Antonin Scalia has died

[The Thinker]

And with this claim, I am done. It's ample proof that you know nothing and desire to know nothing outside of your own biased thinking.

No, that's better applied to what you said. I've asked you repeatedly to give me the best legal argument against SSM and you cite cases from 120 years ago that were never intended to be decisive declarations on marriage. You lose.

[The Thinker]

It's quite amusing to watch you ignore what I plainly told you and to watch you continue to say I was being serious, despite being told multiple times now that I was not being the least bit serious, but sarcastic. I can see why you can't understand the Bible because you can't even understand obvious satire, even when the writer has told you, several times, that they were being sarcastic. Did you pass English 101 and 102, in college non-thinker?

I don't believe you. I understand the Bible alright, it's all historical fiction, parable, and metaphor. None of it is meant to be taken historically literal. Christians haven't realized this yet. Telling someone that they are being sarcastic does not make what they said humorous or sarcastic. You should know that. It's the content and context that matters.

Hey, you make my words into the most literal thing you can, so I return the favor. Unlike you though, I didn't insult entire groups of people as being 'poor' to insult one person. You did and the fact you keep missing this issue is both amusing and kind of ironic.

No, instead you just insult atheists, substituting another group.

Women in ancient Rome couldn't be witness in court; the first people to witness the risen lord were women. Oops, care to try this again idiot or do you want to continue to embarrass yourself and ignoring things you can't refute? I already gave you a link to refute, refute it if you're able to or just keep showing that you can't read.

So? That's supposed to show women are fully equal in Christianity? This is pathetic. Mohammad advanced the rights of women in 7th century Arabia from what they previously had at that time. Does that logically entail that Islam is a religion where women are the equals to men. • Edited by a Moderator • You have a serious flaw in logic. Not surprising.

As for your link I already refuted one of it's many silly claims. The rest is mostly a waste of time. It is quite possible that the placement of women as the witnesses of the tomb was done precisely

Hey, you sterotype Christians, so I just return the favor. Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot?

Right, because two wrongs make a right. And what stereotypes did I make? Name them.

You mean like you keep pretending to be intelligent and showing you can't refute what people say, so you make up what they say and try to refute what they say? Hey, I'm just following you and doing what you do, you make up positions of your opponents and refute those positions while ignoring or strawmaning what your opponents say. What's the problem non-thinker, do you not like it when others return the favor to you?

I'm not strawmaning you or anyone. So this is another delusion you've concocted, like your god.

No, I met relevant. Here is what the word means:

1
a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c : having social relevance

2
: proportional, relative
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relevant

Note the second definition there non-thinker. Believe it or not, I did graduate college and I do know how to use a dictionary. Do you?

So you meant to say this?

I always thought liberals like to pretend that all cultures are proportional, but when presented with cultural traditions that are different than their own (hint, it's all about societal cohesion), they scream BIGOT at the top of their lungs.

In the ancient world, sure but we don't live thousands of years ago. Sorry moron, but you keep showing that you don't understand what your opponents believe or say and instead choose to make up what your opponents say and try to refute what your opponents say vs what they actually said. When you're done showing that you're a first class idiot, what I actually said awaits your answer.

Why in the ancient world? What about being gay back then that was so bad to justify the death penalty? And when precisely did this end? Sorry Ms. Moron, this is a non-answer. The rest is just you pretending to be smart again when in fact you're about as bright as a rusted door nob.

[Cow Poke]

The rest is just you pretending to be smart again when in fact you're about as bright as a rusted door nob.

When one is attacking somebody about being "not so bright", it is best not to misspell words like knob. Just sayin'.

[The Thinker]

When one is attacking somebody about being "not so bright", it is best not to misspell words like knob. Just sayin'.

Nobody's perfect. Not even Jesus.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't believe you. I understand the Bible alright, it's all historical fiction, parable, and metaphor. None of it is meant to be taken historically literal. Christians haven't realized this yet. Telling someone that they are being sarcastic does not make what they said humorous or sarcastic. You should know that. It's the content and context that matters.

In other words, you're massive persecution complex combined with your massive ego and inability to admit you're wrong about anything, you seriously think that an obviously sarcastic comment, that everybody else I have ever said it to seemed to understand it was sarcastic, must be serious. You're a really big moron that has an ego the size of the galaxy if you seriously think that such an obvious sarcastic comment was serious, you're even dumber than I first thought.

No, instead you just insult atheists, substituting another group.

Yeah, even though I've called you an embarrassment to atheism, that should stop talking because he's an embarrassment to atheist, I must obviously be insulting every atheist that has ever existed? Again, your massive ego comes into play, yet again.

So? That's supposed to show women are fully equal in Christianity? This is pathetic. Mohammad advanced the rights of women in 7th century Arabia from what they previously had at that time. Does that logically entail that Islam is a religion where women are the equals to men. • Edited by a Moderator • You have a serious flaw in logic. Not surprising.

In other words, you're too stupid to answer what I said and make a bald assertion that you can't prove. How lovely.... You brought you the idea that 'Christianity held women back' not my fault nor my problem that your assertion has proved to be false. Do you love it when you keep making yourself look like a moron?

As for your link I already refuted one of it's many silly claims. The rest is mostly a waste of time. It is quite possible that the placement of women as the witnesses of the tomb was done precisely

Jeff Lowder, a loudmouth from skeptic web, who doesn't seem to have any serious credentials on the topic at all, should be taken at his word. I suppose when somebody whispers sweet nothings into your ears, you'll believe anything he tells you as long as he tells you what you want to hear. Too bad for a moron like you, the Samaritans were not Romans or are you too dumb to realize that Rome consisted of many different groups and cultures, all with different values and beliefs that didn't necessarily share the same values and beliefs? Let me guess, 'the thinker' didn't think this objection though, at all, correct? Yep, once an idiot, who lacks any sense, always an idiot that lacks any sense. It's amazing how a person who calls himself 'the thinker' and spends his days calling Christians idiots, seems to lack the critical thinking skills to think of this simple fact. Do you have any evidence that the values of the Samaritan people's are the same as the Romans or did you just assumed they did, despite your inability to prove otherwise. Go ahead, please tell us how you figured out how these two distinct cultural groups, held the same values (because if you seriously think that the Samaritans had the same values of as the Romans, you're an even bigger moron than I first thought).

Right, because two wrongs make a right. And what stereotypes did I make? Name them.

Hey, if you seriously can't spot your own bigotry, you got some seriously problems. Shoot, you'll trust an atheist that tells you what you want to hear, but haven't presented anything that tells us why he is right. Other than the fact he whispers sweet nothings into your ears and tells you all you want to hear.

I'm not strawmaning you or anyone. So this is another delusion you've concocted, like your god.

Asserted, not shown. Yeah you did and if you can make up things to refute, I can return the favor. Enjoy your fun, non-thinker.

So you meant to say this?
[INDENT]
I always thought liberals like to pretend that all cultures are proportional, but when presented with cultural traditions that are different than their own (hint, it's all about societal cohesion), they scream BIGOT at the top of their lungs.

Did you graduate the 3rd grade, moron?

Relevant:
2: proportional, relative

What you said:

"And I think you meant relative not "relevant" -"

Can't even admit you're wrong about a simple dictionary definition, eh? What's the problem, is your ego so massive that you can't even bring yourself to admit you were wrong about a simple dictionary definition? I just find it funny as can be that you claimed I met relative and not relevant, when the dictionary actually uses relative, in the definition of relevant. It is quite funny to watch you keep embarrassing yourself and showing that you're incapable of admitting to even a simple error, in a dictionary.

Why in the ancient world? What about being gay back then that was so bad to justify the death penalty? And when precisely did this end?

Another non answer, but do keep trying and giving something beyond more arguments from outrage. You do understand that arguments from outrage are just an emotional appeal, eh?

Sorry Ms. Moron, this is a non-answer. The rest is just you pretending to be smart again when in fact you're about as bright as a rusted door nob.

At least the dyslexic girl knows how to spell 'knob' and doesn't think that a references to the Samaritans views can equally apply to the Romans too. Yet I'm the idiot who is 'pretending to be smart'. Keep digging non-thinker and showing everybody why you're an idiot.

[lilpixieofterror]

Nobody's perfect. Not even Jesus.

Got to get that little dig in to insult all Christians instead of admitting that you made a simple spelling mistake. Yep, your massive ego strikes again!

[The Thinker]

In other words, you're massive persecution complex combined with your massive ego and inability to admit you're wrong about anything, you seriously think that an obviously sarcastic comment, that everybody else I have ever said it to seemed to understand it was sarcastic, must be serious. You're a really big moron that has an ego the size of the galaxy if you seriously think that such an obvious sarcastic comment was serious, you're even dumber than I first thought.

No, you really did what me to stop talking/writing. Hiding behind humor is exactly what Bill O'Reilly did when he got called out on calling Robert Reich a communist. And if you disagree then every insult to a theist I've ever made was just a joke. There. Now all the things I said about the poor are absolved. Done deal.

But I don't care. I can roll with the punches. I enjoy heated dialogue as it helps motivate me to destroy religion more which is good for the world.

Yeah, even though I've called you an embarrassment to atheism, that should stop talking because he's an embarrassment to atheist, I must obviously be insulting every atheist that has ever existed? Again, your massive ego comes into play, yet again.

Your excessive use of smiley's is indicative of your maturity level. I wasn't referring to this incident for that, I was referring to incidence in the past.

In other words, you're too stupid to answer what I said and make a bald assertion that you can't prove. How lovely.... You brought you the idea that 'Christianity held women back' not my fault nor my problem that your assertion has proved to be false. Do you love it when you keep making yourself look like a moron?

I can only assume that you're so ignorant that what I wrote went over your head, since this addresses absolutely nothing I wrote.

Jeff Lowder, a loudmouth from skeptic web, who doesn't seem to have any serious credentials on the topic at all, should be taken at his word. I suppose when somebody whispers sweet nothings into your ears, you'll believe anything he tells you as long as he tells you what you want to hear. Too bad for a moron like you, the Samaritans were not Romans or are you too dumb to realize that Rome consisted of many different groups and cultures, all with different values and beliefs that didn't necessarily share the same values and beliefs? Let me guess, 'the thinker' didn't think this objection though, at all, correct? Yep, once an idiot, who lacks any sense, always an idiot that lacks any sense. It's amazing how a person who calls himself 'the thinker' and spends his days calling Christians idiots, seems to lack the critical thinking skills to think of this simple fact. Do you have any evidence that the values of the Samaritan people's are the same as the Romans or did you just assumed they did, despite your inability to prove otherwise. Go ahead, please tell us how you figured out how these two distinct cultural groups, held the same values (because if you seriously think that the Samaritans had the same values of as the Romans, you're an even bigger moron than I first thought).

Oh "credentials," like the hundreds of apologists who have degrees in theology who make sweeping statements on science of which they have no expertise? You mean like that? No, Lowder is very well educated on the subject matter. The Samaritans don't need to be Romans. You brought the Romans into this, as if they are the only group we can compare to. We're talking about Jews, not Romans. You're smart enough to get this right?

Hey, if you seriously can't spot your own bigotry, you got some seriously problems. Shoot, you'll trust an atheist that tells you what you want to hear, but haven't presented anything that tells us why he is right. Other than the fact he whispers sweet nothings into your ears and tells you all you want to hear.

As I mentioned, bigotry is a meaningless term, because we're all bigots. So you're a bigot and I'm a bigot. Who cares? I don't use the term because it's a stupid word that is meaningless. As far as critical thinking, it's pretty obvious that you don't possess it. Religion in general is the suspension of critical thinking in favor of dogma -- certainly once it gets organized. This is proven by the fact that you're a believing Christian when anyone who studies the evidence can see Christianity is not supported by the evidence. I am sure that if we debated Christianity I'd show you how your beliefs are largely faith based. It's religions like Christianity that forces kids to believe on authority when their priest or pastor whispers sweet nothing into their ears, usually before molesting them. The irony.

Asserted, not shown. Yeah you did and if you can make up things to refute, I can return the favor. Enjoy your fun, non-thinker.

You didn't show that I straw-maned you, so you're asking for evidence against a view you've provided no evidence for.

Did you graduate the 3rd grade, moron?

Relevant:
2: proportional, relative

What you said:

"And I think you meant relative not "relevant" -"

Oh ok, I see it. The two words are not exactly the same and the meaning can differ depending how you use them. You could have been saying all cultures are important, or that all cultures are no more important than any other. These each have different connotations.

Can't even admit you're wrong about a simple dictionary definition, eh? What's the problem, is your ego so massive that you can't even bring yourself to admit you were wrong about a simple dictionary definition? I just find it funny as can be that you claimed I met relative and not relevant, when the dictionary actually uses relative, in the definition of relevant. It is quite funny to watch you keep embarrassing yourself and showing that you're incapable of admitting to even a simple error, in a dictionary.

Of course I can admit when I'm wrong, and I already did for spelling knob wrong. But again those two terms are not identical, they are similar but involve different connotations.

Another non answer, but do keep trying and giving something beyond more arguments from outrage. You do understand that arguments from outrage are just an emotional appeal, eh?

I'm not making an argument. I'm merely asking a question to your argument that somehow the ancient world was different when it came to killing homosexuals. So the non-answer is actually you, Ms. moron.

At least the dyslexic girl knows how to spell 'knob' and doesn't think that a references to the Samaritans views can equally apply to the Romans too. Yet I'm the idiot who is 'pretending to be smart'. Keep digging non-thinker and showing everybody why you're an idiot.

And why must we focus solely on the Romans when dealing with Jewish culture on whether women were taken seriously? The Jews had their own courts where they could apply their own rules in part. And we're dealing with Jews, not Romans. It is just a fallacy that because the story says women found the empty tomb (a story which is inconsistent in all 4 gospels) that somehow that means women are equals to men in the NT or the Bible for that matter. It is simply a fact that the OT and NT are sexist. I don't know, maybe you're one of those women that likes being second class.

Are you willing to admit that the OT is sexist at least?

[lilpixieofterror]

No, you really did what me to stop talking/writing. Hiding behind humor is exactly what Bill O'Reilly did when he got called out on calling Robert Reich a communist. And if you disagree then every insult to a theist I've ever made was just a joke. There. Now all the things I said about the poor are absolved. Done deal.

Still trying to justify what you want to believe that satisfies your massive ego and persecution complex? Is that easier for your huge ego to accept than having to admit to the fact that I don't take you the least bit seriously and think you're a total and complete moron that is no threat to Christianity in the least? Sorry sweety, but the truth really is that I met that sarcastically and I have used that several times, towards both Christians and non Christians alike and you're the first one that has ever taken it the least bit seriously. Sounds like, to me, that scientist need to stop look for 'dark matter' and start looking for your ego. I'm sure your ego must more than make up for the 'missing matter' of our galaxy and possibility the universe (BTW since you have absolutely no sense of humor, that is also a joke too. I should make that clear before you seriously try to claim that I'm ignorant of science too).

But I don't care. I can roll with the punches. I enjoy heated dialogue as it helps motivate me to destroy religion more which is good for the world.

And there is that massive ego again. Sorry moron, you are no threat to me nor to Christianity and reading your idiocy here and your idiocy on your blog conveniences me that you're a fundy atheist that I should just play with for my own amusement. Your massive ego seriously has you thinking you've done anything, to refute Christianity, eh?

Your excessive use of smiley's is indicative of your maturity level. I wasn't referring to this incident for that, I was referring to incidence in the past.

I usually find those that spend their time whining about the usage of things like smilies, are usually petty little people not worth the time to take seriously, in the least. Got to have those excuses to ignore things you don't want to hear, eh moron?

I can only assume that you're so ignorant that what I wrote went over your head, since this addresses absolutely nothing I wrote.

AKA "Crap, I can't refute you, so let me look for any excuse to avoid admitting I was wrong again!"

Sorry moron, but you're making claims you can't back up. It isn't my fault nor my problem that you're too stupid to deal with them. Did you or did you not try to claim that Christianity is 'sexist'. How can Christianity be 'sexist' if Christianity and Christians have done much of the work, to women rights, over the centuries? Did the pre-Christian world have much usage for women leaders? How about the post Christian world? How many women leaders lead entire countries? Reality is that you're wrong and very wrong at that, but can't bring yourself to admit to your mistakes. Yep, once a fundy always a fundy, eh non-thinker?

Oh "credentials," like the hundreds of apologists who have degrees in theology who make sweeping statements on science of which they have no expertise? You mean like that? No, Lowder is very well educated on the subject matter. The Samaritans don't need to be Romans. You brought the Romans into this, as if they are the only group we can compare to. We're talking about Jews, not Romans. You're smart enough to get this right?

What does the expertise of apologist have to do with the fact that you're hero is no expert on the topic and you made a major mistakes and you're incapable of refuting it? Sorry moron, but what the Samaritans believe about the witness of women has no bearing on what the Romans believed on the witness of women. The reality is that your hero missed that obvious point and now you're trying to cover up for your mistakes and errors by changing up the topic? Besides half wit, the Gospels were also written to the Romans too or did you forget that key point? Oops, keep embarrassing yourself and showing why I should laugh at you whenever you open your fat mouth and let stupidity run out of it. Just admit it, you're too stupid to refute my source (who, unlike your hero, backs up his claims with multiple scholars and experts, on the topic) and trying anything you can to desperately avoid admitting you're wrong yet again.

As I mentioned, bigotry is a meaningless term, because we're all bigots. So you're a bigot and I'm a bigot. Who cares? I don't use the term because it's a stupid word that is meaningless. As far as critical thinking, it's pretty obvious that you don't possess it. Religion in general is the suspension of critical thinking in favor of dogma -- certainly once it gets organized. This is proven by the fact that you're a believing Christian when anyone who studies the evidence can see Christianity is not supported by the evidence. I am sure that if we debated Christianity I'd show you how your beliefs are largely faith based. It's religions like Christianity that forces kids to believe on authority when their priest or pastor whispers sweet nothing into their ears, usually before molesting them. The irony.

Too bad you've been unable to prove my 'bigotry', but keep showing you're full of bigotry and try to justify your hatred for Christians and Christianity by making absurd assertions that you can't back up. Sorry moron, but I don't hate atheist nor feel the least bit of 'bigotry' towards atheist nor have I taken my time to insult the intelligence of every atheist because they disagree with me. Of course, what is really funny is to watch you scream out fundy atheist talking points, while claiming that the rest of us are indoctrinated and just taught whatever our pastor or priest tells us. Oh the irony in which you do the very thing you condemn and not spot your obvious fundy thinking. :

Fundy atheist talking point 1: "WAAA!!!! We're all bigots!"

Reality: The only bigot here is you and you're above statements just show you're hatred, every step of the way. To the point that your bigotry clouds your judgement and makes you say stupid things.

Fundy atheist talking point 2: "WAAA!!!!! CHRISTIANS LACK CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS!!!!"

Irony, when you're just repeating your mindless talking points, without addressing a single word you said.

Fundy atheist talking point 3: "WAAA!!!! CHRISTIANITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE!"

And yet, you're unable to refute a single thing I said, but spend your time with these talking points and just throwing up insult after insult without addressing a word I said.

Fundy atheist talking point 4: "WAAAA!!!! PRIEST/PASTORS RAPE CHILDREN!"

Interesting that children are more likely to be raped by teaches or day care workers than priest or pastors seems to go right past your black/white fundy atheist brain. Yet again, the 'thinker' shows his thinking skills, yet again are lacking. And yet it's myself and other Christians that lack thinking skills. Stop using children as your way to insult religion because if you cared about children, you'd make a fuss about how many of them have been rapped/molested/taken advantage of by teachers, day care workers, etc. You don't because you can't use that against Christianity because your hatred is so powerful that you'll use the rape of children, to further your own agenda. Showing you could care less, you only care about spreading your hated of Christians, as far as you can. Stop using children to further your own gains.

Yep, more of your stupidity and hatred; in action. Again, please, stop embarrassing yourself and all of atheism.

You didn't show that I straw-maned you, so you're asking for evidence against a view you've provided no evidence for.

Irony at it's finest. You haven't provided evidence for any of your claims, but as always... your fundy atheism prevents you from seeing your own errors and mistakes and makes you project them onto others.

Oh ok, I see it. The two words are not exactly the same and the meaning can differ depending how you use them. You could have been saying all cultures are important, or that all cultures are no more important than any other. These each have different connotations.

Yep can't bring yourself to admit you were dead wrong about a simple dictionary definition, but I'm suppose to think you're capable of critical thinking skills when you can't even spend 2 minutes looking up a simple dictionary definition. What's the problem, can't say that you were wrong about anything, no matter what?

Of course I can admit when I'm wrong, and I already did for spelling knob wrong. But again those two terms are not identical, they are similar but involve different connotations.

Yeah, you did, while making a dig and Christians and Christianity in the process. Showing that your ego is so massive, that you can't bring yourself to admit you're wrong about anything, without insulting entire groups of people, to soften the blow to your massive ego. Again, perhaps scientist should start looking for your ego instead of dark matter.

I'm not making an argument. I'm merely asking a question to your argument that somehow the ancient world was different when it came to killing homosexuals. So the non-answer is actually you, Ms. moron.

Hey, I gave the answer. It's not my problem you don't like it. Beyond outrage, what is your response?

And why must we focus solely on the Romans when dealing with Jewish culture on whether women were taken seriously? The Jews had their own courts where they could apply their own rules in part. And we're dealing with Jews, not Romans. It is just a fallacy that because the story says women found the empty tomb (a story which is inconsistent in all 4 gospels) that somehow that means women are equals to men in the NT or the Bible for that matter. It is simply a fact that the OT and NT are sexist. I don't know, maybe you're one of those women that likes being second class.

Trying to change up the topic again, when you've been proved wrong, yet again? So what, I always thought Jesus didn't care much for the Jewish leaders of his day and spent quite a bit of time dealing with them and refuting them. Beyond your bald assertions, what do you actually have? Anything at all or should I just take your word for it?

Are you willing to admit that the OT is sexist at least?

Bald assertions are not arguments, idiot. I want arguments, not assertions.

Keep trying.

[The Thinker]

Still trying to justify what you want to believe that satisfies your massive ego and persecution complex? Is that easier for your huge ego to accept than having to admit to the fact that I don't take you the least bit seriously and think you're a total and complete moron that is no threat to Christianity in the least? Sorry sweety, but the truth really is that I met that sarcastically and I have used that several times, towards both Christians and non Christians alike and you're the first one that has ever taken it the least bit seriously. Sounds like, to me, that scientist need to stop look for 'dark matter' and start looking for your ego. I'm sure your ego must more than make up for the 'missing matter' of our galaxy and possibility the universe (BTW since you have absolutely no sense of humor, that is also a joke too. I should make that clear before you seriously try to claim that I'm ignorant of science too).

Funny, I don't take you the least bit serious at all. And my ego is no bigger than your savior's. And I don't have a persecution complex. I don't care if you insult me, I already said that. It's you Christians who usually play that card.

And there is that massive ego again. Sorry moron, you are no threat to me nor to Christianity and reading your idiocy here and your idiocy on your blog conveniences me that you're a fundy atheist that I should just play with for my own amusement. Your massive ego seriously has you thinking you've done anything, to refute Christianity, eh?

LOL. Sure. Go back to watching cartoons.

I usually find those that spend their time whining about the usage of things like smilies, are usually petty little people not worth the time to take seriously, in the least. Got to have those excuses to ignore things you don't want to hear, eh moron?

Yet you're obsessed with responding to my every word.....interesting.

AKA "Crap, I can't refute you, so let me look for any excuse to avoid admitting I was wrong again!"

Sorry moron, but you're making claims you can't back up. It isn't my fault nor my problem that you're too stupid to deal with them. Did you or did you not try to claim that Christianity is 'sexist'. How can Christianity be 'sexist' if Christianity and Christians have done much of the work, to women rights, over the centuries? Did the pre-Christian world have much usage for women leaders? How about the post Christian world? How many women leaders lead entire countries? Reality is that you're wrong and very wrong at that, but can't bring yourself to admit to your mistakes. Yep, once a fundy always a fundy, eh non-thinker?

This is embarrassing logic, and indicative of your puny intellect. Yes I did say Christianity is sexist. That is a fact. And the fact that some Christians have done good for women does not logically entail that Christianity isn't sexist, no more than the fact that some Christians have done bad for women, or have done racist things would logically entail that Christianity is sexist or racist. Do you understand this basic logic?

What does the expertise of apologist have to do with the fact that you're hero is no expert on the topic and you made a major mistakes and you're incapable of refuting it? Sorry moron, but what the Samaritans believe about the witness of women has no bearing on what the Romans believed on the witness of women. The reality is that your hero missed that obvious point and now you're trying to cover up for your mistakes and errors by changing up the topic? Besides half wit, the Gospels were also written to the Romans too or did you forget that key point? Oops, keep embarrassing yourself and showing why I should laugh at you whenever you open your fat mouth and let stupidity run out of it. Just admit it, you're too stupid to refute my source (who, unlike your hero, backs up his claims with multiple scholars and experts, on the topic) and trying anything you can to desperately avoid admitting you're wrong yet again.

I did refute it, and it isn't a fact that he's no expert on the topic. You're no expert, Ms. Moron. Who cares about what the Romans believed on women? That's not relevant and that in no way shows Christianity isn't sexist. That you think so is absurd to the nth degree. No wonder you're a stupid Christian.

Too bad you've been unable to prove my 'bigotry', but keep showing you're full of bigotry and try to justify your hatred for Christians and Christianity by making absurd assertions that you can't back up. Sorry moron, but I don't hate atheist nor feel the least bit of 'bigotry' towards atheist nor have I taken my time to insult the intelligence of every atheist because they disagree with me. Of course, what is really funny is to watch you scream out fundy atheist talking points, while claiming that the rest of us are indoctrinated and just taught whatever our pastor or priest tells us. Oh the irony in which you do the very thing you condemn and not spot your obvious fundy thinking. :

Are you tolerant towards ISIS and Nazis?

Fundy atheist talking point 1: "WAAA!!!! We're all bigots!"

Reality: The only bigot here is you and you're above statements just show you're hatred, every step of the way. To the point that your bigotry clouds your judgement and makes you say stupid things.

Fundy atheist talking point 2: "WAAA!!!!! CHRISTIANS LACK CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS!!!!"

Irony, when you're just repeating your mindless talking points, without addressing a single word you said.

Fundy atheist talking point 3: "WAAA!!!! CHRISTIANITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE!"

And yet, you're unable to refute a single thing I said, but spend your time with these talking points and just throwing up insult after insult without addressing a word I said.

Fundy atheist talking point 4: "WAAAA!!!! PRIEST/PASTORS RAPE CHILDREN!"

You are a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions, as we all are. That's why the term is meaningless.

And nothing you said is logical at all. That you think Christianity isn't sexist because women found the empty tomb is the most stupid argument I've ever heard -- even for Christian standards. And that's pretty low. I dare you to make a formal logical argument showing that. It will be fun.

Interesting that children are more likely to be raped by teaches or day care workers than priest or pastors seems to go right past your black/white fundy atheist brain. Yet again, the 'thinker' shows his thinking skills, yet again are lacking. And yet it's myself and other Christians that lack thinking skills. Stop using children as your way to insult religion because if you cared about children, you'd make a fuss about how many of them have been rapped/molested/taken advantage of by teachers, day care workers, etc. You don't because you can't use that against Christianity because your hatred is so powerful that you'll use the rape of children, to further your own agenda. Showing you could care less, you only care about spreading your hated of Christians, as far as you can. Stop using children to further your own gains.

The Catholic Church as well as many other churches covered up their gay pedophilic sex scandal, and dogmatic organized religion provides the perfect institution to cover up such things. Many such abuses are still unknown. And second of all, pointing out how disgusting priests behave has no logical connection with me not caring about how regular teachers abuse children, that is your imagination at work again.

Yep, more of your stupidity and hatred; in action. Again, please, stop embarrassing yourself and all of atheism.

I don't, I'm just dealing with a person who's so illogical and has such a massive ego that she pats herself on her back as soon as she imagines she's made a point. Do us a favor and keep behaving this way so that you can embarrass yourself and Christianity as much as possible.

Irony at it's finest. You haven't provided evidence for any of your claims, but as always... your fundy atheism prevents you from seeing your own errors and mistakes and makes you project them onto others.

Um no, you claim I straw-maned you on zero evidence. You just asserted it.

Yep can't bring yourself to admit you were dead wrong about a simple dictionary definition, but I'm suppose to think you're capable of critical thinking skills when you can't even spend 2 minutes looking up a simple dictionary definition. What's the problem, can't say that you were wrong about anything, no matter what?

I was not wrong; you used an ambiguous term given the context.

Yeah, you did, while making a dig and Christians and Christianity in the process. Showing that your ego is so massive, that you can't bring yourself to admit you're wrong about anything, without insulting entire groups of people, to soften the blow to your massive ego. Again, perhaps scientist should start looking for your ego instead of dark matter.

All I said was that Jesus wasn't perfect. Do you dispute that fact?

Hey, I gave the answer. It's not my problem you don't like it. Beyond outrage, what is your response?

No you just made the claim:

"In the ancient world, sure but we don't live thousands of years ago."

"Your last rant, "WAA, THE BIBLE IS INTOLERANT TOWARDS GAYS!" misses the reasons why."

So I asked the reason why ...... and all I get is crickets. So no, you did not give the answer, you made the claim. If you're incapable of seeing this you have no business claiming you're logical.

Trying to change up the topic again, when you've been proved wrong, yet again? So what, I always thought Jesus didn't care much for the Jewish leaders of his day and spent quite a bit of time dealing with them and refuting them. Beyond your bald assertions, what do you actually have? Anything at all or should I just take your word for it?

It's directly on topic. In fact bringing up the Romans at all is a change of the topic. We're debating whether Christianity is sexist after all, and you bring up the Romans. Total non-sequitor. Typical moronic internet Christian.

Bald assertions are not arguments, idiot. I want arguments, not assertions.

That's not an argument, it's a question. One you're too afraid to answer. Someone here can't tell her hand from her behind. It's OK, god made you inferior as a woman so you have an excuse.

[lilpixieofterror]

Funny, I don't take you the least bit serious at all. And my ego is no bigger than your savior's. And I don't have a persecution complex. I don't care if you insult me, I already said that. It's you Christians who usually play that card.

Got to get that little dig on Christians, yet again, eh moron? Yep, your ego is pretty huge since you can't help yourself and insult anybody who isn't on their hands and knees bowing before you. Yeah, you do have a persecution complex since you've spent pages and pages insisting that an obvious joke, that has never been taken seriously by anybody, as being 100% serious. Keep digging and showing everybody why nobody should take you the least bit serious and why I'm dead right about you.

LOL. Sure. Go back to watching cartoons.

I have a 3 year old little girl sweety, we watch cartoons together all the time. Of course, I have noticed those who can't enjoy cartoons are usually suck up jerks, with a stick shoved so far up a certain bodily orifice, that they can't bend at the waist. Thanks for proving me right again about you. I should also note that your single paragraph blog post are not heavy reading. The novel I finished this week was likely far more words then your entire blog contains. You're not the heavy thinker you believe you are Mr encourages people to ignore drug laws and gives tips how to do it.

Yet you're obsessed with responding to my every word.....interesting.

It takes me an entire 10 minutes to respond to you. Hey, if me taking 10 minutes out of my day, is proof of an obsession, hey go for any straw you can grasp.

This is embarrassing logic, and indicative of your puny intellect. Yes I did say Christianity is sexist. That is a fact. And the fact that some Christians have done good for women does not logically entail that Christianity isn't sexist, no more than the fact that some Christians have done bad for women, or have done racist things would logically entail that Christianity is sexist or racist. Do you understand this basic logic?

And you still haven't proved your assertion is true or accurate, but keep producing nothing but repeating your same talking points, in the sad hopes they magically become true because you can repeat them. Sorry dipstick, you made the assertion, so it is your job to prove it. I've been producing evidence that you're wrong and you're only response is, "DUH! THAT'S NOT TRUE!!!" while drooling all over yourself and repeating your same talking points and hoping they magically become true. I'm sorry, but you haven't proved your assertion at all. While I have shown that Christianity has lead to increases in the rights of women across the planet and has done more for women's rights than you and your fundy atheism has. Sorry that you don't like reality, but repeating talking points doesn't make it true. Go ahead, refute what I said instead of repeating your same talking points. Maybe I should do things The non-Thinker^TM Way.

You're a moron, with the intelligence of a grapefruit. This is a fact.

Just make up an assertion, use your own opinion to back up the assertion, assuming your opinion is fact, and puff... it magically becomes true. I can see why you like to argue this way, no thinking required. Sorry idiot, you have not proved your assertion that 'Christianity is sexist' beyond repeating yourself over and over again and hoping it magically becomes true. So how does one prove that Christianity is or isn't sexist, using your logic? I'll be waiting for your response.

BTW you mess up my logic, yet again idiot. My logic actually entails what happened to the rights of women, across the Christian world vs the world that came before it. What were the attitudes towards women before Christianity, non thinker? How about once Christianity become established and begin to spread its ideals? The reality is that Christianity has re-shaped the world around it and has done tons for the rights of women. A fact you can't refute, so you ignore it and try to twist my logic into something that I never said. So did women have more rights before or after Christianity became the dominate religion, in the west? I know what the answer is and I'm sure you do too. What is the answer?

I did refute it, and it isn't a fact that he's no expert on the topic. You're no expert, Ms. Moron. Who cares about what the Romans believed on women? That's not relevant and that in no way shows Christianity isn't sexist. That you think so is absurd to the nth degree. No wonder you're a stupid Christian.

No, you didn't retard. What you did is repeating a talking point and ignored anything that proves your stupidity wrong. Who cares what the Roman's believed about women? You mean beyond the fact they were the most powerful empire of their era? Beyond the fact that their influence has effected the entire modern world? Beyond the fact that their empire spread across most of Western Europe, who influences in civics and law is still felt today? Yeah, who cares what one of the influential empires, in world history, said or believed. Do you like saying stupid things and continue to repeat your same tired assertions, in the sad hopes they become true? It's quite simple, my dim witted friend, the pre-Christian world did not considering women worthy to be witnesses or even leaders of countries. The Christian world had women witnesses, women leading entire countries, and continued to advance the rights of women across the planet. Reality seems to refute your belief here non thinker. What's the problem, is repeating your talking points not working here? Sure, I'm not an expert, but I can read and know that you're full of garbage and are unable to refute the points I have brought up. Reality is such a cruel master, when it refutes what you so desperately what to believe...

Are you tolerant towards ISIS and Nazis?

What does tolerance have to do with groups, who by their very nature, are intolerant of anybody who disagrees with them? You didn't think this objection of yours through very well, did you?

You are a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions, as we all are. That's why the term is meaningless.

I get along quite well with numerous atheist, while you spend your days insulting everybody who isn't on their hands and knees, bowing before you.

And nothing you said is logical at all. That you think Christianity isn't sexist because women found the empty tomb is the most stupid argument I've ever heard -- even for Christian standards. And that's pretty low. I dare you to make a formal logical argument showing that. It will be fun.

Not my argument at all, idiot. What I have done is presented pieces of evidence, one of many, to support my claims. Evidence you can't refute, so you prefer to make up strawman and attack arguments I never made. Are you too stupid to realize that I am bringing up pieces of evidence and that is among one of the many different pieces of evidence I use to support my points? On the other hand, the only evidence you seem to bring forth is repeating talking points and hoping they become true. When you're done with your strawman and repeating your same talking points, in the sad hopes they become true, my actual arguments are awaiting your answer.

The Catholic Church as well as many other churches covered up their gay pedophilic sex scandal, and dogmatic organized religion provides the perfect institution to cover up such things. Many such abuses are still unknown. And second of all, pointing out how disgusting priests behave has no logical connection with me not caring about how regular teachers abuse children, that is your imagination at work again.

In other words, since you can't use teachers, day care workers, social workers, foster parents, etc against Christianity and the cover ups that their unions and government has used to hide these people and their horrible crimes, you ignore it because you don't care about children being sexually abused, but care about trying to make Christianity look bad. Keep digging because if you gave one iota about sexual abuse of children, you'd be demanding that teachers unions and governments should stop covering up child sexual abuse cases, as they have done and attempted to do, in the past. Stop using the sexual abuse of children, to further your own gains, you disgusting little man.

I don't, I'm just dealing with a person who's so illogical and has such a massive ego that she pats herself on her back as soon as she imagines she's made a point. Do us a favor and keep behaving this way so that you can embarrass yourself and Christianity as much as possible.

Another talking point. You'll eventually get to refuting a word I said someday, right?

Um no, you claim I straw-maned you on zero evidence. You just asserted it.

The evidence is above sweety, you're just too dumb to spot it.

I was not wrong; you used an ambiguous term given the context.

The dictionary definition says otherwise, but of course it doesn't count because it doesn't agree with The non-Thinker and what he desperately wants to be true. Can't even admit you were dead wrong about a simple dictionary definition, eh?

All I said was that Jesus wasn't perfect. Do you dispute that fact?

Still making digs on Christianity, eh non-thinker? Can't help yourself, but to show that you're an even bigger jack ass than previously thought. Keep digging.

No you just made the claim:

So I asked the reason why ...... and all I get is crickets. So no, you did not give the answer, you made the claim. If you're incapable of seeing this you have no business claiming you're logical.

Sure and the only thing you have done to refute it, is to repeat your arguments from outrage. Beyond outrage, what do you got?

It's directly on topic. In fact bringing up the Romans at all is a change of the topic. We're debating whether Christianity is sexist after all, and you bring up the Romans. Total non-sequitor. Typical moronic internet Christian.

And watching you continue to ignore the simple fact that the Romans were in charge and Christianity influenced a change in the status quo of women and their treatment is quite amusing to watch. What's the problem, can't refute it, so you desperately hoping to ignore the reality staring you down in the face? Yes Christianity is so sexist that it took the pre Christian ideas towards women being little more than property and turned women into leaders of countries. Yeah, Christianity is so sexist for doing that (BTW since you've shown you don't recognize humor or satire, that is satire). Keep those fingers jammed in your ears while screaming, "LALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" and maybe your rants and ignoring of reality will magically become true!

That's not an argument, it's a question. One you're too afraid to answer. Someone here can't tell her hand from her behind. It's OK, god made you inferior as a woman so you have an excuse.

Questions assume premises that can be arguments too, idiot. Your question is assuming a premise that you haven't proved yet. I'm not stupid, I do know a loaded question and an assumed premise when I see it. Do keep trying and do keep those ears of your slammed shut and who knows, maybe it might magically become true!

BTW it's so adorable to watch you create yet more stuff to cover up for your own stupidity. I've dealt with far more sexism from atheist than from Christians. If the delusion that Christianity is sexist helps with your delusions; go for it.

[The Thinker]

Got to get that little dig on Christians, yet again, eh moron? Yep, your ego is pretty huge since you can't help yourself and insult anybody who isn't on their hands and knees bowing before you. Yeah, you do have a persecution complex since you've spent pages and pages insisting that an obvious joke, that has never been taken seriously by anybody, as being 100% serious. Keep digging and showing everybody why nobody should take you the least bit serious and why I'm dead right about you.

At this point you're just a waste of my time. I only want to debate substance. I have no lasting interest in engaging with someone who acts like a third grader. So unless you want to actually have a debate on substance without the childish rhetoric, then I'm out. I have better things to do than deal with immature Christian retards with egos bigger than Donald Trump's who pretend to be humble.

And btw, my blog has plenty of long sophisticated posts probably above your intellectual level, so you obviously didn't read much and anyone who has read my blog beyond a few posts can see that. I'm not surprised, given that you seem to do best with emoticons taking up a quarter of your characters.

[klaus54]

At this point you're just a waste of my time. I only want to debate substance. I have no lasting interest in engaging with someone who acts like a third grader. So unless you want to actually have a debate on substance without the childish rhetoric, then I'm out. I have better things to do than deal with immature Christian retards with egos bigger than Donald Trump's who pretend to be humble.

And btw, my blog has plenty of long sophisticated posts probably above your intellectual level, so you obviously didn't read much and anyone who has read my blog beyond a few posts can see that. I'm not surprised, given that you seem to do best with emoticons taking up a quarter of your characters.

I get it now -- your moniker is meant to be sarcastic.

[lilpixieofterror]

At this point you're just a waste of my time. I only want to debate substance. I have no lasting interest in engaging with someone who acts like a third grader. So unless you want to actually have a debate on substance without the childish rhetoric, then I'm out. I have better things to do than deal with immature Christian retards with egos bigger than Donald Trump's who pretend to be humble.

So says the same person that:

- Tries to insist that an obvious joke is serious.
- Can't admit he's wrong about a simple dictionary definition.
- Made a huge mistake in trying to use the Samaritans and their views towards women witnesses as evidence for the Roman's views towards women witnesses.
- Couldn't bring himself to admit to a simple spelling mistakes without making a dig at every Christian.
- Takes every opportunity he can to insult Christians and all of Christianity.

That's just a short list of all the mistakes and errors you've made that you've tried to ignore and cover up. Projection is so powerful, when you desperately want to be right, but are too full of your own pride to admit you made a single mistake.

And btw, my blog has plenty of long sophisticated posts probably above your intellectual level, so you obviously didn't read much and anyone who has read my blog beyond a few posts can see that. I'm not surprised, given that you seem to do best with emoticons taking up a quarter of your characters.

Is that between the fictional accounts of people snorting coke and the 'I'm not making an argument for abortion, but here's an argument for abortion anyway' post?

[lilpixieofterror]

I get it now -- your moniker is meant to be sarcastic.

It's what he thinks of himself; while he keeps proving he has the intelligence of a grape fruit.

[Jedidiah]

It's what he thinks of himself; while he keeps proving he has the intelligence of a grape fruit.

Dunning-Kruger Effect on exhibit.