PDA

View Full Version : Which Cult or Sect is Most Dangerous?


corplinx
26th February 2003, 12:44 PM
If you had to pick a cult or sect that poses the largest threat to american or world society, who would you pick and why?

Examples:
Scientology
Latter Day Saints
Nation of Islam

What do you think?

Franko
26th February 2003, 12:48 PM
The A-Theists -- no doubt.

hehehe ... I see you are a fellow fan of "The Brak Show".

hehe ... the father cracks me up!

Akots
26th February 2003, 12:55 PM
I'd say scientology. No doubt about it. That cult was designed specificaly to suck people in, wring out anything of value, and toss them away, while still leaving them coming back for more.

Disgusting. :mad:

corplinx
26th February 2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Franko
hehehe ... I see you are a fellow fan of "The Brak Show".



Carl is on the Aqua Teen Hunger Force, not "the Braq Show".

Upchurch
26th February 2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Akots
I'd say scientology. No doubt about it. That cult was designed specificaly to suck people in, wring out anything of value, and toss them away, while still leaving them coming back for more.

Disgusting. :mad:
From what I've read of them, I'd have to agree. Scientology is pure capitalism with little interest in helping its followers.

Yahzi
26th February 2003, 01:08 PM
Catholicism. Not as virulent as those others, but far, far larger and more powerful.

Fundamentalist Xianity is more of an immediate threat, though.

chessmanskeptic
26th February 2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Yahzi
Catholicism. Not as virulent as those others, but far, far larger and more powerful.

Fundamentalist Xianity is more of an immediate threat, though.

The moderates and light Xians are easy to tolerate. The Fundie's are impossible to deal with!

Beleth
26th February 2003, 01:11 PM
Scientology is worst for its members, but it sounds like it actually has so few members that I don't consider it the worst threat to American or world society.

I think that honor goes to Islamic Fundamentalism. I also think that someone's going to be angry at me for thinking that.

Aoidoi
26th February 2003, 01:11 PM
Tough call. Some random thoughts on the matter.

Scientology tends to destroy the members, but other cults try to kill non-members too. What was that Japanese one with the Sarin gas in the subway? Aum-Shiro or something?

Heaven's Gate just killed themselves. What about Jim Jones? He had a pretty impressive body count.

Nation of Islam is rather violent but I don't recall much about their actions.

How about Manson with Helter Skelter? That sun one that has had numerous suicides? There was one in Africa that had a whole bunch of fatalities.

But really, right at the moment I'd have to give "top" honors to the cult in charge of North Korea. Hard to top millions starving and nuclear brinkmanship.

corplinx
26th February 2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Yahzi
Catholicism. Not as virulent as those others, but far, far larger and more powerful.

Fundamentalist Xianity is more of an immediate threat, though.

On one hand you have the Catholic church uber-dedicated to a fearless leader and his henchmen. Fearless leader however is very much a pacifist. I don't see major problems unless we had another outright evil man take the reigns with enough bishops and cardinals supporting him to get his agenda through. I don't think this could happen though in the modern catholic church.

On the other hand you have the decentralized fundamentalist christians. The Assemblies of God, the United Pentacostals, the Southern Baptists, First Baptists, Primitive Baptists, and other fundamentalist sects. They aren't organized or proactive enough to be a real threat. The most they seem to do is cause the occasional gridlock in a school board over evolution. There is the occasional whacko who bombs and abortion clinic but that person is mental to begin with.

fidiot
26th February 2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Franko
The A-Theists -- no doubt.

hehehe ... I see you are a fellow fan of "The Brak Show".

hehe ... the father cracks me up!

Zorak is the best character.

corplinx
26th February 2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Beleth

I think that honor goes to Islamic Fundamentalism. I also think that someone's going to be angry at me for thinking that.

Why be mad? Its a good discussion point. Fundementalist Islam sects are probably responsible for somewhere around 5000 deaths in the past 2 years (rough estimate based on 9-11, Bali, Kenya, varios Israeli civillian attacks). That estimate doesn't take into consideration Chechnya, Sudan, or other places which I am not as familiar with.

However, you can't lump in all of these groups as one. Each has its own members and agenda.

Franko
26th February 2003, 01:28 PM
Carl is on the Aqua Teen Hunger Force, not "the Braq Show".

Doh! Yeah, I like that one too though … hehehe meatwad! Who comes up with this stuff?

Sealab 2021 is pretty funny too.

Zorak is the best character.

he’s hysterical, but I still like the father the best. He reminds me (a little) of another of my favorite TV characters … Gomez Adams.

26th February 2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by corplinx
If you had to pick a cult or sect that poses the largest threat to american or world society, who would you pick and why?

Examples:
Scientology
Latter Day Saints
Nation of Islam

What do you think?


I think the intolerant people, in general are the most serious problem facing any society.

Akots
26th February 2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Whodini



I think the intolerant people, in general are the most serious problem facing any society.

Certainly that, and yes, intolerance is often independant of religion. But some religions, the way they are run nowadays, provide a fertile breeding ground for intolerance. I think the question is, which religion is most openly suceptible to intolerance. Scientology, for example, teaches it's members to be as intolerant of scientists and rational thinkers as possible. This is because if they werent, they'd leave scientology.

There are many religions I think that were beneficial in their inception, but succumbed to corruption over the decades. I vote Scientology because it was NEVER intended to benefit anyone, other than a handful of it's own preists, living in the lap of luxury while their disciples suffer mental and physical hardship.

I will admit that it is not the most influential cult, but it is certainly the most destructive to the individuals it does snare.

hammegk
26th February 2003, 01:47 PM
Secular-humanistic, Atheistic, communism has by far the highest body count, and holds the potential for similar destructiveness on a world-wide scale. US-UK-Canada-Australia are the core effective force counterbalancing the New World (communist dictatorship) Order the remainder of the world appears to so badly crave.

The cults & sects mentioned so far will never have similar massive destructive capability, imnsho.

Tricky
26th February 2003, 01:49 PM
Before we go getting all political here, I think we should address the "what is a cult" issue (yeah, I know it's been done before). I cannot classify fundamental Baptists or Moslems as cults, since they are both major branches of a major religion. Scientology is probably pretty safe to call a cult, but not Mormons (at least not any more). Al Qaeda for sure, and probably Nation of Islam. Most cults have a single charismatic leader. Also we have to ask if a group must be "dangerous" before being a cult?

headscratcher4
26th February 2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by corplinx
If you had to pick a cult or sect that poses the largest threat to american or world society, who would you pick and why?

Examples:
Scientology
Latter Day Saints
Nation of Islam

What do you think?

Far and away, the Brownies.

Aoidoi
26th February 2003, 01:58 PM
I don't feel my weekend is complete until I've watched Sealab 2021. One of the funniest shows I've ever seen.

Er, yeah. Back to cults. I was using the term broadly, but I think that NK counts as it's really a cult based on a single leader, I can't think of any other way to describe a country where a third of it's GDP spent on the military while millions starve and yet the people still worship their "Dear" leader.

I suppose this leaves the door open to Nazism and Stalinism as cults, but my definition is still a work in progress. :D

Akots
26th February 2003, 02:00 PM
A cult should be defined as a religion with non-divine origins.

Yeah... that'll hold water in this forum... well, let's put it this way; a FULL cult is a religion created specifically to exploit people.

The reason it's such a blurry line between Scientology and fundamental Christianity is because religion invariably requires faith and trust; in both God, and the human executors of the faith. And wherever unconditional faith exists, people can be easily exploited.

Tricky
26th February 2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Akots
A cult should be defined as a religion with non-divine origins.

Sorry Akots. I can't really buy this definition. Buddhism (at least large parts of it) have non-divine origins. I would hesitate to call it a cult. Perhaps B'hai too, but I honestly don't know enough about B'hai to say for sure.

Ipecac
26th February 2003, 02:27 PM
Fnord.

Upchurch
26th February 2003, 02:57 PM
How about a cult is a religious organization that harms its followers.

Akots
26th February 2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

Sorry Akots. I can't really buy this definition. Buddhism (at least large parts of it) have non-divine origins. I would hesitate to call it a cult. Perhaps B'hai too, but I honestly don't know enough about B'hai to say for sure.

Well, i can't keep quiet now, can i...

The Bahá'í faith has what it believes to be divine origins. Founded by Bahá'u'lláh only a few decades ago, it holds it's leader as a "manifestation of God", and consider their teachings to be of divine origin. They have a rather unconventional viewpoint on their doctrines, which give guidelines and morals on just about every modern issue available. It is not an offshoot of islam, but bears some superficial resemblances, such as prayer, chastity before marriage, and abstinance from alcohol.

The three most important teachings they maintain are:
1) Although God has many names and aspects, there is only one God, and no one name is any more appropriate than another.
2) Despite all physical, mental or social differences, all mankind is equal. No gender, age, or race is inherantly superior to any other, despite our social or political differences.
3) The major religions are sequential, with each religion's teachings tailored to a specific age of human development.

It is from this last teaching that my previous defenition emerged; that many faiths are not truly supplied by a manifestation of God. To say that they are any less spiritually enriching to their followers would be false, and to say their prayers are ignored for this reason is extremely hippocritical of me. I didn't mean to imply that.

I do submit that my first decleration was quite flawed... any form of faith that supports the betterment of mankind shouldn't be reffered to as a cult. I never said it would hold water.

The proof is really in the pudding; the actions and behavior of the members itself, on both a global and community scale, should be the deciding factor as to wether the faith is destructive or constructive.

Considering I do feel a certain pain when my faith is reffered to as a cult, i have no right to start tossing around a word myself. :o

(And yes, dammit... I DID have to copy/paste the accents over Bahá'í and Bahá'u'lláh... i am not yet so enlightened as to be able to find the symbols on my keyboard at a whim. :p)

corplinx
26th February 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Tricky
Before we go getting all political here, I think we should address the "what is a cult" issue (yeah, I know it's been done before).

That is why I included sects.

Aoidoi
26th February 2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by corplinx
That is why I included sects. Well I'm all for sects! Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Penrich
26th February 2003, 03:55 PM
Here is a good definition (http://www.elephanticity.5u.com/cultcult.html) of a cult (at least, I like it ;) ).

26th February 2003, 06:52 PM
Pseudo skeptics.

Are part of this Forum.

Thanks,
S&S

DanSTC
26th February 2003, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by Whodini



I think the intolerant people, in general are the most serious problem facing any society.

That includes people intolerent of atheists, right?

26th February 2003, 06:57 PM
----
Scientology, for example, teaches it's members to be as intolerant of scientists and rational thinkers as possible.
----

----
....Scientology because it was NEVER intended to benefit anyone, other than a handful of it's own preists, living in the lap of luxury while their disciples suffer mental and physical hardship.
----


Can you find Scientology literature where those things are listed? Name of source, date, and page #, please.

Thanks.

specious_reasons
26th February 2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Whodini

Can you find Scientology literature where those things are listed? Name of source, date, and page #, please.

Thanks.

Kinda hard to do when Scientology sues to keep their "religion" from public scrutiny. Evidence of its bad practices abound on the internet. Why do you choose to defend this? It seems like you're doing this just to be contrary.

On to the original topic: How do we define dangerous?

There's a few ways:
1. Violence towards its members.
2. Violence to people outside the cult.
3. Psychological harm to its members.
4. Exterting undue influence on political systems.

Anything else?

Beleth
26th February 2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Akots

There are many religions I think that were beneficial in their inception, but succumbed to corruption over the decades. I vote Scientology because it was NEVER intended to benefit anyone, other than a handful of it's own preists, living in the lap of luxury while their disciples suffer mental and physical hardship.I've always wondered about this part of the anti-Scientology argument. I mean, there are people that have gotten REALLY high up into the Scientology ranks before they got the sense knocked into them, right? I mean, Sea Org level people, if i remember correctly. And all they ever did was pay, pay, pay.

How come nobody who ever defected from Scientology was ever in the "receive, receive, receive" level? Didn't anyone that high up ever have a crisis of conscience? Or maybe there is NO "receive, receive, receive" level. Where's all this incredible amount of money going?

I'm not defending Scientology. It just seems like it's got an incredible income with absolutely no visible outgo.

Tricky
26th February 2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Akots

Well, i can't keep quiet now, can i...
Thanks for the info, Akots. I feel much better informed now. I find that I agree much with the philosophy of the Bahá'í faith, but not the mythology. Same thing for Paganism. Same thing, to some extent, for Christianity. I think that most religions are founded on good principles, but that humans corrupt those principles. If they could stick to the philosophy and forget the dogma, they would be much better off.

Originally posted by Akots
Considering I do feel a certain pain when my faith is reffered to as a cult, i have no right to start tossing around a word myself.


I do not think that many people consider the Bahá'í to be a cult. My experience with Bahá'íans (or whatever you call them) is that they are them most gentle and peaceful of souls. They could not in any sense be called predatory. Heck, you practically have to tie them down and feed them sodium penathol to get them to talk about their religion.

If you feel like starting a thread to discuss this, I would be very interested.

P.S.
Sorry to blow your cover.:(

26th February 2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by DanSTC


That includes people intolerent of atheists, right?


Most definitely DanSTC.

Questioninggeller
26th February 2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Upchurch

From what I've read of them, I'd have to agree. Scientology is pure capitalism with little interest in helping its followers.

Unless you are very rich, and are completely full of yourself... I can't see anyone be a part of that. Isn't is basic principles like forms of Satanism. What does science have to do iwht that belief... oh it convinces the morons that it is basic on "fact". Please... I wish people were smarter.

But aren't all forms of religion harmfull in some way?

BTW: Isn't John Travolta and Tom Cruise scientlogy believers?

Frank Newgent
26th February 2003, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by Ipecac
Fnord.

Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!

stamenflicker
26th February 2003, 09:42 PM
Fundamentalist Xianity is more of an immediate threat, though.

Yahzi... realizing that you still have me on ignore, I'm probably wasting my time. But I'd love for you to demonstrate how fundi Christians are more of an immediate threat than fundi Islamic peeps.

Remember, Fundi Christians comprise about 8% of the US population. That's roughly 22 million people. If there were 22 million fudamentalist Muslims in this country, we'd see incredible levels of death and brutality.

Flick

26th February 2003, 10:39 PM
----
If you had to pick a cult or sect that poses the largest threat to american or world society, who would you pick and why?

Examples:
Scientology
Latter Day Saints
Nation of Islam

What do you think?
----


Corplinx,

I don't even agree with your examples. I don't consider any of those "cults", and I certainly don't consider any of those threats.

I probably know several people from each of the groups.

LucyR
26th February 2003, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Whodini
----
If you had to pick a cult or sect that poses the largest threat to american or world society, who would you pick and why?

Examples:
Scientology
Latter Day Saints
Nation of Islam

What do you think?
----


Corplinx,

I don't even agree with your examples. I don't consider any of those "cults", and I certainly don't consider any of those threats.

I probably know several people from each of the groups.


What groups, organizations, etc., do you consider to be examples of cults?

Yahzi
26th February 2003, 11:33 PM
I don't see major problems unless we had another outright evil man take the reigns with enough bishops and cardinals supporting him to get his agenda through.
I see a Cardinal in Nicaruga trying to put a nine-year old girl in jail for having an abortion after she was raped.

If $cientologists tried to do that, people would raise bloody hell. Instead, we have a few hundred million people basically agreeing that nine year old girls should be forced to carry their rapist's baby.

I think that qualifies as a lot more dangerous than anything the $cientologists have managed to date.

BTW: Isn't John Travolta and Tom Cruise scientlogy believers?
Yes. Deeply so. But remember, the $cientology they practice has little or nothing to do with what the people on the street get. They are still flaming a**holes for being $cientologists, though.

Didn't anyone that high up ever have a crisis of conscience?
Over what? Recieving too much power and money?

The money flows to the top, where it is squandered on stupid stuff. Like, for instance, that wretched movie.

Whodini
Still defending your $cientology, eh? You suck worse than I ever would have believed possible.

For all of you interested, here is a great link:

http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm

corplinx
26th February 2003, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by LucyR



What groups, organizations, etc., do you consider to be examples of cults?


Why is the cult thing a stopping point. Notice I said cults _and_ _sects_ ?

corplinx
26th February 2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by LucyR



What groups, organizations, etc., do you consider to be examples of cults?

Does it matter? Once again (for the third time no less) I must point out that I said cults _and_ sects.

LucyR
26th February 2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


Does it matter? Once again (for the third time no less) I must point out that I said cults _and_ sects.

Actually, I was asking Whodini, not you. He used the word 'cult'. I used the word 'cult'. Clear?

corplinx
27th February 2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by LucyR


Actually, I was asking Whodini, not you. He used the word 'cult'. I used the word 'cult'. Clear?

Crystal

DanSTC
27th February 2003, 01:13 AM
Another good scientology-related site: http://www.xenutv.com

Lots of informative documentaries on the subject up there, as well as tapings of pickets, protests, court hearings, and so on. Also, some humor.

One thing I have to point out: scientologists have a thing for labeling anyone who dares to criticize their organization in any way as being religious bigots. It's their standard defensive-mechanism for just about anything, really. Unfortunately, it's also hypocritical, because by being so utterly intolerent of criticism, the organization has revealed its own manner of bigotry.

neutrino_cannon
27th February 2003, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by hammegk
Secular-humanistic, Atheistic, communism has by far the highest body count, and holds the potential for similar destructiveness on a world-wide scale. US-UK-Canada-Australia are the core effective force counterbalancing the New World (communist dictatorship) Order the remainder of the world appears to so badly crave.

The cults & sects mentioned so far will never have similar massive destructive capability, imnsho.

Hard to argue with the statement at face value, your refering to our friend Iosef Stalin (can't remember his real name) right? He certainly has an impressive body count, and moa didn't do that bad either (something at straightdope on this, can't remember).

But seriously, us commies are toothless now, I'll have to go with radical islam, all variants, that way I can lump wars in the middle east and acts of terrorism in the score.

Ipecac
27th February 2003, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!

:cool:

27th February 2003, 09:02 AM
----
Still defending your $cientology, eh? You suck worse than I ever would have believed possible.
----


Yahzi,

Like I said before, I'm not going to participate in involved debates with you; I just don't like your tone.

Hey another Clambake link... Who would have thought. ;)

27th February 2003, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by LucyR

What groups, organizations, etc., do you consider to be examples of cults?


I tend to not use that word, because it is inflammatory.

I use the language like what is presented on:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cultmenu.htm

Hunter
27th February 2003, 01:29 PM
I'm afraid I'm going to have to state that Scientology appears to be far and away one of the most dangerous cults, beaten only by fundamentalist Islam.

The main difference between Scientolgy and Islam is that one is trying to suck all the money from your wallet(thereby killing you[albeit slowly]), and the other is just trying to kill you.

I was going to post a clambake link but I figured everybody here is probably sick of them by now.


-Hunter

corplinx
27th February 2003, 03:46 PM
I thought the largest danger of scientology is western society was the attempt to get scientologists in high places so that scientology cannot be effectively investigated by authorities.


In other words, by the time they become a real danger its too late to do anything about them.

Of course, this borders on paranoid conspiracy theories.

corplinx
27th February 2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Whodini



I tend to not use that word, because it is inflammatory.

I use the language like what is presented on:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cultmenu.htm


That page is scary. I got a banner ad for a Dr. Weill book. He is a notorious quack.

Skeptical Greg
27th February 2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by corplinx



That page is scary. I got a banner ad for a Dr. Weill book. He is a notorious quack.

Religious tolerance...


Doesn't that mean .. " We'll take your money, no matter what you believe in.." ?

27th February 2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Diogenes

Religious tolerance...
Doesn't that mean .. " We'll take your money, no matter what you believe in.." ?


http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_tol.htm

They clearly state their position of what religious tolerance means. But instead of actually reading the page and comprehending its meaning, you may find it easier to continue to make fun.

27th February 2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by corplinx

That page is scary. I got a banner ad for a Dr. Weill book. He is a notorious quack.


A "quack" who is more educated about medicine and biology than you will ever be.

But I could be wrong.

27th February 2003, 06:55 PM
Corplinx,

----
I thought the largest danger of scientology is western society was the attempt to get scientologists in high places so that scientology cannot be effectively investigated by authorities.
----


Can you give 10 examples?


----
Of course, this borders on paranoid conspiracy theories.
----


Yes, it does. :)

27th February 2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Upchurch

From what I've read of them, I'd have to agree. Scientology is pure capitalism with little interest in helping its followers.


Upchurch,


What about all of the Scientologists that it did and does help?

Do you remember the misses and forget the hits?

Skeptical Greg
27th February 2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Whodini



http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_tol.htm

They clearly state their position of what religious tolerance means. But instead of actually reading the page and comprehending its meaning, you may find it easier to continue to make fun.

Believe me, I'm not making fun.

I don't have any religious tolerance.

added:

I'll read it later, and try to come up with an honest opinion.

Akots
27th February 2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Whodini



Upchurch,


What about all of the Scientologists that it did and does help?

Do you remember the misses and forget the hits?

I'd say those instances were the result of individuals acting helpful, in spite of scientology teachings. :(

How much of scientology do you believe in? I'm not trying to sound insulting... and i'm sorry if it is.

corplinx
27th February 2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Whodini



A "quack" who is more educated about medicine and biology than you will ever be.

But I could be wrong.


Yes. He may have taken more biology and physiology classes than I did. However, I apparently remember that whole "scientific method" thing.

I probably took a lot more classes in mathematics than him. If I was saying 2+2=5 and he corrected me, then my superior education would not automatically mean he is wrong.

28th February 2003, 12:43 AM
Akots,


----
I'd say those instances were the result of individuals acting helpful, in spite of scientology teachings. :(
----


Oh brother. So no matter how much a person in Scientology benefits from it, you'd still say that it was 'in spite of' Scientology.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep to your beliefs.


----
How much of scientology do you believe in? I'm not trying to sound insulting... and i'm sorry if it is.
----


I'm not a Scientologist (reading Yahzi? Of course you are!), but here goes:

I do partially believe that people are spritual beings, and partially believe that god(s) exist, and I believe that peoples' main urge is to survive, we have an analytical part of our mind, I reject the concept of enternal life in hell and heaven, and I do believe in trying to help make better the areas of crime, mental illness, warfare, drug addiction and physical illnesses.

So I share some beliefs with Scientologists, but then again, I share some beliefs with most all religions.

muscleman
28th February 2003, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by Yahzi
Catholicism. Not as virulent as those others, but far, far larger and more powerful.

Fundamentalist Xianity is more of an immediate threat, though.

I have observed u from the beggining, and I realize u have so much hatred against the church and I dont know why... But I can only have theories..

Were you excommunicated? If so what is the reason? Because your gay and likes to have sex with animals and at the same time takes Holy Communion?

Are you a child molester?

Are you gay?

Are you homosexual?

Anyways I have all kinds of theories.. But Im so sure that you are a former catholic.....

muscleman
28th February 2003, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by hammegk
Secular-humanistic, Atheistic, communism has by far the highest body count, and holds the potential for similar destructiveness on a world-wide scale. US-UK-Canada-Australia are the core effective force counterbalancing the New World (communist dictatorship) Order the remainder of the world appears to so badly crave.

The cults & sects mentioned so far will never have similar massive destructive capability, imnsho.

I can just feel the rush coming my way.. You are so right...

The Secular-humanisticn atheistic, communism has by far the highest body count..

This guys here are just brainwashed though (and they dont realize it.)

But, by observation and study on religions. The most lethal religion I have ever known (other than what is mentioned.) is Islam.. Quran is a lethal weapon...

I have read Quran, it reminds me of the bible, except there is no new testament, and there is no Jesus the Christ....

Thank God Islam are not in power (that wont happen, because the rock of God "catholic church" will live, and not even the gates of hell shall prevail against it..)...

neutrino_cannon
28th February 2003, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by muscleman


I have observed u from the beggining, and I realize u have so much hatred against the church and I dont know why... But I can only have theories..

Were you excommunicated? If so what is the reason? Because your gay and likes to have sex with animals and at the same time takes Holy Communion?

Are you a child molester?

Are you gay?

Are you homosexual?

Anyways I have all kinds of theories.. But Im so sure that you are a former catholic.....


While I am certainly no moderator (to willing to attack, probly not mature enough), I can only posit my digust at these remarks for three reasons.

To begin, you imply that child molesting/zoophilia is rampant among catholics. While it is becoming more and more apearant that their is rampant sexual abuse (I have very low tolerances for "rampant") among the clergy, it can hardly be assumed that all catholics are molestors, or even that there is a higher percentage of perverts among catholics.

Second, you bash gays, and imply an equation between homosexuality and child molesting. This is emphaticaly not the case, most sexual assults are performed by heterosexuals owing to the fact that there are more of them. I realize that there is a stigma against homosexuals in the catholic church, but the fact that you mention it twice leads me to read more into the matter.

Third, you imply that homosexuals like to have sex with animals. While from a heterosexual standpoint, the sexual physical acts performed between homosexuals may seem adventurous or perhaps even wierd, this in no way means that they enjoy having sex with animals more than heterosexuals. They're attracted to members of the same sex, not other species.

In conclusion, I find your above comment reprehensable, and while this is not commentary on your person (I post stupid and offensive things from time to time), continual comments of this sort will place you on my ignore list.

corplinx
28th February 2003, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by muscleman


Were you excommunicated? If so what is the reason? Because your gay and likes to have sex with animals and at the same time takes Holy Communion?


If your Jesus were alive today, I do believe he would beat you with a whip like he did the vendors in the temple.

Try not to post in a thread that I start ever again.

On second thought, post all you want junior. I've got you on ignore.

muscleman
28th February 2003, 01:28 AM
Hey neutrino, my bad..LOL I was talking to Yahzi, not you... I didnt mean it, that guy is a moron, he makes so much accusation but cant back it up, I have exchanged posts with him on the other thread. Im sorry if you got involve here..

Are you gay? If so, you made your choice. Even God gives you that freedom. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem when you openly say that theres nothing wrong with being gay.. Because there is..

It is a sickness as much as perversion, rapists, porn addicts. Your goals in life should be to improve your generousity, and care for others, not for your penis (obviously u cant pro-create when gay.)...

Megalodon
28th February 2003, 01:40 AM
Muscleman

Thank you very much. You (once again) showed why religions are dangerous.

BTW, you are a moron...

neutrino_cannon
28th February 2003, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by muscleman
Hey neutrino, my bad..LOL I was talking to Yahzi, not you... I didnt mean it, that guy is a moron, he makes so much accusation but cant back it up, I have exchanged posts with him on the other thread. Im sorry if you got involve here..

Are you gay? If so, you made your choice. Even God gives you that freedom. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem when you openly say that theres nothing wrong with being gay.. Because there is..

It is a sickness as much as perversion, rapists, porn addicts. Your goals in life should be to improve your generousity, and care for others, not for your penis (obviously u cant pro-create when gay.)...

Indeed, I am no devote Yahzi fan, and I realize the direction your comments were pointed in. I take offense to your comments, not to you personaly.

As I understand it, being gay is not per say a dedicated rational choice. I can see no reason anyone would choose to become a homosexual, though I'm sure homosexuals could come up with a few good reasons.

How exactly does being gay prevent you from being a generous, empathetic, trustworthy and worthwhile human being. Gays are not sex addicts any more neccisarily than any other human beings, and while they lack the sex drive to procreate (unless they wanted children), they are not sterile.

HarryKeogh
28th February 2003, 07:29 AM
wahhabism

without a doubt. and the scary part is that it is the only form of islam taught in schools in Saudi Arabia.

shemp
28th February 2003, 07:40 AM
Wahhabism? I much prefer Wasabiism (http://www.freshwasabi.com/) .

Ipecac
28th February 2003, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by muscleman


I have observed u from the beggining, and I realize u have so much hatred against the church and I dont know why... But I can only have theories..

Were you excommunicated? If so what is the reason? Because your gay and likes to have sex with animals and at the same time takes Holy Communion?

Are you a child molester?

Are you gay?

Are you homosexual?

Anyways I have all kinds of theories.. But Im so sure that you are a former catholic.....

MM, not that you had any respect here before, but that comment pretty well destroyed whatever small amount you may have had. It also shows the extent of your compassion, your intellect and the evil of your particular brand of religion.

c4ts
28th February 2003, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by muscleman
Hey neutrino, my bad..LOL I was talking to Yahzi, not you... I didnt mean it, that guy is a moron, he makes so much accusation but cant back it up, I have exchanged posts with him on the other thread. Im sorry if you got involve here..

Are you gay? If so, you made your choice. Even God gives you that freedom. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem when you openly say that theres nothing wrong with being gay.. Because there is..

It is a sickness as much as perversion, rapists, porn addicts. Your goals in life should be to improve your generousity, and care for others, not for your penis (obviously u cant pro-create when gay.)...

Get off the board and take your hate speeches with you. I am reporting this post to a moderator, hopefully before someone gay sees this and is offended by your biggotry.

Before Muscleman just repeated a bunch of things that didn't make sense. Now he has transgressed an actual boundary from "crazy old windbag" to "dangerous pervert." He says gayness is a disease, while he asks people on this forum if they are gay. He might as well ask them if they are black, or hispanic, or anything else along those lines. Politics aside, it makes me sick. This man's religion or ideology is not to blame, he is, and he has shown he may be looking for someone on this board to physically and/or sexually abuse. I encourage everybody to report him now, before he gets completely out of control.

I forgot that the JREF offices don't open until March... in the meantime, I'm just going to start a flame thread.

hammegk
28th February 2003, 10:10 AM
Hmmm.

Hypothetically, if I were to say,
"Homosexuality disgusts me, pedophiles disgust me, and atheists disgust me", is that "hate speech" or free speech? :confused:

What would you say if you wanted to "report" me?

specious_reasons
28th February 2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by HarryKeogh
wahhabism

without a doubt. and the scary part is that it is the only form of islam taught in schools in Saudi Arabia.

I was considering posting something along those lines. It's the most conservative and fundamentalist branch of Islam.

The Pakistani Madrasas (sp?), you know the schools that bred the Taliban, were founded (funded) by Saudi Arabian wahhabists. Despicable practices.

Skeptical Greg
28th February 2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by hammegk
Hmmm.

Hypothetically, if I were to say,
"Homosexuality disgusts me, pedophiles disgust me, and atheists disgust me", is that "hate speech" or free speech? :confused:

What would say if you wanted to "report" me?

I would say it is ' both '..

It would give us some insight into your character, and enable us to make informed decisions regarding further discourse with you.

If someone wanted to ' report you ', they would be exercising their freedom of speech.

c0rbin
28th February 2003, 10:30 AM
Hating or fear of people for being homosexual makes as much sense as hating or fear of people who prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla.

If anyone on this board can name one intelligent reason why being homosexual is bad I will reconsider the argument, but until then, hating/fearing homosexuals is dumb.

To any Scientology Apologists -- Isn't it a core belief of Scientology that your mind is sometimes plagued by alien spirits requiring thousands of dollars to remove?

Upchurch
28th February 2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Whodini



Upchurch,


What about all of the Scientologists that it did and does help?

Do you remember the misses and forget the hits?
er.... well, that's possible.

To tell the truth, I'm not aware of any testimonials from non-members who had good experiences with Scientologists. I know testimonials aren't real evidence, but I'd consider them an indicator.

For instance, although not Jewish myself, I had a girlfriend once who was and when we went to her temple, I was treated with welcome and the utmost respect, despite the fact that they had no interest in "converting" me.

But, as you say, maybe I'm just not aware of all the good that Scientology does. Anyone know of any?

hammegk
28th February 2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Diogenes

It would give us some insight into your character, and enable us to make informed decisions regarding further discourse with you.


dis·gust from dictionary.com
1. To excite nausea or loathing in; sicken.
2. To offend the taste or moral sense of; repel

I see. Would you hate/fear me, or just be "disgusted"?

If someone wanted to ' report you ', they would be exercising their freedom of speech.

So true, as I would have been doing, and then what?

Mommy, Mommy, that person is picking on me/him/her? Is AAAAAUP your sock-puppet, or you his?

Upchurch
28th February 2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by muscleman

Are you a child molester?

Are you gay?

Are you homosexual?

Out of curiosity, muscleman, do you know what the difference between being gay and being a homosexual is?

[bad joke]

Since when does being a child molester get you excommunicated?

ba-da-dump

[/bad joke]

Upchurch
28th February 2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by hammegk
Hmmm.

Hypothetically, if I were to say,
"Homosexuality disgusts me, pedophiles disgust me, and atheists disgust me", is that "hate speech" or free speech?
I'm with Diogenes. Hate speech and free speech aren't mutually exclusive.

If a group of Illinois Nazis wanted to peacefully go on a march proclaiming that "The Jews are using the Blacks against you [white people]", that's both free speech and hate speech.

(Illinois Nazis. Man, I hate Illinois Nazis.)
What would you say if you wanted to "report" me?
One could want to "report" you all they want, but who would they "report" you to?

Akots
28th February 2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Upchurch

I'm with Diogenes. Hate speech and free speech aren't mutually exclusive.

If a group of Illinois Nazis wanted to peacefully go on a march proclaiming that "The Jews are using the Blacks against you [white people]", that's both free speech and hate speech.

(Illinois Nazis. Man, I hate Illinois Nazis.)

One could want to "report" you all they want, but who would they "report" you to?

Whoa... Blues Brothers flashback.

Skeptical Greg
28th February 2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by hammegk




I see. Would you hate/fear me, or just be "disgusted"?

Well, you mentioned three traits...

Any one person could posses any combination of those three traits ... So, we wouldn't necessarily be talking about three different people, but we could be.


I would agree with you on the pedophile.. ( be disgusted ) And it wouldn't matter if they were also an Atheist and/or a homosexual.

I do not hate anyone at all, nor would I fear or feel disgusted with anyone based on their predjuices...

When I encounter, what I perceive to be prejudice, I would describe my feelings as mostly disappointment,
and wonder how someone can justify excluding a group of fellow human beings from their life, with no information
about their feelings or beliefs. I imagine that they must really be lonely and afraid, and that makes me very sad.


So true, as I would have been doing, and then what?

Mommy, Mommy, that person is picking on me/him/her? Is AAAAAUP your sock-puppet, or you his?

I thought " tattle-tale ", but didn't want to be the one to say it..;)

hammegk
28th February 2003, 11:22 AM
Again, hypothetically,

Coprophiliacs disgust me, necrophiliacs disgust me, sado-masochists disgust me, Christians disgust me, and Theists disgust me, now what?

What is the difference between homosexuality, coprophilia, necrophilia, and sado-maschism?

Should we teach 5th graders in public schools that all are equally acceptable methods of expressing sexuallity?

Skeptical Greg
28th February 2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Upchurch


One could want to "report" you all they want, but who would they "report" you to?

They don't have mods in Ill ? I thought Diezel was in that area...:D



Add:

Thats " illinois ".. I wish they would change the font so capital i's don't look like lower case els...:mad:

Upchurch
28th February 2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by hammegk

What is the difference between homosexuality, coprophilia, necrophilia, and sado-maschism?
Well, homosexuality is a sexual orientation while coprophilia, necrophilia and sado-maschism are all labels applied to different ways that people excite themselves or others sexually. Of them, the only one I would consider unambiguously wrong is necrophilia because it can never be mutualy concentual.
Should we teach 5th graders in public schools that all are equally acceptable methods of expressing sexuallity? But they aren't equally acceptable. any sort of sexual activity without full concent of all involved is not acceptable.

Upchurch
28th February 2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Diogenes

Thats " illinois ".. I wish they would change the font so capital i's don't look like lower case els...:mad:
Aside: Ever see "Illinois" written on a road sign? They put a slight slant at the tops of the els to distinguish them. The thing is, you really have to look to notice. One of the most pointless efforts I've ever seen in a road sign.

hammegk
28th February 2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Upchurch

Well, homosexuality is a sexual orientation while coprophilia, necrophilia and sado-maschism are all labels applied to different ways that people excite themselves or others sexually.

Is this just a personal thought? I didn't know genetics had been tagged as the reason. And if not genetic, what is the difference?

Of them, the only one I would consider unambiguously wrong is necrophilia because it can never be mutualy concentual.
But they aren't equally acceptable. any sort of sexual activity without full concent of all involved is not acceptable.
LOL. I'd say necrophilia has full, 100%, absolute consent and is unambiguously ok. Who knows about agreements between 2 or more people, and their reason for "agreeing" -- money, blackmail, fear, drugged, etcetc.

Upchurch
28th February 2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by hammegk

Is this just a personal thought? I didn't know genetics had been tagged as the reason. And if not genetic, what is the difference?
Coprophilia, necrophilia and sado-maschism are fetishes. They are practiced by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. One is what you do, the other is who you do it with.
LOL. I'd say necrophilia has full, 100%, absolute consent and is unambiguously ok. Who knows about agreements between 2 or more people, and their reason for "agreeing" -- money, blackmail, fear, drugged, etcetc. How does a dead body give concent? It doesn't matter what agreements were made before hand, if concent isn't given at the moment, it's not concentual. and being afraid or drugged doesn't count. Not being able to say "no" doesn't mean that concent is given. Don't believe me? Look up "date rape".

Thanz
28th February 2003, 12:54 PM
Well, I was pointed to this thread by Diogenes, and I can say that I am disgusted with the attitude presented by muscleman in this thread with regard to homosexuals.

As a Christian, it really bothers me when idiots spout off like this, purporting to speak for my faith or even worse, God. I do not believe in a God who would create people as homosexuals and then condemn them for it.

It is idiots like this that make life extremely hard for gay people, especially if they are Christian. The right wing bigots have given Christianity such a bad name in the gay community that (depending on the individuals involved) it can be just as hard to 'come out' as Christian in the gay community as it is to come out as gay in in some Christian communities.

Skeptical Greg
28th February 2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Thanz
The right wing bigots have given Christianity such a bad name in the gay community that (depending on the individuals involved) it can be just as hard to 'come out' as Christian in the gay community as it is to come out as gay in in some Christian communities.

Interesting spin.. Excellent observation...

Skeptical Greg
28th February 2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by hammegk
Again, hypothetically,

Coprophiliacs disgust me, necrophiliacs disgust me, sado-masochists disgust me, Christians disgust me, and Theists disgust me, now what?

What is the difference between homosexuality, coprophilia, necrophilia, and sado-maschism?

Should we teach 5th graders in public schools that all are equally acceptable methods of expressing sexuallity?

If all those things disgust you, I would suggest you find something else to think about.

If you (hypothetically) don't know the difference between those things, I would suggest you do some googling...

The 'teaching' thing... No.

Beleth
28th February 2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Upchurch
Of them, the only one I would consider unambiguously wrong is necrophilia because it can never be mutualy concentual.I disagree. From a purely unemotional, purely ethical standpoint, everyone who can consent to necrophilia does consent. From a consenting-party point of view, it's no different than masturbation - only one person needs to consent because only one person is involved.

That doesn't mean that it's not entirely disgusting, though, because it is.

Upchurch
28th February 2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Beleth
I disagree. From a purely unemotional, purely ethical standpoint, everyone who can consent to necrophilia does consent. From a consenting-party point of view, it's no different than masturbation - only one person needs to consent because only one person is involved.
true, strictly speaking there is only one person involved, but who does that body belong to? Assuming that it is not an incestual necropheiliac, this person is having sex with someone else's property (assuming that we all agree that a dead body belongs to the family of the deceased). Unless the family gives concent ("You wanna go knock boots with grandma? Just a sec, we keep her in a freezer out back."), it's not concentual.

Masterbation, on the other hand (pun intended), is usally done with one's own property (hand, object, etc.).

Not that I endorce this opinion. Ultimately, I believe the body belongs to the deceased and only the deceased can give that kind of concent which, as previously mentioned, is impossible.
That doesn't mean that it's not entirely disgusting, though, because it is.
Granted.

Upchurch
28th February 2003, 01:36 PM
About the teaching 5th graders.

Sex ed is about explaining how human reproduction works and how to avoid catching and spreading disease. There's no reason to discuss fetishes or sexual orientation in that context, is there? It's not really applicable.

Skeptical Greg
28th February 2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Upchurch
beleth:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That doesn't mean that it's not entirely disgusting, though, because it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

upchurch:
Granted.




Of course you mean, " it's a disgusting idea " ?



Sorry guys, but I couldn't resist..:D

Upchurch
28th February 2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Diogenes


Of course you mean, " it's a disgusting idea " ?
Granted.

Darat
28th February 2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Whodini
----
Scientology, for example, teaches it's members to be as intolerant of scientists and rational thinkers as possible.
----

----
....Scientology because it was NEVER intended to benefit anyone, other than a handful of it's own preists, living in the lap of luxury while their disciples suffer mental and physical hardship.
----


Can you find Scientology literature where those things are listed? Name of source, date, and page #, please.

Thanks.

Well surprisingly not Scientology "literature" but

"Bare-Faced Messiah" by Russell Miller

Page 300, 3rd Para, Chapter 17

There was also considerable disparity between the way the Hubbards lived on the ship and the conditions endured by everyone else. Most of the crew lived in cramped, smelly, roach-infested dormitories fitted with bunks in three tiers that left little room for personal possessions. Hubbard and Mary Sue each had there own state-room in addition to a suite of the promenade deck comprising an auditing-room, office, an elegant saloon and a wood-panelled dining room, all off-limits to student and crew........."

neutrino_cannon
28th February 2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by hammegk

Is this just a personal thought? I didn't know genetics had been tagged as the reason. And if not genetic, what is the difference?



Did he imply it was genetic? I don't really see how it could be, the trait would only rarely be passed on.

Upchurch
28th February 2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by neutrino_cannon



Did he imply it was genetic? I don't really see how it could be, the trait would only rarely be passed on.
I think you'd be surprised how many gay men and women have children due to social pressures. I have a friend whose last boyfriend was a father of two.

28th February 2003, 04:13 PM
You know, I actually find myself in agreement with something hammegk said. Once again, I am glad I don't put people on ignore who once ticked me off.

Why is a hatred of religious people acceptable on here, and other forms of hatred are not?

Doctor X
28th February 2003, 04:38 PM
The people who "own the House"--own the forum--can make the rules.

I may not agree with the rules--I can leave the house. I may even complain about the rules elsewhere.

Things are a problem when the owners apply rules arbitrarily or inconsistently.

Such biggotry as spouted here is offensive and, personally, I would not allow it in my home. However, if the moderators wish to allow it--just as the presumably allow posters to spew nonsense posts of insults--The Readership is free to expose it, and condemn it.

Regarding cults . . . a cult is a religion that is not popular yet. Martial arts cults exist. We seem to have an understanding that the basic purpose of the organization is the exploitation rather than the betterment of members.

Okay, but does that cover Heaven's Gate? There are cults that believe they are serving the betterment of their members--even if it does not seem that way.

Anyways, aside from the attempts to turn this into a plateform for personal prejudice, a good topic.

"Offensive" Tangent Warning:

Right, now since the self-proclaimed scripture experts wish to attack homosexual, perchance a review of what the texts state about homosexuality would be in order.

I refer the Readership to an issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature--I can provide links if some are interested--I am not "in the office."

Anyways, this gets complicated in that one has to follow how the Hebrew is used in the respective Leviticus passages in comparison to other passages. In summary, what is forbidden is taking the "female position" not homosexual relationship.

Indeed, it seems it is always better to give than receive. . . .

Thus, does the OT sanction the practice.

--J.D.

Darat
28th February 2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by LukeT
...snip....

Why is a hatred of religious people acceptable on here, and other forms of hatred are not?

I certainly don't think it is acceptable - but don't forget the forum seems to allow any abuse regarding beliefs including the "religion of atheism".


(Edited for speeling misteak.)

28th February 2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by LukeT
Why is a hatred of religious people acceptable on here, and other forms of hatred are not?


It is because most people on here are NOT religious, therefore, to conform to the status quo, making fun of theism and theists is generally allowed, and is often viewed by them as cute, comical, or funny, when it clearly is not.

Ipecac
28th February 2003, 08:45 PM
So should we also not make fun of the spoon-benders, doswers, homeopaths and talkers to the dead?

Doctor X
28th February 2003, 10:55 PM
It is because most people on here are NOT religious, therefore, to conform to the status quo, making fun of theism and theists is generally allowed, and is often viewed by them as cute, comical, or funny, when it clearly is not.

Not clearly at all.

What is "not funny" is a failure to apply critical judgement to the world around us.

--J.D.

Franko
1st March 2003, 12:21 AM
Dr. De-Bungler:
What is "not funny" is a failure to apply critical judgement to the world around us.

Why don't you explain your irrefutable reasons for believing in "free will" then Dr. Hypocrite?

TLOP (God) controls YOU controls CAR.

When will you religious fanatics face reality?

Yahzi
1st March 2003, 12:28 AM
Mucusman
have no problem with that, but I do have a problem when you openly say that theres nothing wrong with being gay
In yet another stunning display of Jesuit logic, Mucusman states that he has no problem with you being wrong as long as you don't mention it. Who would have guessed he got his policies from Bill Clinton?

Mucus, you degenerate moron, you are on my /ignore list. I only see what people choose to quote. Which frankly is more than than I care to see. I can't say I'm surprised to find out you are a homophobe; it just goes with the territory.

I can say, with absolute assurance, that being gay is far less offensive to God than being you.


c4ts
I forgot that the JREF offices don't open until March
:confused:

We have moderators on line already... if you reported the post, Bidlack et. al. will see it. Right?

Yahzi
1st March 2003, 12:32 AM
Luke
Why is a hatred of religious people acceptable on here, and other forms of hatred are not?
Because religion is what you choose, and homosexual is what you are.

It is inappropriate to assail people for what they cannot change. It is entirely appropriate to accost and upbraid people for a choice they are continuing to make.

Franko
1st March 2003, 12:57 AM
Because religion is what you choose, and homosexual is what you are.

And here I thought that consciousness was an illusion and everything was just the result of TLOP and the Initial State?

What is your empirical evidence that Religion is a “choice”, and Sexual Orientation is “predetermined”?

It is inappropriate to assail people for what they cannot change. It is entirely appropriate to accost and upbraid people for a choice they are continuing to make.

Please explain EXACTLY how a “rational” person (such as yourself) empirically determines when they get to make a “choice” (religion), from when something is preordained by the Laws of Physics (homosexuality)???

Yatzi, as always, you do not fail to disappoint. You are entirely consistent and predictable in your inanity. A True brainwashed A-Theism moron if I ever saw one.

Ceinwyn
1st March 2003, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Franko


And here I thought that consciousness was an illusion and everything was just the result of TLOP and the Initial State?

What is your empirical evidence that Religion is a “choice”, and Sexual Orientation is “predetermined”?



Please explain EXACTLY how a “rational” person (such as yourself) empirically determines when they get to make a “choice” (religion), from when something is preordained by the Laws of Physics (homosexuality)???

Yatzi, as always, you do not fail to disappoint. You are entirely consistent and predictable in your inanity. A True brainwashed A-Theism moron if I ever saw one. I have one answer to this:

Have sex with a man, Franko. Right now.

No? You don't want to? Why not?

Could it be because you don't have any attraction to men? Well try reversing that. Gay people don't have any attraction to the opposite sex, and there is as much chance of forcing them to change as there is of forcing you to s*ck some guy's...ok, I'll leave it at that and hope the message got through.

Franko
1st March 2003, 01:39 AM
I have one answer to this:

Believe in God buki. Right now.

No? You don't want to? Why not?

Could it be because you don't have any attraction to God? Well try reversing that. A-Theist people don't have any attraction to the Truth, and there is as much chance of forcing them to change as there is of forcing you to acknowledge that you don’t have magic "free will" powers, I'll leave it at that and hope the message got through.

Ceinwyn
1st March 2003, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by Franko
I have one answer to this:

Believe in God buki. Right now.

No? You don't want to? Why not?

Could it be because you don't have any attraction to God? Well try reversing that. A-Theist people don't have any attraction to the Truth, and there is as much chance of forcing them to change as there is of forcing you to acknowledge that you don’t have magic "free will" powers, I'll leave it at that and hope the message got through. You're the one who's equating "god" with "the Truth" Franko. It's an interesting tactic though, parroting a post and slipping in a completely different topic while you're at it.

Mind you, if god looked like Brad Pitt, I'd be tempted...

Darat
1st March 2003, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by Ipecac
So should we also not make fun of the spoon-benders, doswers, homeopaths and talkers to the dead?

Making "fun" is not "hatred of religious people" is it? If a friend has a new hair cut that I take the mickey out of that isn't "hatred".

Doctor X
1st March 2003, 08:41 AM
I predicted that the Coward et Liar et Hypocrithas been reduced to puerile tantrums.

This is in contrast to the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit who has been reduced to puerile tantrums, of course.

Note well:

Why don't you explain your irrefutable reasons for believing in "free will" then Dr. Hypocrite? (sic)

Non sequitur et argumentum ad veritatum obfuscandum. The Coward et Liar et Hypocrit has thus FAILED to Address the Science of Consciousness which proves quite relevant when he renders unsupported blatherings such as:

And here I thought that consciousness was an illusion and everything was just the result of TLOP and the Initial State?

Incidentally, as much as I hate to deprive a loon of a slogan to place on his sandwich board:

TLOP (God)

Is an assumption contrary to evidence.

. . . controls YOU

Is an assumption contrary to evidence.

controls CAR.

Is a rather false analogy altogether.

Such errors make sense when we consider his attempt to slander other posters by attributing to them opinions they do not hold in a rather pathetic Poisoning the Well:

When will you religious fanatics face reality?

I would recognize the ironic hypocrisy in that if it were not for the fact that most religious fanatics have more conviction than this Coward et Liar et Hypocrit.

--J.D.

Girl 6
1st March 2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by muscleman
Hey neutrino, my bad..LOL I was talking to Yahzi, not you... I didnt mean it, that guy is a moron, he makes so much accusation but cant back it up, I have exchanged posts with him on the other thread. Im sorry if you got involve here..

Are you gay? If so, you made your choice. Even God gives you that freedom. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem when you openly say that theres nothing wrong with being gay.. Because there is..

It is a sickness as much as perversion, rapists, porn addicts. Your goals in life should be to improve your generousity, and care for others, not for your penis (obviously u cant pro-create when gay.)...

This is an OFFENSIVE post. You are forming an opinion and NOT even backing up that opinion. On top of which, you are preaching to us. We can get into a debate as to why I think this, but I want to believe that you have better sense than this.

This may incur the wrath of some of the posters, but I'm going to ask that you voluntarily edit or delete this post. I'm going to give you until Monday morning by 12 noon PST to do this. I am also sending you a PM concerning this.

If you don't, I'll delete it or edit it myself. In so doing, I accept responsibility for my actions.

thanks!
G6

Franko
1st March 2003, 03:45 PM
Hey neutrino, my bad..LOL I was talking to Yahzi, not you... I didnt mean it, that guy is a moron, he makes so much accusation but cant back it up, I have exchanged posts with him on the other thread. Im sorry if you got involve here..

Are you religious? If so, you made your choice. Even The Laws of Physics gives you that freedom. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem when you openly say that theres nothing wrong with being religious.. Because there is..

It is a sickness as much as perversion, rapists, porn addicts. Your goals in life should be to improve your knowledge, and care for Science, not for your faith (obviously u cant evolve when religious.)...

Girl 6
1st March 2003, 03:46 PM
By the way, I would like to apologize, in advance, to anyone that has found the above post offensive.

I certainly don't believe that the JREF would be comfortable supporting hate speech. However, that's my subjective opinion as I don't represent the JREF officially.

I did receive MANY complaints from various posters regarding that post. I am sorry that I didn't get to it until now. But, rest assured that I acted the minute I got the complaints.

thanks!
G6

Franko
1st March 2003, 03:52 PM
Girl 6 as a moderator, would you please give us some guidelines for our personal opinions?

Which ideas are we allowed to condemn, and which ideas are sacred and holy and not to be blasphemed?

I am very confused by your posts, could you please elaborate and explain yourself more clearly?

Girl 6
1st March 2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Franko
Girl 6 as a moderator, would you please give us some guidelines for our personal opinions?

Which ideas are we allowed to condemn, and which ideas are sacred and holy and not to be blashemed?

I am very confused by your posts, could you please elaborate and explain yourself more clearly?

Alright...

I'm sorry. I'm just reacting in a poor way to something that I consider to be offensive. Of course, it's wrong of me to judge. Muscleman is stating an opinion.

I apologize and I retract.

And, thank you for pointing this out to me. I will also send a PM to muscleman with an apology.

G6

Soubrette
1st March 2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Girl 6


Alright...

I'm sorry. I'm just reacting in a poor way to something that I consider to be offensive. Of course, it's wrong of me to judge. Muscleman is stating an opinion.

I apologize and I retract.

And, thank you for pointing this out to me. I will also send a PM to muscleman with an apology.

G6

You have my respect G6

Sou

hammegk
1st March 2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Diogenes


The 'teaching' thing... No.

Perhaps I am incorrect, but my understanding is that schools do teach that homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality.

You think 5th grade is a little early; when will it be ok? And why is that? Why is sexual orientation *ever* any business of anyone except the consenting participants?


Oh, BTW, Girl6 -- as moderator -- seems to have a problem with the following words:

Are you gay? If so, you made your choice. Even God gives you that freedom. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem when you openly say that theres nothing wrong with being gay.. Because there is..

It is a sickness as much as perversion, rapists, porn addicts. Your goals in life should be to improve your generousity, and care for others, not for your penis (obviously u cant pro-create when gay.)...

Apparently the only vaild faith here is materialism/atheism plus the 'anything goes' morality of secular humanism. IMNSHO, that is as much a Religious Teaching as any other; why should that faith be taught to the exclusion of all others.

1st March 2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Darat


Making "fun" is not "hatred of religious people" is it? If a friend has a new hair cut that I take the mickey out of that isn't "hatred".

There are people who are making more than "fun" of religious people on here. Look at the name of this topic, for example.

Franko
1st March 2003, 04:01 PM
Girl 6,

thank you for pointing this out to me

That's good Karma for you.

... and for what it is worth, I agree with you that the muscleman is wrong (God doesn't dislike Gay people). But that is his bad karma. He'll have to deal with that in his own way in his own time.

Darat
1st March 2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Girl 6


Alright...

I'm sorry. I'm just reacting in a poor way to something that I consider to be offensive. Of course, it's wrong of me to judge. Muscleman is stating an opinion.

I apologize and I retract.

And, thank you for pointing this out to me. I will also send a PM to muscleman with an apology.

G6

I don't think anyone could expect more from you G6 then a full and frank apology.

Obviously you found the post very offensive and had an "emotional" reaction to it, nothing wrong with that you are equally entitled to your opinion.

Darat
1st March 2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by LukeT


There are people who are making more than "fun" of religious people on here. Look at the name of this topic, for example.

Don't disagree.

But is the thread title itself showing hatred or is it just asking a question?

I suppose the assumption behind the title is that at least some "cults" and "sects" are dangerous, but to anyone with access to any form of media this would seem to be a pretty "safe" (i.e. accurate) assumption.

Upchurch
1st March 2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Girl 6

I'm just reacting in a poor way to something that I consider to be offensive.
You're only human.
I apologize and I retract. Okay, so, you're one of the respectable humans.
And, thank you for pointing this out to me. Okay, so we've established that you're human, respectable, AND wise.

That's rather a lot to heap into one post, isn't it? :D

neutrino_cannon
1st March 2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Franko
Hey neutrino, my bad..LOL I was talking to Yahzi, not you... I didnt mean it, that guy is a moron, he makes so much accusation but cant back it up, I have exchanged posts with him on the other thread. Im sorry if you got involve here..

Are you religious? If so, you made your choice. Even The Laws of Physics gives you that freedom. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem when you openly say that theres nothing wrong with being religious.. Because there is..

It is a sickness as much as perversion, rapists, porn addicts. Your goals in life should be to improve your knowledge, and care for Science, not for your faith (obviously u cant evolve when religious.)...


har har, Franko. Har har.

Franko
1st March 2003, 05:52 PM
har har, Franko. Har har.

No offense N_C, I was merely making a point about censorship, and what is "determined", and what is a "choice".

neutrino_cannon
1st March 2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Franko


No offense N_C, I was merely making a point about censorship, and what is "determined", and what is a "choice".

Huh? Could you please clairify?

neutrino_cannon
1st March 2003, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Franko


No offense N_C, I was merely making a point about censorship, and what is "determined", and what is a "choice".

Huh? Could you please clairify?

Franko
1st March 2003, 08:02 PM
neutrino_cannon,

do you think that sexual orientation is determined, or "free will"?

How about religion?

Explain your answer.

neutrino_cannon
1st March 2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Franko
neutrino_cannon,

do you think that sexual orientation is determined, or "free will"?

How about religion?

Explain your answer.


I think that sexual orientation is neither predetermined nor is it entirely based on what an individual chooses. I beleive (as do most athorities, if my information is even anywhere close to correct) that sexual orientation is a result of stimulus gained thoughout life.

Religion, I suspect is initial based on what you are exposed to first (as a child), and then by subsiquent stimulus and experieces. So that's like sexual orientation too.

Futherthermore, I have seen no reputable reports that do anything but agree with the opinions I have here expressed.


edited to add:

here, the fruits of a few seconds googling:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus.htm
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/ip/social.services/youth-services/orient/ori2

And now that I have seen a good deal of articles relating to a very few studies indicating that homosexuality may be in part genetic, I am reconsidering my earlier opinion.

edited again to add

This becomes increasingly tangential.

Franko
1st March 2003, 11:09 PM
[b]neutrino_cannon:

I think that sexual orientation is neither predetermined nor is it entirely based on what an individual chooses. I beleive (as do most athorities, if my information is even anywhere close to correct) that sexual orientation is a result of stimulus gained thoughout life.

Religion, I suspect is initial based on what you are exposed to first (as a child), and then by subsiquent stimulus and experieces. So that's like sexual orientation too.

Futherthermore, I have seen no reputable reports that do anything but agree with the opinions I have here expressed.

It would appear that we are in complete agreement on this matter. Religion and Sexual orientation, while perhaps dependant slightly on some genetic factors (predisposition) are largely the result of upbringing, conditioning, life-experience, and environment.

neutrino_cannon
1st March 2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Franko


It would appear that we are in complete agreement on this matter. Religion and Sexual orientation, while perhaps dependant slightly on some genetic factors (predisposition) are largely the result of upbringing, conditioning, life-experience, and environment.

Quite so. I read about an experiment involving flies, in which the temperature was adjusted to the point wheere their mechanisms for recognising each other's sex was shot. I wonder if at some level something like that might go on in he brains of homosexuals.

hammegk
2nd March 2003, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


Quite so. I read about an experiment involving flies, in which the temperature was adjusted to the point wheere their mechanisms for recognising each other's sex was shot. I wonder if at some level something like that might go on in he brains of homosexuals.

My, my, that is absolutely not politically correct. You imply that homosexuality is aberrant behavior that could be "corrected".

neutrino_cannon
2nd March 2003, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by hammegk


My, my, that is absolutely not politically correct. You imply that homosexuality is aberrant behavior that could be "corrected".

Oh. Dear.

I. Have. Said. Something. That. Might. Be. Misconstrued.