Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

[halleyscomet]

I hope someday I will meet someone who looks at me like Dann looks at Karl Marx.

Stalin was a handsome fellow in his youth too.

Mao and Hitler were always fugly though. I hear Hitler was so ugly when he was born that the doctor spanked his momma instead.

Mao was mistaken for a hungry ghost several times while growing up. This worked out well for him because people left out food to placate the ghost. That’s how he became fat AND ugly.

Speaking of immoral monsters, I hear Pope Benedict was so ugly as a child not even the local priests would molest him!

The Freemasons had Solomon’s Key at the time. The Hitler Youth who would eventually become Pope Benedict was crucial to the NAZIs seizing it. He was sent ahead. The Freemasons mistook him for one of the demons the ring controlled and pulled it from hiding to ward him off. That’s when the Stormtroopers pounced and seized the ring.

The youth was offered the reward of personally shooting any priests who’d molested him. When he explained there were no priests who met that criteria the NAZIs were surprised to find a Catholic boy who HADN’T been molested by a priest. They ended up giving him cash instead.

 

[The Big Dog]

1. Please link to any of your posts that you consider contain an 'actual well-reasoned position', .

literally the post you were replying to....

 

[Crossbow]

literally the post you were replying to....

Some dogs just can't hunt.

 

[abaddon]

literally the post you were replying to....

Here is that post...

You see folks, I have explained this a half dozen times. At least.

Assume it was about “power”. (Some people would think that the power gives the people the ability to enforce their goals, like state enforced atheism)

But I have explained that there can be concurrent causes, an actual well reasoned position that has been ignored, again.

Oy vey, the black or white false dichotomy in this thread from the apologists

it explains nothing. It simply whines that you already explained it, yet again.

What is your churches rule about lying? Do you know?

 

[abaddon]

Anyway, have you an answer yet as to why your pope supports the chinese regime?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I could make a list of all the 'hoo boy's, 'hee hee hee's, 'k's and 'oy vey's you have thrown about this thread, but that would be unproductive.
Instead, I have two requests:
1. Please link to any of your posts that you consider contain an 'actual well-reasoned position', along with an absence of the snarky stuff I've quoted above.
2. You have yet to respond in any substantive or productive way to most of my points. Care to rectify that situation? It is churlish to complain that your arguments have been ignored whilst you do exactly the same to others.
Love thy neighbour, TBD. A piece of advice you may have read somewhere. Worth thinking about.

literally the post you were replying to....

Here is that post...

Originally Posted by The Big Dog
You see folks, I have explained this a half dozen times. At least.

Assume it was about “power”. (Some people would think that the power gives the people the ability to enforce their goals, like state enforced atheism)

But I have explained that there can be concurrent causes, an actual well reasoned position that has been ignored, again.

Oy vey, the black or white false dichotomy in this thread from the apologists

it explains nothing. It simply whines that you already explained it, yet again.

What is your churches rule about lying? Do you know?

Not only that, this lazy, half-hearted attempt at a real answer ignores the greater part of my post, including a request for snark-free posts. TBD referenced back to a post that contained exactly that, then apparently gave up, as if reading to point 2 was too much of an effort.
I wonder if religious people realise that their religions are being judged by the behaviour of their adherents?

 

[The Big Dog]

Not only that, this lazy, half-hearted attempt

Not gonna kid ya, flat stopped reading right at that point.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Not gonna kid ya, flat stopped reading right at that point.

We know.

 

[The Big Dog]

We know.

Thanks man, I mean, who opens up a post with nothing but a baseless insult and expects me to respond. And this is after telling me that my 'snarky' posts don't count.

As a creepy porn lawyer likes to say: Basta.

 

[abaddon]

Thanks man, I mean, who opens up a post with nothing but a baseless insult and expects me to respond. And this is after telling me that my 'snarky' posts don't count.

As a creepy porn lawyer likes to say: Basta.

Dragging you back to topic, what have you to say about your popes support for the chinese regime?

 

[aleCcowaN]

As a creepy porn lawyer likes to say: Basta.

Yes, your posts here have been bastos.

 

[Norman Alexander]

TBD still trying to keep this wheel-of-crazy spinning? C'mon, people! BROWN SUITS, I tells ya!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

TBD still trying to keep this wheel-of-crazy spinning? C'mon, people! BROWN SUITS, I tells ya!

what about boots?
It seems to me that we might find a correlation with boots.

 

[The Big Dog]

Jesus wept at the fact that the apologists do not understand the phrase "concurrent" "causes."

But har! We can laff at the human rights atrocities in China caused by "brown suits."

Har! har!

 

[Norman Alexander]

Jesus wept at the fact that the apologists do not understand the phrase "concurrent" "causes."

But har! We can laff at the human rights atrocities in China caused by "brown suits." atheists.

Har! har!

Just the same, see?

 

[The Big Dog]

Just the same, see?

No, as i have explained at length, but you have your hobby horse and yoo think it is clever, so, what is a guy who only has the words of the Chinese Communist party to do in the face of such a clever argument?

 

[Norman Alexander]

No, as i have explained at length, but you have your hobby horse and yoo think it is clever, so, what is a guy who only has the words of the Chinese Communist party to do in the face of such a clever argument?

Really? My "brown suits = tyrants" theory makes as much sense and has a far better correlation with reality than your "atheists = tyrants" theory. All tyrants wore brown suits. Therefore the reason they are tyrants is that they wore brown suits. The evidence is irrefutable. How can you deny this?

 

[Dancing David]

Give it up. dawg.
It's not about Atheism, it is, always was and always will be, about power.
Sometimes, you get a religion to back you, sometimes you can use the religion as the target to rally your side.

This is the issue, the Chinese government doesn't want any competing systems to their control.

 

[The Big Dog]

Really? My "brown suits = tyrants" theory makes as much sense and has a far better correlation with reality than your "atheists = tyrants" theory. All tyrants wore brown suits. Therefore the reason they are tyrants is that they wore brown suits. The evidence is irrefutable. How can you deny this?

Hi! It is fantastic when we see the spectacularly faulty reasoning laid out in such detail!

Let me clarify what I have so dutifully explained:

atheist tyrants = anti-religious.

type something about brown suits to your heart's content, it literally can't get worse for your "argument."

 

[abaddon]

Hi! It is fantastic when we see the spectacularly faulty reasoning laid out in such detail!

Let me clarify what I have so dutifully explained:

atheist tyrants = anti-religious.

type something about brown suits to your heart's content, it literally can't get worse for your "argument."

Why has your pope concluded an agreement with the chinese regime?