Trade Your Bible For Porn 227
An anonymous reader writes "Atheist students at the University of Texas at San Antonio announced that any student over the age of 18 will receive pornographic materials if they trade in religious materials. From the article: 'Leaders of this atheist campaign allege that porn is no worse than what's written in religious texts. A university spokesman says that this controversial cause is completely legal, though he admits a majority of the students on campus do not agree with it.'"
Re:Stunts (Score:2, Informative)
You did something EXACTLY LIKE THAT, just one post above.
No, I did not. You're very confused. Your quote only shows me saying that there's both good and bad in religion, not trying to -- as you falsely claimed -- attribute everything good to religion. Nor did I even state or imply that anyone should be thanked, as you, again, falsely claimed.
I did the first, part, yes: I said, "ahh, but that's just human nature." But I never said that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank."
You denied something which you wrote just moments ago.
You clearly saw something in what I wrote that literally was not there, in any form.
similarly brainwashed to you
Again -- you don't seem to understand this -- making things up doesn't help you. Really, it doesn't.
I can choose.
I did choose. And I can choose again if I am convinced that I am wrong. And I am open to convincing. None of you appears to be up to the task.
Don't feel bad: it's not that you are bad at this (although you are), it's that you don't have good arguments on your side.
Re:Stunts (Score:2, Informative)
Look, I get it, you don't see that there.
It literally isn't there.
I am the one who said what I said. What you say is there was not in the text of what I wrote (obviously), and it was not intended to be implied by me. Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to the contrary; unfortunately for me, I cannot prove what was in my mind. However, since I am the authority on what I say and you have no counterevidence, I win.
You don't see how you attributed "some people (and some sects) will burn you" to "People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing"; to their humanity.
Can you really not read simple English? I explicitly stated that I was attributing their failings to their human nature, but that it was the second part of your assertion -- "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank" -- that I was not engaging in.
Your job at this point would be to show that I ever claimed that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank." You can't do that.
Religions didn't have anything to do with it, nosir
What is your evidence that they do? If you were right, then we would expect to see more violence from religion than without it, but we don't see that at all. By far, more murders were committed by explicitly atheistic regimes than religious ones in the 20th century.
You don't have to tangle yourself yet again in deying things you just wrote; I understand.
I understand you're a tool.
And please...you choose? I also thought that I choose when I was like you. But it's, if I might use such a term ;p , a diabolic self deceit.
No, that's your department. You deluded yourself into thinking that everyone else thinks like you do: that because you had deluded yourself into being religious, therefore I do the same. This is obviously self-refuting, however: if I thought just like you do -- as your argument assumes -- then I would be an atheist now.
Really, stop the line with demanding arguments
No. As long as you make assertions, I will -- following the rules of logic you pretend to follow, but, in fact, disdain -- demand that you back them up.
But you're closed to them
You have no evidence of this. All you have are examples of POOR arguments you gave that I logically refuted ... refuted so entirely that you didn't even attempt to rebut. You transparently pretend that because I refuted your arguments, that I am therefore closed to them.
You realize that everyone sees through that, right?
That's why arguments don't work, not because they are weak.
Yes, the rejoinder of the person without any arguments. We've seen it before.