistic pseudo-philosophies and away from the sort of objective viewpoints which lead to the enlightenment in terms of Hume and Locke (and Kant and Bacon and a slew of other guys).

I think the question of "why be good?" or even "What is goodness" hasn't been adequately addressed by modern philosophers. Religion, while it's methodology is basically faith, does at least attempt to approach these questions. I think Christopher Hitchens would be an example of an atheist who did far more harm than good by basically drinking and smoking himself to death and showing a callous lack of sympathy for others. A pretty strong anti-advertisement of "rational thought turns you into this!".

I'll ponder more and see if I can dig up some evidence on that belief rockdogg. It would take a bit of doing to necessarily equate the collapse of Christianity with the rise of the welfare state. That is an argument I could make as well but don't want to at this very moment.

I would agree he favored some paths that today are considered socialist, but socialism today with all its political leaning and conotations is hardly what he was teaching. He was teaching to the poor to share everything because none had enough. The poor was his demographic, the rich, who had enough, didn't need his teachings and weren't (for the most part) listening to him.

The poor who had need, his teachings brought them in, in droves. Making a statement like it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven is not a way to endear himself to those that have enough. To his demographic he's going to espouse the virtues of sharing the wealth, in his time it was a winning strategy.

In the miracle redux when he fed 5000 men with 2 fishes and 5 loaves of bread, they weren't his fishes and bread, but shared by some of the 5000 for the greater good. In the original miracle in Kings, it was just a man from Baal Shalishah who donated the 20 loaves of bread that Elisha used to feed 100 men. Of course it's the old testament so it's only a parable and feeding 5K people with a 4th less bread and 2 fish is a better story, I suppose that's another topic for another day.

B

Sorry OldCold, there comes a time to let others deal with their beliefs and step aside. Insanity is always doing what you always did and always getting what you always got.

Discussing beliefs, and I have done much of it, is healthy. However, age and wisdom teaches one to recognize when it is time to step aside and let others learn from their mistakes. That is all the post was eluding to. I will not bang my head against a brick wall with continuous repetitive discussion going no where.

I have my beliefs, others have theirs. Sometimes, it is better left at that. And, that is fine!

+1 I Agree brother, and I believe that HE IS RISEN ... and I have the freedom to say that

Sorry PDR, it doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to know when someone is set in their beliefs and discussion is moot and a waste of time. But, I guess perhaps we can get a glimpse of your intelligence once your "thesis" is posted. Waiting.........

Well 2 atheist do not a congregation make.

I see a lot of so stereotyping of the called atheist ideology on this board and I also see claims of religious oppression often from the same people who want to pin all of societies weaknesses and failures on the false belief that atheists want to eliminate religion from all aspects of our society.

It doesn't take much more than simple logic and the slightest observation to see how false that assumption is.

Atheism does not promote anarchy and I would suggest most have no clear idea of what nihilism actually means. I can probably state with confidence the likelihood that all religions and non-religions having members who possess socially threatening personal ideologies.

To believe your claims would be similar to me claiming Christians are striving to create a theocratic society which believes in a specific social order, the earth is only a few thousand years old, education should be religion based, God controls the environment and He has no problem nuking certain countries back to the stone age.

I would suggest those assumptions are a trifle more accurate than yours and I could probably find 2 right here on this forum who hold those beliefs, but I hope most Christians would find them to be more than a little offensive.

I personally and respectfully would appreciate you avoiding claims about my beliefs or non-beliefs.

I certainly didn't mean to apply these beliefs to you directly. I have no knowledge of your personal life and wouldn't want to impose any rigid standards on you without evidence. As I too am an atheist so I don't believe they apply to me. I am speaking in generic terms. And without a great deal of evidence I try to point out that I'm not certain in these beliefs. Mere hypotheses at the moment referring to a general trend

So long and short. No offense my brotha, I don't know a thing about you and wouldn't dane to ascribe any negatives about you.

I would argue that anarchy is a rational conclusion based on objective philosophy found from the enlightenment philosophers (and Aristotle, Socrates, Rand, Rothbard etc.). That is a hell of a mess to discuss with people because it can put you at great odds with society and can be pretty counter intuitive. When you're discussing the corrupt nature of power structures and the immorality of violence you set people against their families and it has a huge emotional and social consequence to truly consider and accept.

My quibbling with atheists is whether they came to atheism as a rejection of their prior beliefs or through a process of studying logic and rationality. You can end up in a real baby with the bathwater situation when you toss off God and get rid of ethics at the same time.

The question of why are people ethical is an interesting one. Surely a book of ethics or an ethical code isn't enough. We can see that in the differences in behavior of Christians who disagree about the ethics of certain actions etc.

I would argue (and have some evidence for this one! yay) that ethical behavior is an offshoot of empathy. Recognizing that other people are people too, treating them as you would like to be treated, and developing a gentle non-violent nature with others. When we talk about religious people not wanting homosexuals in their businesses etc... we are talking about ideology overwriting empathy. Not seeing the common humanity of homosexuals etc. etc. Same thing with arresting people for smoking some pot.

However, I lay the same judgement upon people who wish to arrest anyone for any non-violent practice. I don't fundamentally see a great difference in arresting someone for running a discriminatory business as I do for someone smoking some pot. I think the ideologies are different and I think the left is coming from a slightly better place, but I don't see how either justify any kind of violent retribution.

The great challenge in discussing politics, religion, ethics... with people is that question of empathy. You aren't being coherent if you're viewing people as demons and your enemy with no sense of humanity. To be clear I'm not talking about you in particular, more myself if anything. If the argument is "we should treat homosexuals fairly" then it makes no sense to be berating people for disagreeing with you or threatening them with arrest or fines etc.

The reality of all laws being enforced with violence is one I've yet to be see proven wrong from any philosophical standpoint. And when we are discussing non-violent actions I simply haven't found an answer that suggests it is moral to arrest people.

I hope this makes my viewpoint clear. I appologized in the last thread for going off the handle on people. I meant to include you as a person I was doing that with. It isn't really coherent for the point I'm trying to make, and isn't really fair of me to make any assumptions about your personal ethics or beliefs. I'm genuinely sorry about that, it made the conversation pointless and toxic and just felt like a fight instead of a friendly discussion.

I would say in general (not everyone) most atheists are that way because they don't want to have to answer to a higher power or be told the things they want may be wrong or bad. An atheist will have 1 of three motivations for life. One to just be left alone to do whatever. Two to live life leaving something behind for man to remember them by (which is futile in the long run). Either of those is pretty much fine with me, so long as, they don't do harmful things.

The last though is always dangerous. They are the ones who view life as short and want everything NOW. They will do whatever it takes to get what they want because this life is all they have. They are usually major criminals or delinquents.

So what is different about being a christian? You have all those same types who are christians too. The difference is their ability to change once they start living for the benefit of eternal life instead of viewing things as over and useless once they die. The ability to use this life as a stepping stone instead of a final destination radically changes motivation to behave morally. It's what makes us behave better than our animal tendencies.

There is a fine line between democracy and anarchy.

When people truly have the power they will either do what's right or they will do what is easy. Most of the time they will do what is easy. When you make it easy to commit crimes and lower the consequences they will commit crimes. For example, how many stop signs have you driven through because you knew no one was watching? How many people commit welfare fraud because of it being so easy? We all see it and we all gripe and complain but its not easy to deal with so we don't.

At some point the people have to have strong morals and be educated enough to make good decisions so they can vote accordingly. As an educator, the single best way for those two things to happen is for children to grow up in a stable family of a mother and father with brothers and sisters that care for them. Chances are if that family goes to a church of some kind their chances of being well educated and having strong morals greatly increases. This has been proven to be fact over and over again.

We like to blame the black man for our troubles. It's true enough. The majority or people on welfare are black. The majority of violent crimes are committed by black people. That's not me being a racist thats just the numbers. It didn't used to be that way. So what caused the change?

Three major factors created the change that from 1925 where 90% of african families had a mother and father and low divorce rate to that of today were fewer than 35% of black families follow the ideal model. Today many black children never talk to their dads and when they do they often don't even know how to be around them.

The biggest cause of this was the creation of a welfare state. At one point if you were married you could not receive foodstamps. They only gave them to single parent families because they were deemed the most needy. It was no longer easy for poor people to be or stay married. Couples would get divorced so that they could get aid for their kids. Then even when they changed that rule they still gave a single mother much more than a married couple. Again, its just became easier to not be married. After a few generations it just became the normal thing for black families to consist of a single mother. Since dad's started to become a hindrance unless they could earn more than they would lose to be on welfare many black women got rid of them for being a nuisance and then men stopped feeling the need to be fathers. I mean the kids were better off financially without them. After a while black males who were poor didn't even care anymore.

The emergence of hip-hop music had no small part in destroying the role of being a black father. The hip-hop culture even made it cool to treat women like whores and for the women to seek it out. I can't even post the lyrics because it would get me banned. Music that celebrates and encourages violence and the demeaning of women has been extremely harmful to young men black, white, and any other ethnicity that listens to it.

The last straw that broke the camel's back was when they took prayer out of school. The statistics prove that once the state made any religious activity unacceptable in school they took away the last resource many of these poor children would ever come across to guide them to a moral life. For poor children the school is more of a parent and guardian than most of their parents.

The older they get they treat their parents with even less respect because obviously their parents are stupid idiots or why else were they forced to grow up poor. The school gets some respect because the law makes them go there and the kids have to at least, a little bit, acknowledge the school's authority. The school might teach the Golden Rule but few teachers have the time to teach why. Besides, even though children spend most of their day with teachers its not like the parents treat them with respect either.

You can't save a society that doesn't value families. You can't save a society that doesn't value and enforce good morals. If you want to save America then start first by saving the family unit. Homosexuality is just another brick to the road of the depraved nation that is doomed to fall. I am not saying its the single deciding factor by any means but we know it contributes to the moral decay of a society.

Destroy the family unit and you destroy the nation.

ps. I was not aiming this post at you Swish. You just happened to be the post I responded to. I was also not just saying black families are the problem. I just used that demographic as an example. I don't view poor blacks as any worse than the poor white trailer park trash. Being poor sucks no matter what the color of you skin is.

I agree with most of what you have just said. And by that I mean, I've read studies and arguments clearly showing the decline in family has lead to huge problems for the black community. I find it is helpful to point out when arguments are based on evidence and not just opinions. What you have said above reflects an understanding of evidence and not mere ideology...it's how debates are supposed to go The white family is increasing dramatically in this regard as well. It's really simple economics and tragic.


I wasn't aware of the prayer in schools issue. Do you have a link on that? I don't disagree at all, in fact I'd be interested to read about it, I have never considered the impact of that.

That is the issue for me as far as being an atheist goes. I love ethics. I love a whole lot of what Christianity is about. I think ethical instruction for children, time with their families, and general conventional religious wisdom are all good things. It is really the failure of atheism/philosophers to replace these great things which upsets me. I'd argue a whole lot of people would be better off as Christians than they would being neglected, uneducated in ethics, consumers of the cultural milieu.

I disagree on homosexuality being immoral or having anything to do with choice. This isn't an opinion it appears to be a consensus fact among studies. But I agree entirely on social critics and conservative people being concerned about homosexuality. Promiscuity and decadence is riiiife in that community. I say judge people by the content of their character, and homosexuality doesn't have the same stabilizing forces that heterosexual child rearing does. It's a real challenge.

In the same way though we look at all these uneducated unloved straight kids and it is no mystery why things are the way they are. Women in the workforce, while I have no fundamental issue with their freedom to do so, has made men considerably less valuable. Add on top of that welfare? You end up with there being zero consequences for sexual decisions. Women don't have to choose stable reliable guys, and guys are less incentivized to become that way themselves. You end up with a bunch of women with ticking timebomb ovaries at age 30 realizing they've squandered their youth on low quality guys and that any quality guy around is looking for the 20 somethings who aren't carrying so much baggage. Or worse, and a significantly larger percentage, a huuge percentage of young single unwed teen mothers. Every single study I've come across points to being the child of a single mother the worst possible predictor of success in life. Way worse than being raised poor, way worse than being black or latino, way worse than what school you went to etc.

I get where you are coming from on a lot of these subjects. The destruction of the family and of ethical standards of behavior are something any sensible person would get upset about. It is one of the things I cherish about the right and despise about the left. These are the problems in society that need to be addressed. It isn't about race, gender, institutional inequalities. It is about the complete destruction of any sense of morality, prudence, family cohesion, and the horrible effects this is having on the population (and the deficit for that matter).

I thought this was a really well put post Razor. I think we can both be prone to getting pissed off and writing angry things at people. So it was refreshing to see you have some very valid and well thought out points we agree on

That I can agree with to the extent that it is letting others believe as they desire. Letting somebody dictate what I will believe or what is law based on their beliefs is another issue entirely.

I'd say you are 100% right on the 'don't want to have to answer to a higher power'; because atheists don't believe in one. As to the second, I see little evidence to support that atheists want subjective morality (to simplify your second point).

Morality is not exclusive to religion. If it was then how would the ancient chinese acquire their morals? Native Americans? Inuit?

Even if morality was exclusive to religion, it is not all encompassing. When Paul tells slaves to obey their masters in Collosians 3:22, why isn't he saying that slavery is wrong? Similar logic occurs in Exodus 21:20-21, absolving a slave owner of wrongdoing as long as they don't kill the slave.

Native americans led a very spiritual life connected to the land and the great Spirit. There are many similarities with christianity in fact.

Chinese have had taoism(one of the oldest religions) and buddhism and have believed the spirits of their ancestors watch over and judge them. When you die you will answer to the wrath of your ancestors.

Concerning slavery. Give unto Ceasar what is Caesar's. There is nothing in the Bible that says slavery is good. In fact the story of moses shows that it is not desirable. What it does mean is that if the law allows for it and you are unfortunate to become a slave then to not be a violent one. There are plenty of stories in the bible where a person of low status was elevated by living life in a godly manner.

That statement by Razorthorns is utterly ridiculous. Of course we don't answer to a higher power because we don't believe a higher power exist. BUT to say we have no sense of right and wrong (or good and bad) and that we don't want those things pointed out to us is pure rubbish. The Atheist I know are the most moral, intelligent, loving people you could ask to meet. They don't need some old book, a priest, a pope or the church to tell them that raping kids is bad. They don't need to be told war and killing are bad regardless of the reason. The worry much more about helping people, understanding people and doing good things than any church I've ever known.

Unlike a religious person, and atheist does not have to struggle with scripture to determine right from wrong. If it does harm to another it is probably wrong, period. I've never heard of an atheist stoning anyone, killing over religious differences, spreading hate or fear over religious differences or being intolerant of others.

Christians (or those that pretend to be Christians) like to lump Atheist into the Satan worshiping devils club... We don't believe in that either. So maybe if you took just a few minutes (or hours) to actually understand what an Atheist is and is not, you wouldn't be so quick to judge.

Like Christians, all Atheist are individual human beings with their very own set of variables as pertaining to upbringing, family values, what interests them, what doesn't. Truth be told, we are the silent majority. Their are many atheist in your life right now that are afraid of being bullied if they let their true beliefs be known. Those that are openly Atheist know exactly what that means and feels like. I've dealt with it my entire adult life.

That's why I stand up for what's right and good in most cases. So please take a few hours and educate yourself razorthorns, unless you are afraid of the truth.

Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate it. To answer your question I will add an except from a book I liked on the subject.




"The elimination of the fear of God, symbolized by the Supreme courts actions in the matter of school prayer, led to a dramatic increase in crime, venereal disease, premarital sex, illiteracy, suicide, drug use, public corruption, and other social ills. This documented by Specialty Research Associates, under the direction of David Barton, that has released a report entitled America: To Pray or Not to Pray. Below are just a few of the examples featured in Barton's report.


A. Young People

1. For 15 years before 1963 pregnancies in girls ages 15 through 19 years had been no more than 15 per thousand After 1963 pregnancies increased 187% in the next 15 years.

2. For younger girls, ages 10 to 14 years, pregnancies since 1963 are up 553%.

3. Before 1963 sexually transmitted diseases among students were 400 per 100,000. Since 1963, they were up 226% in the next 12 years.


B. The Family

1. Before 1963 divorce rates had been declining for 15 years. After 1963 divorces increased 300% each year for the next 15 years.

2. Since 1963 unmarried people living together is up 353%

3. Since 1963 single parent families are up 140%.

4. Since 1963 single parent families with children are up 160%.


C. Education

1. The educational standard of measure has been the SAT scores. SAT scores had been steady for many years before 1963. From 1963 they rapidly declined for 18 consecutive years, even though the same test has been used since 1941.

2. In 1974-75 the rate of decline of the SAT scores decreased, even though they continued to decline. That was when there was an explosion of private religious schools. There were only 1000 Christian schools in 1965. Between 1974 to 1984 they increased to 32,000.

a. That could have an impact if the private schools had higher SAT scores. In checking with the SAT Board it was found that indeed the SAT scores for private schools were nearly 100 points higher than public schools.

b. In fact the scores were at the point where the public schools had been before their decline started in 1963 when prayer and Bible reading/ instruction was removed from the schools.

c. The scores in the public schools were still declining.

3. Of the nation's top academic scholars, three times as many come from private religious schools, which operate on one-third the funds as do the public schools.


D. The Nation

1. Since 1963 violent crime has increased 544%.

3. Illegal drugs have become an enormous & uncontrollable problem.

2. The nation has been deprived of an estimated 30 million citizens through legal abortions just since 1973."


The book can be purchased here for your own self study if you like:
http://www.amazon.com/America-To-Pray-Not/dp/0925279420

It's not the only source that shares the information but it is easy to read so I like it. I have read many other studies that agree with its findings.

Moral guidance has to come from somewhere. It won't come from TV with all its violence. It won't come from most schools either, even though most kids spend most of their day there. In fact the broad adoption of zero tolerance policies do very little to teach kids morals and instead only seek to punish and exclude. Childhood should be when you're allowed to make mistakes and then learn from them after being corrected. If there is no correction or guidance during childhood then the child has a very poor chance of growing up well.

more nonsense.

Atheist come from varied backgrounds and influences. There is no recognized set way for one to be. Still the general consensus is that an atheist does not believe in God, gods, or anything else supernatural. It is that person's background that strongly influences their flavor of atheism.

I think you confuse an atheist who is well educated in the classics (which does provide moral teachings) with atheists in general. By reading classical literature alone you will become exposed to teaching of what is right and wrong according to Biblical standards. You can say you don't believe in God or his teachings but your life has certainly been influenced by them whether you recognize that or not.

Now comparing that to the uneducated masses who are atheist and you find 90% of our criminal element. Why? The reason is that because they have no one to answer to they have no motivation to do good. There is no God so your just a sucker and an idiot for being nice or good.

While you can point to a several nice examples of well educated atheist that do well. I would also say that most well educated atheists are atheists because they wanted something from God and didn't get it or they saw something cruel and asked, "How can God let that happen." Even if they give up a belief in God they have been exposed to his moral teachings. They follow them because they know it will make them socially successful to a point. I challenge you to find many well educated atheist that have not read the 10 commandments.

The vast majority of atheists are not well educated. They use atheism as an excuse to be drunk when they want, to be sexually promiscuous, to steal, etc. Not many ceo's out there that have successful monogamous marriages and that don't steal from other companies.

Being spiritual is not being religious though. I consider myself spiritual and not religious, and I don't think a Christian would accept that as enough to get into their heaven. Also Taoism is a philisophy not a religion. If you want to turn it into a religion you could but it would be Daojiao instead.



The story of moses shows the one sided relationship between the Israelites and the Gentiles. For example, you must release an israelite from slavery after 7 years but can keep a gentile forever. It is worth noting that this 7 year manumission excludes women.

As to the bible not explicitly condoning slavery, is that the best answer to expect? And since the Bible specifically teaches about the treatment and disbursement of slaves and the slave owners, that is far more in favor of a "pro slavery" Bible than against.

I am not the only one to think so. In 1856 Thornton Stringfellow wrote "Scriptural and Statistical Views in Favor of Slavery." Richard Fuller, the founder of Southern Baptism, was also pro slavery. These men used the Word of God to further a pro slavery agenda, and all one has to do is read the Bible to find plenty of evidence these men could use to support their agenda.



All I need to know. He is an evangelical and has a vested interest in promoting the idea that America is as bad as it is because of our skepticism in God. All of his data is correlative.



Who provided the ancient chinese with their biblical standards of morality? Also, could you provide studies to back up your claim of "90% of all criminals are atheist?" I'm a stickler for numbers

This is the kind of stuff that is intolerable.

In all cultures the uneducated and poor are more predicated to be criminals because of the lack of opportunity and the fact that laws tend to favor the upper classes.

You are a typical closed minded religious person. You have no idea of what you are talking about but you know without a doubt (due to your faith) that you hold the higher ground. Please educate yourself.

Are there any Christians, Muslims, Jews or any other religious people in prison for crimes? YES. You'll find the same percentages there as you find living "Good" lives. Do you really believe these things? Is this what you learned in church? I doubt it.

The truth is I think you promoted yourself to the pulpit and decided to make up your own facts to base your arguments upon. Not only are you wrong by any logical or rational measure, you are also wrong based on your own beliefs. Judge not lest ye be judged.

I don't claim to be an expert on Biblical Text, but I have read the book cover to cover. And I think I might have a better understanding of Christianity than you.

I've been exposed to Christian beliefs my whole life, while being allowed by my parents to decide my beliefs for myself. My father was Atheist and my mother is a Christian and goes to church on a regular basis. My first wife was a preacher's daughter, my current wife is Catholic, one of my uncle's is a deacon and the majority of my family believes in god. So maybe it had some influence on me, but I've also studied other religions and philosophies along the way. It was all part of my journey of realizing my own beliefs.

People who have taken similar journeys, actually opening their minds to different beliefs are easy to spot. Many are religious scholars, many are Atheist but most if not all are very tolerant. The only time anyone can get my ire up over religion, is in a situation like this; where somebody pretends to be knowledgeable but is truly that close minded individual taking the faith based higher ground attitude and thumping the phony pulpit they built in their own mind.

If you think I'm concerned with proving my intelligence to the man who brought us "it was refreshing to see a black woman and white woman talking, guess which one's kids weren't well behaved?", you are mistaken.

My atheism is mainly rooted in my inability to believe in children's fairy tales.

It's not so much a desire to do what I want as it is the knowledge that virgins can't get pregnant.

You know you just stirred the pot again.

Very informative facts and stats Razor, good post.
Now I will continue to laugh my way through the answers to your post. Personal insults and lack of intelligence seem to be all they have to show. That always seems to confirm when someone has a good post.

You talking about other posters lack of intelligence is like Pig Pen telling Mr. Clean to take a shower.

I would suggest working on learning to speak in complete sentences, understanding the definitions of basic vocabulary words, and expressing opinions without the crutch of plagiarism before throwing those stones.

Hey, thanks for backing up what I said.

I'm not mocking your absurd attempts at debate because I lack the recourse of logical debate.

We tried that, remember?

You said that you believed every word of the Old Testament? And that we were God's favorite country during slavery, but is getting angry because of gays?

I engaged in rational debate there, and you rambled on about IBM stock and parakeet butts.

If you want to engage in rational debate:

1) Why do you believe premarital sex should be punished by brutal murder?

2) Why did God love us when we had slaves, but is getting angry because of gays?

I know you are just trying to back up my assertions on a lack of intelligent posting by those who claim to be so very intelligent but please don't go so far as to repeatedly back up my point.
It reeks of butt kissing.

Here, allow me to repay the favor...


Doh Ho,You know you just stirred da pot again. Heeeee

You realize you're proving PDR right?

Atleast YTown and razor will defend and answer questions directly, even if I don't agree with them.

How bout you answer the questions. You said what you said, he called you out, now defend your position.

So you don't want to have a rational debate about the two questions posed?

Why were we God's favorite country when we were enslaving humans and committing mass genocide, but he's getting angry with us now because of homosexuality?

I do know that even though there's no common congregation or denomination of atheists there is the belief that if the after life has no guarantee or proof of existing then the best course of action is to experience life as much as possible while here.

Of course most societies, religions, girl scout troops or whatever embrace the Golden Rule of do unto others as you would hope they do unto you. Even an atheist or anybody recognizes the benefits of the proper morality.

Pretty much common sense on that.

See, here is a man who I mostly disagree with but who posts intelligently.

With you?

You are claiming that I am incapable of intelligent, rational debate.

I am claiming that your debate, language, and grammar skills are not on par with that of a C- seventh grader, thus preventing you from even entering the arena, let alone making points in it.

So let's have a rational debate, and see who is correct or incorrect in their assumptions.

Why were we God's favorite country when we were enslaving humans and committing mass genocide, but he's getting angry with us now because of homosexuality?

You are incapable of rational debate and this sentence you keep quoting was never said by me. It is a typical PDR twist on what was said.

"Why were we God's favorite country when we were enslaving humans and committing mass genocide, but he's getting angry with us now because of homosexuality?"

Here is exactly what you said:



I'll ask a fourth time.

Why did we have God's blessing when we enslaved humans and committed mass genocide, but we're losing favored nation status because of homosexuality?

The only reason you think I'm incapable of rational debate is because you can't presch bible verses to me.

Your argument becomes laughable with quoting scripture, because it's irrelevant toward somebody who isn't religious.

There's different perspectives to make your argument valid. Just seems to me you aren't smart enough figure out the alternatives.