patrick.net

Strategist says

PeopleUnited says

Thanks, and I'm glad you enjoyed your time in the islands. They are some of the marvels God's creation. And apparently the people who live there recognize it, hence your blessed experience with the preaching there.

You are welcome. Going to Hawaii turned me into a nature lover and a hiker. Now i want to see the whole beautiful world that nature created. Hundreds of millions of years of evolution right before our eyes. What a sight.

I'm sure you agree.

It is true, there is immense beauty in nature. But nature is not a creator. It is merely a reflection of the Creator.

PeopleUnited says

It is true, there is immense beauty in nature. But nature is not a creator. It is merely a reflection of the Creator.

Have you ever considered converting Muslims to Christianity? You have talent, and you would be doing the world a big favor.

PeopleUnited says

Christianity on the other hand has failed because it has left its first love,

If you think this is a reflection of secularists, I can assure you it isn't nor is it new. No one was harder or more condemnatory towards fellow Christians than our Christian Sunday school and training union teachers of 65 years ago. That was the first place I heard the mantra "many people don't want to believe in Christianity because of the actions they see from professing Christians". I believe even no less an eminence than Ghandi said "I would be a Christian except for all the other Christians". Of course that isn't true, Ghandi was never going to be anything but a Hindu. It's a convenient dodge, but the Christians I personally know could never be used as bad examples for someone on the fence as to whether or not to become a Christian and I doubt that is true in your personal experiece as well, it's just a popular trope, and I'm sure you can give examples galore of high profile Christians who did not set good examples of Christ. The point is, you are not going to be charged with any of the sins of those erring Christians, only your own.

PeopleUnited says

Dan is arguing that freedom of religion is what causes the spread of terrorism from Islamic nations (where there is no religious freedom) to Europe and The United States where in general religion is mocked 24/7 by people just like Dan himself. I suppose the solution Dan is to lock up all the believers and ban religion in the name of (Freedom?) peace and safety.

Wow, that's a complete fucking lie. I state that cultural adherent to "freedom of religion" prevented European nations from restricting immigration that resulted in terrorist attacks, and you claim that I believe in arresting and imprisoning every religious person. So then, if I state that I don't believe in that, you'll agree with me then, right? Because otherwise you'd be a complete fucking hypocrite.

Well, I don't believe in arresting or imprisoning people because they are religious. I await your apology.

I believe that you teach the next generation science, you oppose religious nonsense by exposing it for the nonsense it is every time it is brought up, and you don't give special legal privileges to religions like exception from laws or taxes. Oh shit, that makes me just like Hitler.

Well, PeopleUnited says

The opposition of religion is the definition of totalitarianism.

No, it's not anymore than the opposition of rape or murder or human sacrifices is the definition of totalitarianism. Oh, and by the way, the United States frequently does and has always opposed religion. After WWII, the U.S. made the emperor of Japan admit to all his followers that he is not a god. That is religious opposition. Our government literally ended a religion.

The U.S. also ended polygamy in the Mormon religion, attacked the Branch Davidians, outlawed witchcraft, and forced people to serve in the military who had religious objections to contributing to war in any way, shape, or form. Our government at all levels frequently strip searches and body cavity searches people who have religious and objections to such searches. There has never been freedom of religion in the United States, just state-sponsored religion.

The only way to protect freedom is to oppose religion. Just like the freedom to murder is mutually exclusive with the freedom to live, religious freedom is mutually exclusive with all other freedoms. Both Islam and Christianity prove this every day.

PeopleUnited says

Dan is arguing that imprinting the words "In God we trust" on coins/bills is not only evil, but a slippery slope that leads to decapitation.

I did not say slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is that one minor thing quickly results in a far greater extreme. I argued that minor evils make greater evils easier. This is exactly the argument behind the police's Broken Window Theory.

And don't tell me that you'd be OK with "In gods we trust" printed on currency, or pictures of Hindi gods on our legal tender. So you are hypocritical for supporting this evil.
PeopleUnited says

I suppose next you will argue that Bibles should be banned because people who read them are more likely to vote

Name one time I've ever proposed banning a book or a bad idea. Come on you lying sack of crap, name one time. I've always states that you don't brush bad ideas under the rug. You attack bad ideas, show that they are bad, and fight them with good ideas. Everything you have said is a lie, and that demonstrates the weakness of your position.

When one side does nothing but lie while the other side does nothing but state the truth, it's not hard to determine which side is right.

Strategist says

Have you ever considered converting Muslims to Christianity? You have talent, and you would be doing the world a big favor.

More likely, they would convert this easily brainwashed fool to Islam, but even if the reverse happened, the coverted Christians would start bombing people in the name of Christ like this asshole.

A Missouri man – driven by anti-abortion and anti-Islamic beliefs –– will spend more than five years in federal prison for burning down a mosque and twice attempting to firebomb a Planned Parenthood clinic in Joplin, Mo.

Stout, who calls himself a “conservative Christian,” told investigators that “he didn't like the religion of Islam” and doesn’t “believe in abortions based upon his religious and personal beliefs,” the Joplin Globe reported Wednesday.

Christianity: Professing Christians do bad things contrary to founder's teaching - Christianity is bad.

Islam: Professing Muslims do bad things following examples of the founder - only a tiny minority of Muslims are extremists, Islam is a peaceful religion.

Atheism: Professing atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc) do bad things - atheism should not be blamed. Those who do bad things are simply bad people.

Different yardsticks for different theism.

Both Christian and Muslims have done terrible things in the name of their religion. Both religions should be judged badly. The "God Hates Fags" sign, has something to do with the belief in god.

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did not kill in the name of atheism. There has never, ever been an atheist holy war in the history of the world. Those despots killed in the name of power. You might as well argue that people with mustaches are evil because of the mustache and Stalin and Hitler prove this to be true.

There is a difference between an intrinsic property and a coincidence. Only an idiot cannot understand this. If a person murders another person while wearing a blue shirt, that does not mean blue shirts turn people into murderers. When Fort Wayne calls homosexuals an abomination because he read that in the Bible, that most certainly does intrinsically relate to his religion. Is anyone so fucking stupid that they cannot tell the difference?

Dan, atheism is directly responsible for persecution of Christians by Marxists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

"Soviet Marxist-Leninism policy consistently advocated the control, suppression, and ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs, and actively encouraged atheism in the Soviet Union"

Gade says

Dan, atheism is directly responsible for persecution of Christians by Marxists.

1. Quoting Wikipedia does not prove anything. Wikipedia is a propaganda device and nothing more. It's impossible to take someone who quotes it seriously.
2. The Soviets tried to eliminate competition for power, no different than Henry the VIII breaking with the Catholic Church to gain power.
3. There is absolutely nothing about disbelieving in supernatural gods that mandates killing political enemies and establishing totalitarian regimes.
4. In contrast, when the Bible says "homosexuals are abominations and should be put to death", Christians follow through precisely because of their religion.
5. When the senator heading the committee on climate change policy believes that climate change is false because his god promise not to destroy the Earth in a flood, that is Christianity directly threatening our well being.

If I were to play your game, I'd say that every single Christian was a pedophile since many Christian clerics have been so. If you can extrapolate mass murder based on a few atheists despite the overwhelming examples showing atheists are less violent than theists, then I can certainly extrapolate pedophile from many Christians committing the act. Do you really want to play that game? Are you willing to concede that pedophilia must be intrinsic to Christianity because I can name far more priests who are pedophiles than you can name atheists who were communist revolutionaries committing mass murder? If not, your argument is hypocritical.

It makes perfect sense that people who unquestioningly believe in a holy book would violate other people's rights when that holy book tells them those people are abominations. There is nothing in atheism that is even remotely equivalent to that. You are simply wrong.

Dan8267 says

I state that cultural adherent to "freedom of religion" prevented European nations from restricting immigration that resulted in terrorist attacks.

failure to recognize terrorism is part of the Islamic religion is the problem, not "freedom of religion "

Dan8267 says

Well, PeopleUnited says

The opposition of religion is the definition of totalitarianism.

No, it's not anymore than the opposition of rape or murder or human sacrifices is the definition of totalitarianism. Oh, and by the way, the United States frequently does and has always opposed religion. After WWII, the U.S. made the emperor of Japan admit to all his followers that he is not a god. That is religious opposition. Our government literally ended a religion.

Rape, murder and human sacrifice are violence. Religion is a set of beliefs. It is not oppression to outlaw violence. It is oppression to outlaw a set of beliefs. It is like making thoughts a crime.

Dan8267 says

I did not say slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is that one minor thing quickly results in a far greater extreme. I argued that minor evils make greater evils easier.

Potato, potatoe, same thing. Just more semantics from your well of self deception.

Dan8267 says

Someone who restricts speech is a conservative, by definition, regardless of what particular speech they are restricting. Silencing rock-and-roll, and silencing men's rights speeches, and silencing profanity or indecent conversation, and silencing anti-war protests are all the same thing. It's all censorship, and it's all conservative.

Which makes you a conservative. You have banned more people than even the average patnetter. And you are now banned from my threads as turn about is fair play, Mr. Conservative!

PeopleUnited says

failure to recognize terrorism is part of the Islamic religion is the problem, not "freedom of religion "

Islam has nothing to do with religion! Brilliant!

I suppose then we can ban Christianity since it also has nothing to do with religion.PeopleUnited says

Rape, murder and human sacrifice are violence. Religion is a set of beliefs

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

Well, PeopleUnited says

The opposition of religion is the definition of totalitarianism.

No, it's not anymore than the opposition of rape or murder or human sacrifices is the definition of totalitarianism. Oh, and by the way, the United States frequently does and has always opposed religion. After WWII, the U.S. made the emperor of Japan admit to all his followers that he is not a god. That is religious opposition. Our government literally ended a religion.

Rape, murder and human sacrifice are violence. Religion is a set of beliefs. It is not oppression to outlaw violence. It is oppression to outlaw a set of beliefs. It is like making thoughts a crime.

1. Human sacrifice is part of many sets of religious beliefs. Thus oppressing it is oppressing religion. And if it's OK to oppress religion, as clearly it is in the case of human sacrifice, then "freedom of religion" has limits. It's just a question of what ones.
2. Forcing the emperor of Japan to state to his followers that he is not a god is the epitome of religious oppression. The U.S. government literally destroyed a religion outright. So don't tell me that "freedom of religion" is a sacred right.
3. You are, of course, free to think what you want. You aren't free to act on it. If you cannot "corrupt" children with indecency, then you should not be allowed to brainwash children with religion. It's no different than giving them cocaine.
4. Religion, especially Christianity, is the greatest perpetrator of creating thought crime laws. If you really objected to making thoughts a crime, then you would oppose Christianity.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

I did not say slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is that one minor thing quickly results in a far greater extreme. I argued that minor evils make greater evils easier.

Potato, potatoe, same thing. Just more semantics from your well of self deception.

It's amazing how comfortable you are with just outright lying to everyone. There's a huge difference between a slippery slope argument and the Broken Window Theory. Equating the two is just plain dishonest.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

Someone who restricts speech is a conservative, by definition, regardless of what particular speech they are restricting. Silencing rock-and-roll, and silencing men's rights speeches, and silencing profanity or indecent conversation, and silencing anti-war protests are all the same thing. It's all censorship, and it's all conservative.

Which makes you a conservative. You have banned more people than even the average patnetter. And you are now banned from my threads as turn about is fair play, Mr. Conservative!

Banning trolls from a thread is not suppression of speech. It silence no one. In fact it does the exact opposite. Trolls disrupt conversations and that suppresses speech. Furthermore, trolls are not restricted in any manner from opening their own threads, and thus they can still say anything they want. They simply cannot stop other people from having conversations.

You are arguing that the social justice warrior in the audience disrupting the debate or speech on the stage is exercising free speech, and that the people who remove the disruptive jerk from the audience is oppressing free speech. This is bullshit. Free speech means being allowed to convey your message, and it also means being allowed to listen to a message you want to hear. Free speech does not mean the freedom to disrupt other people's speech.

Go to a courtroom and start spewing your diatribe disrupting the court. See how long the judge tolerates you. When he has the bailiff throw you in jail for contempt of court, is he oppressing your freedom of speech? Go to a movie theater and start shouting during the movie. When the usher kicks you out, is he suppressing your speech? Walk up to cops in the middle arresting a suspect and insist on talking to them about irrelevant social issues. Tell the cops they are fat gay nerds and just keep insulting them and trying to agitate them. See if you aren't arrested for this. Is the arrest oppression of speech?

Unless you insist all the above are tragedies of justice, then you are completely disingenuous.

#hypocrisy

Gade says

Dan, atheism is directly responsible for persecution of Christians by Marxists.

Gade, can you think of a major subset of a world religion strongly identified with Fascism?

In fact, no country that didn't have a majority or large minority of this religion became fascist from the inside (ie not a puppet regime)

Dan8267 says

1. Human sacrifice is part of many sets of religious beliefs. Thus oppressing it is oppressing religion. And if it's OK to oppress religion, as clearly it is in the case of human sacrifice, then "freedom of religion" has limits. It's just a question of what ones.

2. Forcing the emperor of Japan to state to his followers that he is not a god is the epitome of religious oppression. The U.S. government literally destroyed a religion outright. So don't tell me that "freedom of religion" is a sacred right.

3. You are, of course, free to think what you want. You aren't free to act on it. If you cannot "corrupt" children with indecency, then you should not be allowed to brainwash children with religion. It's no different than giving them cocaine.

4. Religion, especially Christianity, is the greatest perpetrator of creating thought crime laws. If you really objected to making thoughts a crime, then you would oppose Christianity.

1. Convicting people for murder is not oppression of religion. It is called law enforcement. It is not OK to to murder. It is also not OK for government to harass people for practicing religion or to oppress them for holding and defending religious beliefs. Sure governments including ours have done this, but it is not OK.
2. The emperor of Japan argument is irrelevant, I do not condone the use of violence to force the leader of a sovereign nation's hand. It is not OK. Though clearly if he was a god it is unlikely that the United States would have any way of influencing him so really truth prevailed I guess.
3. Gee thanks for granting me the freedom to think what I want, while simultaneously advocating taking away the right of parents to teach their children about God/religion. By the way there is a mountain worth of difference between giving a child cocaine, and teaching them a religion. Cocaine is a chemical and religion is an idea. It is not the same thing. That being said I agree there are consequences to giving children cocaine, and consequences to teaching them religion, just not the same consequences.
4. Christians have been persecuted for their beliefs since the dawn of Christianity. Thought crime was invented by people who want to control your thoughts, namely conservatives. But it is not a Christian value to control people, throughout history God has given people choices and opportunity to change their mind even to the point of rejecting Him. It is the devil who seeks to control and enslave. Satan started by lying to Eve in the Garden of Eden and he is lying to people today through various forms of deception including religions and other belief systems.

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

I did not say slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is that one minor thing quickly results in a far greater extreme. I argued that minor evils make greater evils easier.

Potato, potatoe, same thing. Just more semantics from your well of self deception.

It's amazing how comfortable you are with just outright lying to everyone. There's a huge difference between a slippery slope argument and the Broken Window Theory. Equating the two is just plain dishonest.

There is an incredible amount of overlap between slippery slope and your Broken Window Theory. So much overlap as to be considered different ways of stating the same argument. For example, one small bad act can quickly take a person's life in a bad direction (slippery slope). Similarly one small bad act such as breaking a car window (if not repaired), can attract attention and result in the total loss of the car. In both cases, it is imperative not to allow that bad act to happen or to quickly reverse course and make reparations in order to prevent sliding down that slippery slope and all the negative consequences of the smaller bad act. To assert that there is not such significant overlap is very disingenuous. In fact it is troll like logic, arguing for the sake of argument.

Dan8267 says

Banning trolls from a thread is not suppression of speech.

Your troll may be my voice of reason. Therefore your banning of "trolls" is oppressive of reason and suppressive of free speech. Why not practice what you preach and let your ideas speak for themselves rather than banning others from countering your ideas? I know why, it is because you are not concerned about your ideas or even the idea of free speech as much as you are concerned about your ego. You want to control the conversation like a true conservative.

Dan8267 says

You are arguing that the social justice warrior in the audience disrupting the debate or speech on the stage is exercising free speech, and that the people who remove the disruptive jerk from the audience is oppressing free speech.

No I am arguing that a person who bans more people than the average Patnetter bans from his thread is by virtue of his desire to control the narrative, a conservative.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

Banning trolls from a thread is not suppression of speech.

Your troll may be my voice of reason. Therefore your banning of "trolls" is oppressive of reason and suppressive of free speech. Why not practice what you preach and let your ideas speak for themselves rather than banning others from countering your ideas? I know why, it is because you are not concerned about your ideas or even the idea of free speech as much as you are concerned about your ego. You want to control the conversation like a true conservative.

Oh Pleaz! Trolls have been saying the same thing to me, post after post.

First, they say I can't get (or attract) women and thus, I turn to whores as a way out of the process of getting mainstream society's approval.

Hello?! ... I work in finance and two, I'd recently turned down a visiting scholar from Chile... so much for that worthless tactic.

Then, they start to call me gay when they discover that I can, in fact, get women but CHOOSE not to.

You see, trolls need to be thrashed, not respected. These are society's bitches and deserve to be executed (psychologically).

PeopleUnited says

Satan started by lying to Eve in the Garden of Eden and he is lying to people today through various forms of deception including religions and other belief systems.

Like he's doing to you, perhaps?

Remember, Paul had never met Jesus in the flesh. He only saw him as a vision. Was that also not Satan, playing some channeled entity, faking authenticity?

@Rin

you sound like a conservative too. But I support your right to enjoy the company of whatever women or men you see fit. I give you credit for choosing your path and defending it. But banning "trolls" is still a conservative thing to do, and Dan deserves to have his hypocrisy exposed.

PeopleUnited says

@Rin

you sound like a conservative too. But I support your right to enjoy the company of whatever women or men you see fit. I give you credit for choosing your path and defending it. But banning "trolls" is still a conservative thing to do, and Dan deserves to have his hypocrisy exposed.

Fair enough, we part ways without malice.

Rin says

PeopleUnited says

Satan started by lying to Eve in the Garden of Eden and he is lying to people today through various forms of deception including religions and other belief systems.

Like he's doing to you, perhaps?

Remember, Paul had never met Jesus in the flesh. He only saw him as a vision. Was that also not Satan, playing some channeled entity, faking authenticity?

Everyone can be deceived. I agree with that sentiment. And you can fool some people all of the time, and all people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. But I digress.

PeopleUnited says

1. Convicting people for murder is not oppression of religion.

Murder is killing someone against their will. Human sacrifices could be voluntary. Such voluntary sacrifices would still be illegal in the U.S.

PeopleUnited says

It is called law enforcement.

Yes, enforcement of laws that restrict religious practices. Hell, actual murder can be, and was throughout most of Jewish and Christian history, a religious practice. If the law conflicts with religious practices, the law takes priority. Hence, our laws greatly restrict possible religious practices including many that have existed in Jewish and Christian history. You are conceding that there must be restrictions on religion. So now the only question is where to draw that line. Clearly religion is a privilege, not a right.

PeopleUnited says

2. The emperor of Japan argument is irrelevant

Bullshit. Ending an entire religion by forcing the disbelief in a god at literal gunpoint most certainly is a far, far greater prohibition of religion than I have ever proposed.

PeopleUnited says

Though clearly if he was a god it is unlikely that the United States would have any way of influencing him so really truth prevailed I guess.

Same exactly thing can be said regarding the Romans and Christianity. If Jesus were a god, he could not have been killed.

Same exactly thing can be said today regarding Christianity in the United States. If the Christian god were real, then no law banning Christianity would matter. So why oppose such laws?

Also, since when has religion ever had anything to do with truth? Stating that Jesus was a god is as much of a lie as stating that Emperor Hirohito was a god.

PeopleUnited says

3. Gee thanks for granting me the freedom to think what I want, while simultaneously advocating taking away the right of parents to teach their children about God/religion.

Islamic parents teach their children to commit Jihad and to kill the infidel. If brainwashing is not illegal for one religion, why should it be legal for any?

What if a religion demanded sex between its members? Yes, this was actually quite common in history. Are you OK with it being an unassailable right for parents to teach their children to fornicate in the temple? Somehow, I suspect not. You are only OK with some religious beliefs being taught to children and indoctrination of children into some religions.

Again, it's not a right unless it applies to all possible persons and situations. Otherwise, it's a privilege, and privileges can be revoked.

PeopleUnited says

That being said I agree there are consequences to giving children cocaine, and consequences to teaching them religion, just not the same consequences.

Yeah, no one has ever committed genocide because of being addicted to cocaine.

PeopleUnited says

Christians have been persecuted for their beliefs since the dawn of Christianity.

True. Also true, Christians have persecuted others for their beliefs or lack of beliefs since the dawn of Christianity.

In western history, Christianity has been the greatest thought police by far. To say otherwise is a lie.

PeopleUnited says

to the point of rejecting Him

One cannot reject a fictional character. It's a meaningless statement.

However, your statement does demonstrate the very real harm that Christianity, especially when inflicted on children, does in our society today. The fact that you cannot think rationally about the existence of the Christian god is great harm. If you accept such a delusion as reality, then it affects everything in life including what government policies and politicians you support. This is a big deal.

@Patrick, how can you believe that Christianity does not greatly harm the United States when it so thoroughly distorts the view of reality of at least a third of the population?

PeopleUnited says

Satan started by lying to Eve in the Garden of Eden and he is lying to people today through various forms of deception including religions and other belief systems.

Here is yet another way that Christianity greatly harms our country today. In order to solve a problem, any problem, you must first understand the problem. If you think that evil is caused by "the devil" or some other fictional character, then you are not understanding the very real, very measurable, very mathematical problem of evil. And if you don't understand why people do evil things, then you cannot solve the problem of people doing evil things.

This human soul nonsense prevents people from understanding the dilemmas, evolutionary psychology, and failure of cooperation that causes evil behavior. And in doing this, it prevents us from solving problems that we should have solved hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

PeopleUnited says

There is an incredible amount of overlap between slippery slope and your Broken Window Theory.

Not really. In the most important way, they are antithetical theories. The entire reason slippery slope arguments are ridiculed is that, by definition, they state that a tiny event will snowball into cataclysm and empirically this rarely happens. The Broken Window Theory states nothing like that.

However, if you think the Broken Window Theory is false, convince the police around our country of that. Once you have accomplished that, present your results here.

In any case, the Pentagon also believes in what I'm saying. For example, the Pentagon often talks about multiplier factors and ideological footholds. These things are the same as what I'm saying. So you might want to tell the Pentagon that they are wrong if you really believe that.

Dan8267 says

Banning trolls from a thread is not suppression of speech. It silence no one. In fact it does the exact opposite. Trolls disrupt conversations and that suppresses speech. Furthermore, trolls are not restricted in any manner from opening their own threads, and thus they can still say anything they want. They simply cannot stop other people from having conversations.

Here's my take on worthless trolling, let's look at dickweed bob and his great argument against me, when I was discussing with MMR and 'Lips, the merits of a particular university in London
...

bob2356 says

"It's not London University, it's University of London!"

bob2356 says

Ah yes, that was when you were regaling us with your extensive knowledge of an institution that you didn't even know the name of. If you're just making shit up you should at least take a minute and get the names right.

And there he goes again, using a colloquial expression of a college's name, as a way of playing a trump card.

BTW, I refuse to discuss this with this troll, since throughout those discussions, he had failed to enlighten anyone else, actually asking questions about education which included MMR and 'Lips.

curious2, Dan, MMR, 'Lips, here's a wiki on University College London (of the University of London) system. My senior partner got his LLM there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_London

Excerpt: "Established in 1826 as London University by founders inspired by the radical ideas of Jeremy Bentham, UCL was the first university institution to be established in London, and the first in England to be entirely secular and to admit students regardless of their religion.[12] UCL also makes the contested claims of being the third-oldest university in England[note 1] and the first to admit women.[note 2] In 1836 UCL became one of the two founding colleges of the University of London, which was granted a royal charter in the same year. "

Hmm... so even the official name, once had London University, as a starting point.

Guess what? It's still colloquially expressed as that and sure, in terms of exactness, it's University of London and grammatically speaking, it's more accurate but then again, you fellows already knew that, as ppl tend to call University of Cambridge ... Cambridge University. The same goes for University of Oxford to Oxford University. In fact, throughout Britain, most universities have the "of" in their official name.

I can see bob saying ... BAHAHAHA, he called it Cambridge University.

This guy sounds like a typical loser, public state university grad of West Wichita State, who constantly touts his CLEP numbers and scores in Advanced Control Theory, whenever he runs into a Penn or Columbia grad, feeling like he's trumped them when in reality, none of them would advance his resume for a management consulting job.

:::::::

You see, when you're dealing with a disruptive, worthless troll, you just end up repeating and reposting the same litany of arguments, again and again, for a newer audience with the same results. The troll never changes tact but then, the audience grows bored of the overall argument, which in this case, is merely the name of a particular university and its sub-colleges.

Rin says

Here's my take on worthless trollin

It gets even worse. The trolls, after bitching about my banning them, have falsely marked my posts as ad homs and then banned me. Yes, these hypocrites have the audacity to actually suppress rebuttals to their posts after falsely complaining that their ideas were being suppressed. It just goes to show that their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

It's no coincidence that every thread opened by a troll is pointless propaganda. They have no real ideas.

Dan8267 says

Yes, enforcement of laws that restrict religious practices.

laws often conflict with one another, when freedom of religion violates the peace surely the peace must be protected at the expense of religious practice. but when the bill of rights was enacted, it was primarily with the experience of oppression by state run churches or church run states in europe that the early american founders were seeking to avoid. they were seeking to prevent government oppression in the name of religion.

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. Ending an entire religion by forcing the disbelief in a god at literal gunpoint most certainly is a far, far greater prohibition of religion than I have ever proposed.

Again, it is irrelevant. An argument that our government is more conservative than you doesn't mean you are not conservative.

Dan8267 says

Same exactly thing can be said regarding the Romans and Christianity. If Jesus were a god, he could not have been killed.

Same exactly thing can be said today regarding Christianity in the United States. If the Christian god were real, then no law banning Christianity would matter. So why oppose such laws?

Also, since when has religion ever had anything to do with truth? Stating that Jesus was a god is as much of a lie as stating that Emperor Hirohito was a god.

There is no comparison between the Emperor of Japan who bowed to the will of a superior force lest he be killed, and Jesus who submitted Himself to the cross and denied not the accusation that He was King of the Jews. All Jesus had to do was say He wasn't who He was accused of being. But He did not refute the accusations, because He is the King of the Jews and He cannot lie. If the Emperor had followed Jesus pattern he would have insisted that he was a God and then risen from the dead after three days like Jesus did. Again there is no comparison. Jesus remained true and the Emperor was proven a liar.

Christians can also be killed and tortured and imprisoned just as Jesus was unjustly taken captive, tortured and killed. Just because God's people can be treated unjustly doesn't imply God is not who He said He is. You will find, sooner or later, that every promise God makes will be kept. This includes His promises to you.

Jesus isn't a god. He is God. That is the truth.

PeopleUnited says

Jesus isn't a god. He is God. That is the truth.

Did he appear to you, like a spirit guide, and tell you that?

Or are you using someone else's reference?

Dan8267 says

Islamic parents teach their children to commit Jihad and to kill the infidel. If brainwashing is not illegal for one religion, why should it be legal for any?

What if a religion demanded sex between its members? Yes, this was actually quite common in history. Are you OK with it being an unassailable right for parents to teach their children to fornicate in the temple? Somehow, I suspect not. You are only OK with some religious beliefs being taught to children and indoctrination of children into some religions.

Again, it's not a right unless it applies to all possible persons and situations. Otherwise, it's a privilege, and privileges can be revoked.

What you are missing here is that you are a conservative. You are arguing that practicing religion is a privilege that can be revoked. That sounds pretty conservative to me.

Rin says

PeopleUnited says

Jesus isn't a god. He is God. That is the truth.

Did he appear to you, like a spirit guide, and tell you that?

Or are you using someone else's reference?

He can be found by those who seek after Him with their whole heart. That was my experience. Not that I earned His favor because I have not done anything to merit His Grace, but it is true that when I looked for Him I found Him to be who He said He is in His word, the Bible.

Dan8267 says

If you think that evil is caused by "the devil" or some other fictional character, then you are not understanding the very real, very measurable, very mathematical problem of evil. And if you don't understand why people do evil things, then you cannot solve the problem of people doing evil things.

I agree with you, if you don't understand why people do evil things, you cannot expect to help them change. And I also agree that People don't do evil things because of the devil. At least that is not what I believe. I would be happy to share why I believe people do evil things. But you probably don't care to hear my version. That being said, I would love to hear yours. Please share with us why you are so confident that you can pinpoint why people do evil?

Dan8267 says

The entire reason slippery slope arguments are ridiculed is that, by definition, they state that a tiny event will snowball into cataclysm and empirically this rarely happens. The Broken Window Theory states nothing like that.

Well I'm not the only one who feels Broken Window Theory is a slippery slope argument. But this is not your argument anyway. It is more of you just arguing for the sake of arguing. That is my definition of a troll. You literally have no point other than to try and win an argument at all cost.

Black Lives Over Broken Windows: Challenging the Policing ...
www.politicalresearch.org/.../black-lives-over-broken-windows-challenging- the-policing-paradigm-rooted-in-right-wing-folk-wisdom/‎
Jul 6, 2016 ... The broken windows theory, brilliantly summarized in a recent video ... commit more serious offenses: a sort of slippery slope of criminality.

Please remember, my main point in our recent conversation Dan is that you are in fact a conservative. Your desire to ban free speech on the threads you moderate is an obvious example of your conservative tendencies. You are more conservative than most, as you ban more users than just about anyone.

Rin says

You see, when you're dealing with a disruptive, worthless troll, you just end up repeating and reposting the same litany of arguments, again and again, for a newer audience with the same results. The troll never changes tact but then, the audience grows bored of the overall argument, which in this case, is merely the name of a particular university and its sub-colleges.

I see what you are saying, an argument about the name of a college is pretty mundane. And I can't blame you for disliking Bob. I'm not sure I would call him a troll, but he clearly didn't add anything to your conversation. It is like when people argue semantics. I am so sick of semantic arguments.

PeopleUnited says

laws often conflict with one another, when freedom of religion violates the peace surely the peace must be protected at the expense of religious practice.

And this happens all the time. Also people's religions violate freedom of speech. We're always forced to choose between freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I choose the later. The right to convey ideas and debate issues takes precedence over a right to be delusional and practice ludicrous rituals.

If you were born Muslim, you'd be as opposed to Christianity as you actually are to Islam.

PeopleUnited says

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. Ending an entire religion by forcing the disbelief in a god at literal gunpoint most certainly is a far, far greater prohibition of religion than I have ever proposed.

Again, it is irrelevant. An argument that our government is more conservative than you doesn't mean you are not conservative.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that there has never been anything remotely like freedom of religion in the United States. There has only been a select few state-sponsored religions that the state considered useful for controlling the masses. The WWII example proves this. A religion that was counter-productive to the state was completely eliminated at literal gunpoint.

PeopleUnited says

Jesus isn't a god. He is God. That is the truth.

No, it's not. It's a ridiculous delusion. The fact that you cannot see how ridiculous this delusion is demonstrates how much damage Christianity does to America.

Image if someone told you that the one true god was Vishnu. You'd consider him a lunatic. Now listen to your own words. They are no different. The hypocrisy of disbelieving in all other gods and then claiming your own false god as self-evidently the true god is beyond staggering.

PeopleUnited says

You are arguing that practicing religion is a privilege that can be revoked. That sounds pretty conservative to me.

It's not. It's no different than stating that possessing automatic firearms is a privilege that can be revoked.

In any case, it is a fact, not an opinion, that practicing religion is not a right in the United States. I have given plenty of examples in which the state does not tolerate religious practices. Do I have a religious right to smoke pot or use other drugs to induce "spiritual" experiences? Unless the answer is a resounding yes, and we free all the drug prisoners and arrest the federal agents and local police who arrested those people, there is no right to practice religion in the United States, only privileges. This is by definition of the word "right".

PeopleUnited says

But you probably don't care to hear my version.

Irrelevant. If it is flawed -- and it most certainly would be -- then I would exposed the flaws and why they are flaws. My feelings are irrelevant to logic and reasoning. In contrast, your beliefs are based largely on your feelings and not at all on logic, reasoning, or evidence.

PeopleUnited says

Please share with us why you are so confident that you can pinpoint why people do evil?

1. Math
2. Science
3. Engineering

I could go into far more detail writing pages of text, but you can Google this shit. There have been plenty of books written on the subject, plenty of TED talks and YouTube videos, plenty of documentaries on the Science channel. I haven't invented anything here. Feel free to get the information directly from the sources. It's all freely available and easy to find. Start by reading every book written by Robert Wright.

Hell, if reading is too hard, just sit back with some popcorn and watch this short video.

www.youtube.com/embed/N4wFyRGilp4

Science explains everything. Religion explains nothing. Science is true. Religion is false. Science is useful. Religion is counter-productive. Science creates stable societies. Religion creates stagnant and unstable societies. Science refines morality. Religion corrupts morality. If you want a more moral and happy world, you back science and oppose religion.