You better cut this kind of talk out- Before the portly group comes after you. This may fall under the hate crime section.

No worry. They're a jolly group.

True, but they are lead by a real jolly guy who wears a red suit to hide the blood spray.

You had me at "corpulent copulators."

I can perfectly reconcile it. I've explained this before, though I know it will fall on deaf ears, as far as you're concerned. God did not "create" homosexuality anymore than He "created" cancer, war, or smog. These are all part of living in a fallen world, which resulted from Adam and Eve's choice to partake of the forbidden fruit. Before they made that choice, which was ultimately part of God's plan, God's creation was perfect.

Anyway, talking about this stuff with you is the classic throwing pearls before swine. I've read enough of your opinions on life to just feel sorry for you. The irony with you and a lot of other atheists is, you make this big pretense of your position being based on logic, but if one digs deep enough, your atheist positions always stem from something emotional. Like I said before, whether you believe it or not, you and the rest are in for a big wake up call one day. And we both know that is always, somewhere, in the back of your mind. No matter how much you ramble on about "randomness," "no grand design," etc.

If Adam and Eve's partaking of the fruit was all part of "God's plan", it suggests they had no choice in the matter. What you and every other Christian I have talked to can't seem to reconcile is there can't be some big "master plan" if free will exists. And if their partaking of the forbidden fruit (thus creating this "fallen world") was all part of God's "master plan", then, all due respect, God is a dick.

There is no logic in any argument you have made. None of it makes any sense, and it isn't from a lack of understanding on the parts of the non-believers. It makes no sense, because it is all utter nonsense.

Oh, and this bullshit about it being in the back of the minds of every athiest that their day of reckoning is coming? I have no fear of judgement, because when I die, I'll be worm food. Same as you. Nothing more.

Don't pretend to know what I or anybody else is secretly thinking.

Oh, and lesbians are awesome.

You know, I'm perfectly happy to play swine to your pearls(!) so long as you wish to throw them here. You say you wouldn't want to do that, but then your posts creep after a few days with more of the same nonsense. Oh, and the vanity! Yeah, these are pearls all right.

Your kind sits on high horse and manipulates the weak who can't reconcile with the injustice, meaninglessness and randomness of this world into believing there's something more to this apparent confusion. Your kind get their money and fill their heads with hatred of what's different from what they are in order to be able to continue taking advantage of them. And your kind does it with a clear conscience because at the back of your minds, you know there's not going to be a reckoning, or you wouldn't be throwing your so called pearls(!) so unconscionably. Yeah, I'm not feeling sorry for you, but for those who believe your nonsense pearls.

God's plan, which includes His foreknowledge of what will happen, in no way minimizes our free will. It was Adam and Eve's choice to partake of the fruit. There is no "predestination" involved here.

We all knew about the Fall long before the earth was even created. It was part of the entire plan which we agreed to. The whole reason for this life was to obtain mortal bodies, live in a fallen world, and prove that we would be obedient to God's commandments under these conditions. In other words, a period of testing. The Fall being a part of the plan was why Christ was chosen as the Savior from the foundation of the world. God knew we would live in a world with sin and would need to be saved. Adam and Eve's choice did lead to the Fall, but it was a fall forward. They did live in paradise in the Garden of Eden but they (and us) couldn't progress in that state.



But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Corinthians 2:14



Notice I said nothing about "reckoning." I have never said that hell fire necessarily awaits the nonbelievers. God will judge each of us according to the light and knowledge we had while on this earth. If you go to the grave believing as you do now, you will as yet have a chance to accept the gospel in the spirit world. The "wake up call" I've mentioned simply means the immediate moments after you die, when your spirit leaves your body, and you finally see that death is not the end.

I don't remember this meeting or any agreements to that effect. I do however, smell a charlatan at work here, who insists that I've agreed to a twisted plan with no proof.

afsaneh77, why do you hate religion so much? Or is it just about how IvyLeague expresses himself?
I understand atheists feel no need to go to Heaven, but if any of them discovered after death it actually exists and were invited there for having been good people during their lives, I really don't see why would they refuse.

Don't you hate manipulation? Or taking advantage of people? Or maybe you don't see religion doing these things. Well, I see it does and I hate seeing people being manipulated and being taken advantage of. I don't hate religion per se. If you take comfort in thinking there is a heaven and after death you go there, or that makes you a better person, I wouldn't hate religion for it. However, I would not stand by to see someone spread hatred toward homosexual life style based on religion.

I understand what you are saying, but homosexuality supporters are often no better. I know what I am talking about because I was once insulted and attacked on another forum not even because I said something against homosexuality, but because I defended a 14-year-old Catholic user who was ganged upon by some people who said they were homosexuality supporters (not being homosexuals themselves). If we don't make hate speeches, but just say we PERSONALLY don't like it, why be rude to us, especially if it brings them on the same level of those they hate? It's a matter of tastes like anything else.
And, if somebody uses religion to manipulate others, they usually don't believe in anything themselves, but just want power. A true believer would never use religion as a tool.

You know, just saying it's "utter nonsense" and "bullshit" isn't really the strongest and most convincing argument ever. If you feel you are better than us, why just insult?

I really don't have to deal with your baggage from another forum now, do I? And I don't think I defended each and every person who is defending homosexuals on each and every other point or the way they debate. I do see you calling me rude in the few pages back, and refraining from calling the other side rude when they use "pearl and swine" analogy, so I see you are biased yourself. I don't know what any of what you said has anything to do with me. I hate the religion that makes it its agenda to spread hatred, and I'd go atheist militant on them to out them as the manipulative power thirsty institutions that they are.

Yeah, as if saying that you know what is on back of our minds is a solid argument.

The other forum was just an example. If you think you are better than us and think the other side is being rude, why use the same way of speaking?
And what's the difference if hatred is spread by religion towards atheists and (or) homosexuals or if it's spread by atheists towards religious?
Why do you just generalize religious people as manipulative and power thirsty? Nor I nor any religious people I know personally give a damn about power.

A taste of your own medicine? Plus, I don't think I was in particular rude. I never called him swine, or my own words pearl. And I was talking to Ivy, but if you think like him, I'd be happy to include you.

I never understand people being belligerent in name of ANY ideal, being it religion or something opposite. In my opinion, it just casts a shadow on the ideal in question. I didn't call you swine or anything like this. The way IvyLeague expresses himself is his problem, but it's one thing to criticize religion as such and another to criticize people who are interpret it in their own way.
The difference between our positions is that I wouldn't insult you just because you hate my ideals, why you proudly declare you would include me in what you are saying.

See, there's no difference. You would include me in what's happened in another forum, which I've no idea what has happened. I'd have to denounce each and every atheist who has done you wrong, but at the same time, you don't see the need to denounce what others do in the name of your religion. Why is that? Even so, you keep the right of particular non "fad" churches to preach hatred toward homosexuality, but when time comes to question the legitimacy of such a religion, you cry respect. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid, since it's clearly written in the bible that homosexuality is a sin, therefore you can't have both your religion and my respect at the same time. I don't have to respect your views or not question them. I do however respect your right to have a twisted religious belief, even when I say it is in the wrong.

You DON'T have to denounce each and every atheist who has done me wrong, I never said that. Please don't make things up.
And I don't defend the right of the churches to preach hatred when they really do so.
I despise aggressive behavior in name of any ideals, no matter if the person in question is religious or atheist, if it's a relative of mine or a stranger. If you felt I was aggressive, you have the right to despise me too.
As for being written in the Bible homosexuality is a sin, many things are written, especially in the Old Testament that are plain cruel by today's standards. In my opinion, many things were made up by people to suit their needs, and also there is a difference between old rules and the ones in the New Testament, even apart from the fact the Bible is full of allegories not to be taken literally.
You can question my views of course, but do you really have to call them "twisted" every time just to kick me in the stomach?

Well, might I ask then, why is that you are not the one debating with Ivy who is clearly preaching hatred toward homosexual life style and you are debating me for debating with him?

And if things in the bible are made up by people, then would it be far from reality that the whole idea of god and religion is made up as well to keep people manipulated and controlled?

And I don't think I kicked you in the stomach. I just called religious views twisted. Again, I'm not required to respect religion. It's my very right to call them twisted.

Because I think there are already enough people here who argue with him, and I think that, while their point of view is correct in the matter that homosexuals are people with rights like everybody else, I feel they are exaggerating in extending the critics on the concept of religion by itself, not just the behavior of specific people. If I joined you in arguing with IvyLeague, it would mean I agreed with that.
Also, I am not questioning your right to debate with him, but the fact that things that are supposed to be polite debates, reduce themselves in banal fights. I am not saying I agree with IvyLeague on everything, it's just I feel that generally in the modern society the religious are more on the defensive, while those who oppose them are more often on the offensive. I am not sure if this is correct, I can only speak for my personal experiences and what I witnessed.

Theoretically, what you are saying can be considered logical. However, my personality isn't one of a person that bases himself EXCLUSIVELY on scientific facts and logical rationality, but also on faith. You don't have to agree with that and may even personally think it's retarded, but it's just me.
However, even IF we suppose God was made up, I am sure it wouldn't be to control and manipulate people. Most ideals are originally introduced for good purposes (as cruel as the Old Testament might be, what was before it was even worse: no rules, just the law of the strongest), it's another thing that people then start twisting them for their purposes.

Nothing to say here. If you think it's right, do as you wish, I have nor power nor desire to judge you. However, please notice that, even though I don't personally agree with you, I am not calling your point of view "twisted".

And that's because we see many hateful things are being done by followers of religions and in the name of religions. I don't think I need to give examples for Muslims. Then we come to picketing funerals of gay folks. Why shouldn't religious people be on the defensive here? They have incited the rest of us to be on the offensive and question the legitimacy of their beliefs.


I could see that a two polar government in the ancient times be helpful toward common good. I could see it be even good in these days, if they denounced certain things. As I said, I wouldn't be against a religion that doesn't spread hatred. It's really hard to find a reason to be against Buddhism.



My views are twisted to what? Because as I said, I see religious views being twisted into hatred of others. It's a fact that such views are twisted. But if you have grounds to say my views are twisted into something, I wouldn't say you are rude or anything.

I understand your point of view and you being angry for discrimination of homosexuals. However, I just think you are generalizing all religious people as haters. I never made hate speeches against homosexuals in my life, neither did religious people who are relatives or friends of mine. I personally don't like it, but that's a matter of tastes. If somebody engaged in homosexual relationships just to try something "new", that would be twisted in my opinion, just like religion is for you. But, since most homosexuals are born with such inclinations, I wouldn't see the point of arguing with them about it. By the way, I don't know any homosexual personally.
If you know for sure about religious people who are rude, aggressive, intolerant etc, I understand. I can speak only for those whom I personally know. I admit I never heard about a Christian dedicating himself/herself to the cause of homosexuality, but many of them help homeless people, orphans etc, that's no less important in my opinion.
As for Muslims, I don't agree with this religion, but not because of the cultural differences, but because Muhammad historically used to be a leader of a gang of robbers who preyed on caravans. I don't see the point of idolizing such a person, but I don't think all Muslims are bad people. I knew an Arab from Egypt when I was at school, and he is a nice guy. Terrorists are just rabid dogs on the loose (not meaning to disrespect real dogs), and not all of them are necessary Islamic.

Dwalin2011, you miss my points entirely. I'm not saying followers of religions are all bad people. I said I question the legitimacy of religious people's beliefs. I say religion is a bad influence by itself. It seems its vices are more than its benefits these days. You can't blame a person for picking up a holy book and take its meaning literally. But you can blame the book and question its divinity, which is what I'm doing.

Well, my point of view is the opposite: I think that religion by itself isn't bad, but can be used for very bad purposes by people who have their own free will but often justify their behavior by following the religious doctrine.
To be clearer, I have the same opinion about many political ideologies: while introduced for good purposes, specific people turned it into an instrument of evil. Look at Stalin and what he did to communism.

How about we agree to disagree then, because I don't think the tenets of communism are good either, just as tenets are religion are not entirely good. When you see someone picks an ideology and fails, you have to question its theories and its practicality hard and long.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with disagreeing, I respect your opinion. It was the tone the discussion assumed that made me criticize you, not because you disagree with religion, even though I understand why you may feel offended by IvyLeague.

A small digression: speaking of communism, I really don't get it why it doesn't or barely does tolerate religion. In my opinion, some points in communist ideology have very much in common with the way of living of early Christians during the Roman Empire, such as sharing the goods and the absence of rich and poor. In fact, the communist idolizing of political leaders seems just a substitution to worshiping of God.

Well, we don't have to respect each others' opinion. We really can't respect it, unless we accept it. We can however respect our rights to have different opinions.

Now with that out of the way, I really didn't care to read passed the "Labor is a commodity." argument, because if we went with it today, the population would dictate the price of labor as well, just as when you produce more gold the price of gold would drop. If we let the price of labor be determined as any other commodity, we would be done with the minimum wage and all the labor protective measures that we have tried so hard to enforce.

So if you want to talk about communism, I think you should do it with someone who is a little bit more interested in that subject than I am.

Adam, Eve, God, Wake Up Call - What are these things?