|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:47 pm
I'd offer to moderate, but I couldn't pretend to be at least a little objective here. I can't see the reasoning behind JS's theocratic, totalitarian, imperialist views at all.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:26 am
dronze Jungle.... given that you've been thoroughly beaten in this debate, and refuse to accept defeat, I hereby challenge you to a 1 on 1 debate... presidential candidate style. can I get anyone to step up to moderate for this? I guess I'd be able to do it. It would have to be around 5 pm central time though. What style would it be? More like where a few people think of questions or where a lot of people do (CNN youtube debate style). I think the last one'd be better, you could set up a forum for it or something and people could submit questions and then the best ones could be chosen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:27 am
Jungle Soldier really the only aethiests I know are complete brain dead idiots who are to cowardly to even act out in class I'm an atheist and I've been expelled from multiple schools as well as gotten into tons of fights, and I was always top of my class and I consider myself an intellectual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:28 am
Jungle Soldier no I mean they don't participate in teacher sponsored class debates I was in every debate I could get into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:32 am
Jungle Soldier invisibleairwaves Jungle Soldier or maybe they just seek to destroy all that is good in life. Like pointless religious rituals? Brutal theocracy? Closed-mindedness? Forced obedience rather than free thought? Yeah. That's some fun stuff those atheists are trying to destroy. Quote: I mean if you don't believe in some form of god then the afterlife is pretty depressing Not so much depressing as non-existent. No Heaven, but no Hell either. hmm pointless religios rituals, I'm not bound by those, brutal theocracy, okay but you know what's more violent? those trying to destroy religion. because us religous folks actually believe in something, open mindedness is often something that leads to self destruction. forced obedience is whats needed to keep people in line, I mean think of it this way, the law demands forced obedience. no heaven or hell. hmm doesn't provide much incentive to be good. without heaven or hell then lying is perfectly okay, adultery is perfectly okay. I don't know about you but thats not the kind of world I want to live in Ok first of all you are if you go to church. Second of all there has never been a war started by atheists because of religion. Religion is hugely violent, and the idea of hell is saying that eternal torture is ok- a punishment improporshionenet to all crimes. How does open-mindedness lead to destruction? Based on this debate I have a nice book suggestion for you- Mein Kampf. It talks about forming a single stayed allied in the protestant religion with strong set morals (morals can be bad or good). AND YES GOD DAMMIT, ATHEISTS SEE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT!!! Ok, here's why murder (usually), adultery, theft, etc. is wrong- it hurts other people! Atheists actually care about other people, unlike most religious people I've met including you (forced obeideince?). Also, most atheists (99% or more) are not trying to destroy religion, we're just trying to live our lives like anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:05 am
The Leninator! Jungle Soldier invisibleairwaves Jungle Soldier or maybe they just seek to destroy all that is good in life. Like pointless religious rituals? Brutal theocracy? Closed-mindedness? Forced obedience rather than free thought? Yeah. That's some fun stuff those atheists are trying to destroy. Quote: I mean if you don't believe in some form of god then the afterlife is pretty depressing Not so much depressing as non-existent. No Heaven, but no Hell either. hmm pointless religios rituals, I'm not bound by those, brutal theocracy, okay but you know what's more violent? those trying to destroy religion. because us religous folks actually believe in something, open mindedness is often something that leads to self destruction. forced obedience is whats needed to keep people in line, I mean think of it this way, the law demands forced obedience. no heaven or hell. hmm doesn't provide much incentive to be good. without heaven or hell then lying is perfectly okay, adultery is perfectly okay. I don't know about you but thats not the kind of world I want to live in Ok first of all you are if you go to church. Second of all there has never been a war started by atheists because of religion. Religion is hugely violent, and the idea of hell is saying that eternal torture is ok- a punishment improporshionenet to all crimes. How does open-mindedness lead to destruction? Based on this debate I have a nice book suggestion for you- Mein Kampf. It talks about forming a single stayed allied in the protestant religion with strong set morals (morals can be bad or good). AND YES GOD DAMMIT, ATHEISTS SEE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT!!! Ok, here's why murder (usually), adultery, theft, etc. is wrong- it hurts other people! Atheists actually care about other people, unlike most religious people I've met including you (forced obeideince?). Also, most atheists (99% or more) are not trying to destroy religion, we're just trying to live our lives like anyone else. please try to watch your mouth leninator. how is hurting someone wrong if their is no higher being that tells you it is wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:53 am
It doesn't have to be real-time, but doing the whole Answer/Rebuttle/closing statement format, alternating who goes first seems to me that it would be the best way to handle it.
Open forum style for the questions would work, but, leninator, if you could have a couple of questions prepped to kickstart it, then that would be great.
We could always do a lottery to determine who asks the next question once we get the ball rolling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:35 am
dronze It doesn't have to be real-time, but doing the whole Answer/Rebuttle/closing statement format, alternating who goes first seems to me that it would be the best way to handle it. Open forum style for the questions would work, but, leninator, if you could have a couple of questions prepped to kickstart it, then that would be great. We could always do a lottery to determine who asks the next question once we get the ball rolling. sounds good to me biggrin I look forward to debating with you
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
