XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:48:48 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
.
>On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:56:00 -0400, mur wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:15:01 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
>>.
>>>On 4/7/2015 3:42 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2015 3:03 PM, mur wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:52:21 -0600, David Johnston
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:02:15 -0400, mur. <> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 20:23:35 -0600, David Johnston
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:33:12 -0400, mur. <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:37:05 -0600, David Johnston
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2015 5:11 PM, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not actually supporting your case there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your quotation is quite clear. All sinned.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's a very common belief. In fact I've never met anyone
>>>>>>>>>>> who didn't
>>>>>>>>>>> believe it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus we are all damned to hell
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. Do you have any clue why?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because if Hell doesn't exist, we aren't damned to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if it does?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> by default regardless of our particular
>>>>>>>>>> sins.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would depend on the beliefs of the individual.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which are whatever the individual wants them to be. Hence the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> prospect of going to prison being a more likely deterrent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying we should believe no group of people is
>>>>>>>>>>> more likely to
>>>>>>>>>>> abuse children than any other?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. That's not what I'm saying. And really I can't recall the
>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>> time that someone started a sentence with "So you're saying" and
>>>>>>>>>> accurately conveyed what the person was saying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well so far you've provided no reason to believe I wasn't
>>>>>>>>> correct this time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It might in fact be the
>>>>>>>>>> case that atheists are statistically more likely to molest
>>>>>>>>>> children than
>>>>>>>>>> church-goers. You just haven't made a good argument for it or
>>>>>>>>>> established that the difference, if it exist is particularly
>>>>>>>>>> large and
>>>>>>>>>> significant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You still haven't provided reason to believe I wasn't correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes I have. I've pointed out that Judeo-Christian religion doesn't
>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>> ban molestation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How did you find that out?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read the Bible.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does it say about people eating their own children and their
>>>>> own feces?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've pointed out that even if it did, the punishment
>>>>>>>> for it would be no more severe than it would be for being alive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are told:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark 9:42
>>>>>>> "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in
>>>>>>> me--to stumble,
>>>>>>> it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around
>>>>>>> their neck and
>>>>>>> they were thrown into the sea."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is an admonition against drawing children into sinful behavior. It
>>>>>> has no bearing on sex, assuming you marry the 12 year old first.
>>>>>
>>>>> People had a different interpretation of maturity back in those
>>>>> days,
>>>>> probably in part because they didn't live half as long as they do today.
>>>>> Actually from the impression I get it's not that "they" thought it was
>>>>> ok for
>>>>> girls to marry at an "earlier" age, but it's more like "we" think they
>>>>> should
>>>>> wait until a later age than people in most of human history.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> so there may be more to it than you want people to believe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You just kind of assumed that the many reports of child
>>>>>>>>>> molesting in connection to religious institutions are anomalous or
>>>>>>>>>> fabricated
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try providing reason to believe that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's what you said you were doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Present your quote(s).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Were you lying?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, but so far I must suspect that you may be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh. My mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't provide your quote(s).
>>>>>
>>>>>> So instead your position is that the reports of child
>>>>>> molesting in connection to religious institutions are factual and not
>>>>>> anomalous.
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel sure that some are and some are not,
>>>>
>>>> What do you imagine the word "anomalous" means?
>>>>
>>>
>>>And the incidentally the reason I didn't provide the quote was because
>>>sifting through dozens and dozens of your e-mails to find it would take
>>>too long and accomplish too little.
>>
>> Translation: You did try and found that you couldn't support your claim
>>because it was a lie
>
>No, I didn't.
You're letting us know that you're either too half ass to try supporting
your own claim which still clearly appears to be a lie, or that you knew it was
a lie when you made the claim and that's why you can't try to support it.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
