I hope you don't mind that I reformatted the text so that it's clear who typed what.

fr> Interesting projection there. That's employing the logical
fr> fallacy known as "begging the question." Attribute to your
fr> intellectual and moral superiors positions they don't have
fr> so that you can denounce them. It's also called "red herring"
fr> since it's an attempt to divert attention away from your grand
fr> debunking and unfortunate, un-evidenced notions.

mb> Once again, you are mistaken.

Perhaps if you can convince yourself of that, you can convince yourself you don't need to address the issues honestly.

mb> By making a statement such as, "I am trying to raise my children mb> to be moral," you are assuming there is a moral law.

That's an assumption on your part. Demonstrably there is no such a thing as "moral law." That is a claim you seem to be trying to assert. Lacking any evidence for something you're atempting to attribute to others is typical of theists who create gods and goddesses and presume the audacious presumption of giving them to others who don't share in the delusion.

mb> If there is a moral law,

Which you haven't provided any evidence for.

mb> then there must be a moral law-giver.

Which you haven't provided evidence for.

mb> There must be a basis for you morality,

Which you continue to assert and which is demonstrably mistaken. There is no basis for morality - the history of human civilization should have taught you that by now.

mb> or it cannot exist.

The name for that logical fallacy is generally referenced in the Latin which I don't know. Since the assertions made are false or unevidenced, conclusions drawn from such mistaken notions are false.

mb>> Then, you in fact, lied about that fact.

fr> And since it's a fantasy construct of your own devising,
fr> perhaps you might pause to consider the basis of your suggestion.

mb> Again, I believe this was answered in the above statement.

You seem to believe a number of obviously mistaken and unevidenced notions.

mb> The basis of the argument is this: There is a moral law.

You haven't provided evidence for such a notion.

mb> You implied it by the statement you made above.

That's an assumption of your own creation.

fr> Perhaps you have no suitable defense for your unusual notions
fr> and feel the need to try to bluff your way out of a fatal
fr> problem with idle bluster.>>

mb> Once again, if there is no moral law-giver,

Many people have tried to become such yet they're usually suppressed. Adolf Hitler was one, Stalin another, Pol Pot another. Those who would presume to suggest that there is "moral law" have always been tyranical and bloody to the extreme.

mb> then there is no moral law.

But we already know that there isn't.

mb> Without moral law,

which doesn't seem to exist.

mb> we have no basis for the "laws of the land."

Now you've change the subject. Laws exist for a reason.

mb> Without the laws of the land, we have Anarchy.

Which has nothing at all to do with morality.

mb> It was not a facetious question.

It was a series of unfounded claims, in fact.

mb> I was merely asking if you are an Anarchist, because your beliefs
mb> would produce such a belief.

It was an attempt to attribute to me ideologies which you know full well I don't entertain. Specifically, it was a dishonesty attempted in a vain attempt to divert attention away from the fact that you have no evidence for any "moral law" -- leave alone a Hitelr-like "morality giver."

fr> And yet the Christanic death cult continues to persecute and
fr> murder innocent people in far greater numbers than are imposed
fr> against Christians.

mb> Show me the statistics on this errant statement.

It's possible that in your world the history of Christianity doesn't exist. It would be interesting to find out what you think the history of the cult has been.

Perhaps you haven't noticed how nearly every single hate group or individual operating in the United States is a theistic group with nearly all of those comprised of Christians. Perhaps the Aryan Nations, KKK, Church of Jesus Christ Christian, all the Christian Identity groups, et al. just don't exist in your world. Perhaps the many bloody crusades launched in the past and in the present don't exist in your world. Lebanon, Ireland, Bosnia... these are places where the blood flows today, shed by Christians who just don't exist in your world.

And which religion is responsible for the most persecutions against other religions and innocent people like gays, blacks, Mexicans, and women in the United States?

It would be interesting to find out what your priesthood has been telling you about the inhuman history of the death cult.

fr> Christanic death cultists demand that they have morality. In fact
fr> historically they have been the single most bloody cult ever created.
fr> The Christanic death cult has killed far more people than either of
fr> the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan combined. The death cult
fr> also continues to be nearly the sole venue of religious persecution
fr> and hatred and bigotry in the United States.
fr> I'm still waiting for that explanation.

mb> Interesting "point of view,"

Backed by any number of history books, videos, and photographs. Backed by the Cristanic mythologies themselves, in fact.

Guess which death cult murders its own children for religious reasons the most in the United States? No, it's not Scientology and no, it's not "Satanists." It's Christians.

mb> which is exactly what it is, because it is based solely on
mb> feeling and no fact.

The fact that you refuse to admit to yourself what the history of the Christanic death cult has been and continues to be is the sole reason why the cult has the bloody history in the first place. Pretending it just never happened or happens is the sole reason why it's allowed to continue.

Like "Dr." Laura, Christians refuse to take responsibility for their own actions or the actions of their fellow cult followers and because of it, have tried any number of times to make the world a graveyard.

mb> Interesting that the Religious Persecution Act that was passed by
mb> Congress as of late dealt with the Persecution of Christians,
mb> especially in other countries.

Christians against Christians. Lebanon, Bosnia, Ireland. Interesting that the history of Christianity shows that it feeds upon its own members more often than it feeds upon the innocent.

Also interesting how it's Christians who create the hate groups, murder doctors, violate the tax laws, advocate hatred and violence. I guess when it's Christians being persecuted in other countries, it makes it okay for Christians to inflict tyranny where they're not persecuted.

mb> Though you may feel this way about Christianity,

And for the same reasons why I feel the same about fascism.

mb> you have no basis of fact upon which to build any reasonable argument.

And the history of Christianity just disappears because you want it to.

mb> Where Christians have erred, you can obviously see that in the
mb> error it is not "in tune" with Biblical Christianity.

As usual the Christian discounts everything any other Christian has done or is doing that said Christian doesn't like _today_ (tomorow is another story.) Thus is doesn't become your responsibility and thus is allows Christianity to continue to be the single most bloody and deadly cult ever created.

mb> Christians don't, or at least shouldn't, claim to be perfect.

Which calls int question why Christians would want to create America into a theocracy, get occult ritual invocation of deities enforced in the public school system, teach mythology as though it were fact in the school system, violate the laws for religious excuses...

fr> Commentary is welcome when it's accompanied with evidence to back
fr> up their unusual notions.

mb> The only unusual notions, and unsubstantiated arguments have come
mb> from your side.

And just ignore the fact that:

Maybe since you can pretend-away all of Christianity's history, you can convince yourself of anything -- even something as profoundly idiotic as gods exist.

fr> As yet you've only made claims lacking in evidence. It's possible
fr> you realize that you're unable to provide evidence for any of your
fr> notions -- or even reasoned excuses -- because you don't have any.

mb> Perhaps you could be a little more specific as to what evidence I am
mb> lacking.

I've enumerated them for you quite nicely.

mb> I have shown you the error of your judgment in making your "morality"
mb> statement.

You drew your own conclusions and attributed them to me in an attempt to dishonestly avoid having to address the fact that you have no evidence for any of your unfortunate notions.

mb> So what exactly are you looking for?

It's beyond your ability to give me what I'm looking for. I suppose I could enumerate for you those attributes and qualities that Christians are as a whole incapable of. You need but ask.

In the mean time, might I suggest that you divest yourself of that unfortunate religious occultism, find yourself an education, learn the history of the Christanic death cult, learn the origins of same, and get back to me when you find your self-respect and regain your honesty.


The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank