Is it wrong to want to die?

[Cis.jd]

My words that you failed to answer: Agree or disagree - this is a simple yes / no or agree disagree question. You can take a position - please do so.
No sir, I understand intention. I also understand what before and after mean. If my tax $ goes into the pocket of a bad actor BEFORE they are discovered to be a bad actor, I bear no responsibility. Agree / disagree?

Here is the issue. When I replied with just a simple yes/no per your request, you had a problem with it and called me out for not explaining. So make up your mind as to how you want me to respond to you.

As i have said repeatedly, your excuses do not matter because at the end of the day these politicians are still being supported by your money. At the same time, you seem to ignore the whole facts i gave in regards to 3rd world countries. These "bad actors" over there do not face justice because they control it over there, at the same time not every politician faces justice.

Look at George W Bush, this guy invaded Iraq and killed Sadam and his family all under the lies of "liberation" and nuclear weapons, when we all know the US just wanted oil. After GWB killed Saddam and his family, and destroyed most of Iraq, it turns out there where no nuclear weapons after all. GWB didn't face justice for that, did he?

Note how I reference BEFORE they are discovered. You are now using the word "aware". Please comment how AWARE, and BEFORE, and AFTER, are related to the SYSTEM taking advantage or people. People paying taxes in a system that it is mandatory.

My words:

If bad priests are exploiting (raping children) the system and are then protected by the system AFTER they are found out - one who supported continuing to pay the priests and protect them from discovery WOULD bear responsibility for the actions of the rapists. Agree / disagree?

Your words:

Aware or Intention. They are both the same. People who give tithes are being taken advantage of, because even if it isn't a civil law, the fact is with out tithes their is nothing that can support their place of worship. They, under the right of religion, have a right to have a place of worship however in order to exercise that right they also need to contribute to support it. So in the bigger picture, they are just as obligated there is just no civil penalties for it.

You can't just lop up a bunch of people to be guilty of supporting a crime they have no intention of supporting, they are supporting the 90% (as you said, it's only 10%). The problem with your argument is that you are trying to make it as one sided as possible because of your atheist ego, its "religion that has to be bad" so any other form of industry that suffers from corruption and is also taking advantage of people in terms of reaping the benefits of it isn't counted by you. That is biased on your part.

This is again your "what about ism". I hope to make an argument that is solid enough here that you will stop using this diversionary tactic. So, here we go. Remember how taxes are mandatory? First world, third world, it does not matter. If taxes are mandatory, the people paying the taxes have no choice but to pay their taxes. Kind of the definition of mandatory. Tithing is voluntary. So, wherever your "what about ism", Cuba, Cambodia, Philippines, Alaska, Venus, Mars, Titan, Pluto, Imaginaryland, etc... As long as taxes are mandatory on these "worlds" and tithing is voluntary - people tithing to the catholic church that are aware that they are supporting an organization that protects the priest who have raped children - are complicit in these crimes. People paying mandatory taxes are not. Again, duh.

Again, intentionality. Your words:

What you call "ism" is just pointing out the facts so that you can start thinking and seeing the problems in your argument.

What you don't get about the referencing of the 3rd world countries, is that their politicians manipulated the lower class, which is the majority of the countries population. These countries still have a choice on who to elect, but they can't get rid of these politicians because their poverty demographics are the majority of the population and they are all swindled in voting and supporting these politicians to remain in office, and that eventually generates to the entire country being ordered to give their taxes. So since this was all a choice by those countries, then you are forced to now use your reasoning against Catholics on them. You just do not want to do that or admit that your argument forces you to do so because you can't be fair because its an atheist schtick to just start pointing at religion only.

Your argument fails because paying politicians is still rooted in a choice, these political leaders are elected by you and every other civilians. You had that choice on who to decide to support with your tax money and you chose the corrupt ones to take office. You can bring back that old argument about "if they get caught.." blah blah blah, but as said that isn't all true for other countries around the world.

 

[Albion]

Look at George W Bush, this guy invaded Iraq and killed Sadam and his family all under the lies of "liberation" and nuclear weapons, when we all know the US just wanted oil.

Right there, you pretty much destroyed what might have been a reasonable line of thought.

 

[Xavier363]

Here is the issue. When I replied with just a simple yes/no per your request, you had a problem with it and called me out for not explaining. So make up your mind as to how you want me to respond to you.

As i have said repeatedly, your excuses do not matter because at the end of the day these politicians are still being supported by your money. At the same time, you seem to ignore the whole facts i gave in regards to 3rd world countries. These "bad actors" over there do not face justice because they control it over there, at the same time not every politician faces justice.

Look at George W Bush, this guy invaded Iraq and killed Sadam and his family all under the lies of "liberation" and nuclear weapons, when we all know the US just wanted oil. After GWB killed Saddam and his family, and destroyed most of Iraq, it turns out there where no nuclear weapons after all. GWB didn't face justice for that, did he?



Aware or Intention. They are both the same. People who give tithes are being taken advantage of, because even if it isn't a civil law, the fact is with out tithes their is nothing that can support their place of worship. They, under the right of religion, have a right to have a place of worship however in order to exercise that right they also need to contribute to support it. So in the bigger picture, they are just as obligated there is just no civil penalties for it.

You can't just lop up a bunch of people to be guilty of supporting a crime they have no intention of supporting, they are supporting the 90% (as you said, it's only 10%). The problem with your argument is that you are trying to make it as one sided as possible because of your atheist ego, its "religion that has to be bad" so any other form of industry that suffers from corruption and is also taking advantage of people in terms of reaping the benefits of it isn't counted by you. That is biased on your part.


What you call "ism" is just pointing out the facts so that you can start thinking and seeing the problems in your argument.

What you don't get about the referencing of the 3rd world countries, is that their politicians manipulated the lower class, which is the majority of the countries population. These countries still have a choice on who to elect, but they can't get rid of these politicians because their poverty demographics are the majority of the population and they are all swindled in voting and supporting these politicians to remain in office, and that eventually generates to the entire country being ordered to give their taxes. So since this was all a choice by those countries, then you are forced to now use your reasoning against Catholics on them. You just do not want to do that or admit that your argument forces you to do so because you can't be fair because its an atheist schtick to just start pointing at religion only.

Your argument fails because paying politicians is still rooted in a choice, these political leaders are elected by you and every other civilians. You had that choice on who to decide to support with your tax money and you chose the corrupt ones to take office. You can bring back that old argument about "if they get caught.." blah blah blah, but as said that isn't all true for other countries around the world.

So, dumbest - most irrelevant first. My ego. If the most egotistical person in the universe told you that 2 + 3 = 5, are they wrong because they are egotistical or arrogant. Sigh, again I'm going to insist that you actually answer this question before whatever distraction you attempt. You assert that I'm egotistical - funny, that. I think I'm one of billions of organisms on a planet on one spiral arm of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies. You think that the actual creator of the universe cares about what you eat, who you sleep with, in what position, helps you find your car keys and sometimes a convenient parking spot.

Again, my words that you ignore:
No sir, I understand intention. I also understand what before and after mean. If my tax $ goes into the pocket of a bad actor BEFORE they are discovered to be a bad actor, I bear no responsibility. Agree / disagree?

This is not an argument. I'm refuting your position. You have repeatedly defended the position that paying mandatory taxes is equivalent to voluntary tithing. I'm showing you how INTENTION, MANDATORY, and VOLUNTARY work. Please answer the question that I've repeatedly asked.

Super duper don't care about your "what about ism" regarding third world blah, blah... Completely irrelevant. If taxes are mandatory the number of the world is irrelevant. That is just a fact. Tithing is voluntary. That is just a fact.

People who give tithes are being taken advantage of, because even if it isn't a civil law, the fact is with out tithes their is nothing that can support their place of worship. They, under the right of religion, have a right to have a place of worship however in order to exercise that right they also need to contribute to support it. So in the bigger picture, they are just as obligated there is just no civil penalties for it.

Yes, religions take advantage of their adherents - one of the main advantages of being a leader in one of these organizations. Thank you for admitting "even if it isn't a civil law". Kind of the point I've been hammering that tithing is voluntary. You laughingly assert that there is some kind of "under the right of religion, have a right to have a place of worship". I assume that this is incorrect. Pretty funny, even the thought of that. Go ahead, cite the law in whatever country that you live that affords "under the right of religion, have a right to have a place of worship". I super duper don't believe that is true. You can believe what you believe, but the right to a place - nope, I don't believe that is remotely true.

I'll state it again, if you are aware (note the AWARE word) that your $ is supporting an organization that has been protecting pedophiles for decades, I care not a bit if you believe you are obligated. As you admitted above, "even if it isn't a civil law" - so, I'll take the point on this one.

Your words:

Your argument fails because paying politicians is still rooted in a choice, these political leaders are elected by you and every other civilians. You had that choice on who to decide to support with your tax money and you chose the corrupt ones to take office.

Nope. Super have told you this many times. Nope. If taxes are mandatory then no matter how corrupt the system, the tax payers are not responsible for the actions of the bad actors (you seem to really like to just single out politicians here). UNTIL such time as tax payers become AWARE that a bad actor is a bad actor they bear no responsibility for the bad actions. AFTER they become AWARE, then YES, they would bear responsibility. People who are AWARE that the catholic church has protected pedophile priests FOR DECADES and VOLUNTARILY (despite, your words: "even if it isn't a civil law") ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPORTING THE PEDOPHILE PRIESTS. Super duper clear here.

Spin the wheel again. Ignore, what about, I'm arrogant, deflect, tell the truth. Wait, was tell the truth on your wheel the whole time and it just hasn't come up on the spin? Hopefully, one day...

 

[Cis.jd]

So, dumbest - most irrelevant first. My ego. If the most egotistical person in the universe told you that 2 + 3 = 5, are they wrong because they are egotistical or arrogant.

You are not giving anything intelligent. You are simply trying to narrow down the argument to your own perspective which has to be one sided so you can off shoot your mouth against christianity, just like you did in the last sentence which i'm just going to ignore.

Again, my words that you ignore:
No sir, I understand intention. I also understand what before and after mean. If my tax $ goes into the pocket of a bad actor BEFORE they are discovered to be a bad actor, I bear no responsibility. Agree / disagree?

And that goes the same with catholics as I addressed, they wouldn't know that a certain priest in their local church is a pedophile unless it has been caught, yet you don't consider that.. its doesn't count if it is a christian but if it's you, the atheist, then it's excused? LOL

I'm refuting your position. You have repeatedly defended the position that paying mandatory taxes is equivalent to voluntary tithing. I'm showing you how INTENTION, MANDATORY, and VOLUNTARY work. Please answer the question that I've repeatedly asked.

I'm not making that position, i've repeated it over and over again that regardless of it being mandatory or not you are still contributing to pockets of the corrupt officials. You are asking a question that has been countered by examples and reason and you fail to understand it.

Super duper don't care about your "what about ism" regarding third world blah, blah... Completely irrelevant. If taxes are mandatory the number of the world is irrelevant. That is just a fact. Tithing is voluntary. That is just a fact.

Of course you don't care. You don't care about reason, you don't want to acknowledge other examples that are similar to the situation, you just want your own narrative shoved down here.
I gave you an example of how the political system in 3rd world countries work, they are swindled to keep the politicians in office which in return allows the politician to be in power and reaping off the law and the citizens who are following it. You know this makes a point and because of that you want to start limiting the way you are responded to because you can't hack the fact that your arguments are bad and you are getting refuted by a theist.

Yes, religions take advantage of their adherents - one of the main advantages of being a leader in one of these organizations. Thank you for admitting "even if it isn't a civil law". Kind of the point I've been hammering that tithing is voluntary.

But what you also fail to see is that just because there are no legal penalties doesn't mean its not mandatory. If people do not pay tithes to their church then they will likely have no church in their area, and there church will not be able to contribute to communities such as the homeless and all of that, with out any support. You are the only one who isn't aware of anything, you are being thrown the ball and you do nothing but swing away from them.

You've lost the argument, the fact that you are going "no you have to answer me like this" with your whole "whatsism" line shows that you just want a specific outcome here. Your whole argument was about hell and what deserves it, i'm showing you how bad your example is with Catholics paying tithes and being taken advantage of by corrupt officials in the church.

 

[Xavier363]

You are not giving anything intelligent. You are simply trying to narrow down the argument to your own perspective which has to be one sided so you can off shoot your mouth against christianity, just like you did in the last sentence which i'm just going to ignore.


And that goes the same with catholics as I addressed, they wouldn't know that a certain priest in their local church is a pedophile unless it has been caught, yet you don't consider that.. its doesn't count if it is a christian but if it's you, the atheist, then it's excused? LOL


I'm not making that position, i've repeated it over and over again that regardless of it being mandatory or not you are still contributing to pockets of the corrupt officials. You are asking a question that has been countered by examples and reason and you fail to understand it.


Of course you don't care. You don't care about reason, you don't want to acknowledge other examples that are similar to the situation, you just want your own narrative shoved down here.
I gave you an example of how the political system in 3rd world countries work, they are swindled to keep the politicians in office which in return allows the politician to be in power and reaping off the law and the citizens who are following it. You know this makes a point and because of that you want to start limiting the way you are responded to because you can't hack the fact that your arguments are bad and you are getting refuted by a theist.


But what you also fail to see is that just because there are no legal penalties doesn't mean its not mandatory. If people do not pay tithes to their church then they will likely have no church in their area, and there church will not be able to contribute to communities such as the homeless and all of that, with out any support. You are the only one who isn't aware of anything, you are being thrown the ball and you do nothing but swing away from them.

You've lost the argument, the fact that you are going "no you have to answer me like this" with your whole "whatsism" line shows that you just want a specific outcome here. Your whole argument was about hell and what deserves it, i'm showing you how bad your example is with Catholics paying tithes and being taken advantage of by corrupt officials in the church.

Yes, absolutely I'm trying to narrow the argument. That is why I ask Yes / No questions. That is why you ignore them. Once again:

People who give tithes are being taken advantage of, because even if it isn't a civil law, the fact is with out tithes their is nothing that can support their place of worship.

Thanks for conceding the argument. Taxes are mandatory - civil law. Tithes are voluntary - not civil law as you have acknowledged.

My ego (2 + 3 = 5) - you ignored.

they wouldn't know that a certain priest in their local church is a pedophile unless it has been caught

A specific pedophile, yes of course. The organization that voluntary tithes support - PROTECTS PEDOPHILES. A specific bad actor that has not been discovered - yes, punish them rather than protect them. Taxes are mandatory - and as you have admitted, tithing is voluntary.

i've repeated it over and over again that regardless of it being mandatory or not you are still contributing to pockets of the corrupt officials

Yes, you have repeated that whether or not taxes are mandatory - tax payers are still contributing to the pockets of bad actors. This is incredibly stupid and has been refuted. The words MANDATORY, INTENTION, BEFORE, etc have been used to show your position to be just incredibly stupid.

Your words:

just because there are no legal penalties doesn't mean its not mandatory.

That is pretty much the definition of mandatory.

You can keep avoiding my refutations of your argument, just another spin on the wheel. You equated paying taxes to tithing. I've refuted your argument. You ignore any questions that show the faults in your argument. Consistently. Care to defend your:

"under the right of religion, have a right to have a place of worship"

nonsense? You sir, are making the nonsense argument. I'm very patiently showing you how your argument is incorrect. It seems that you very much need assistance in this area.

 

[Xavier363]

Almost forgot, super curious if you think a catholic priest who killed himself before raping the child he totally wanted to rape would go to heaven.

 

[Cis.jd]

Yes, absolutely I'm trying to narrow the argument. That is why I ask Yes / No questions. That is why you ignore them. Once again:

But when I gave you just a "yes/no", you complained that i had no explanation attached to it. Why would you just want a yes/no question in a debate anyway, answers are mostly explained and given reason behind them. It seems you just do not want to read any points at all so you can feel that you have an argument.

Thanks for conceding the argument. Taxes are mandatory - civil law. Tithes are voluntary - not civil law as you have acknowledged.

My ego (2 + 3 = 5) - you ignored.

But you also ignore that in the end you are still paying corrupt officials that you chose to put in there. You also still ignore the 3rd world argument, in where the citizens aren't able to remove their bad politicians because of an over populated poverty that is being swindled to vote them in. So you are the one ignoring any point given because you don't want to lose.

A specific pedophile, yes of course. The organization that voluntary tithes support - PROTECTS PEDOPHILES. A specific bad actor that has not been discovered - yes, punish them rather than protect them. Taxes are mandatory - and as you have admitted, tithing is voluntary.

But that goes for your excuses now. Tithes are in another way mandatory because if the church doesn't get any money, then how will it remain in a specific location? You are really trying to be one sided. Your argument is bias.

You can keep avoiding my refutations of your argument, just another spin on the wheel. You equated paying taxes to tithing. I've refuted your argument. You ignore any questions that show the faults in your argument. Consistently. Care to defend your:

nonsense? You sir, are making the nonsense argument. I'm very patiently showing you how your argument is incorrect. It seems that you very much need assistance in this area.

You haven't refuted anything bro. You are being obtuse, hypocritical, and bias. You do not want any points raised because you need your argument to succeed, so when you limit it down to a "yes/no" only answer because you want to avoid reason, then when you finally get just a 'yes/no" you then turn around trying to call out the lack of explaining. You can't decide how you want this debate to go, because you do not want to reason, you just want to feel that your atheistic ego is superior and you can't hack the fact that you've been shown to be highly obtuse and ignorant.

 

[Xavier363]

But when I gave you just a "yes/no", you complained that i had no explanation attached to it. Why would you just want a yes/no question in a debate anyway, answers are mostly explained and given reason behind them. It seems you just do not want to read any points at all so you can feel that you have an argument.


But you also ignore that in the end you are still paying corrupt officials that you chose to put in there. You also still ignore the 3rd world argument, in where the citizens aren't able to remove their bad politicians because of an over populated poverty that is being swindled to vote them in. So you are the one ignoring any point given because you don't want to lose.


But that goes for your excuses now. Tithes are in another way mandatory because if the church doesn't get any money, then how will it remain in a specific location? You are really trying to be one sided. Your argument is bias.



You haven't refuted anything bro. You are being obtuse, hypocritical, and bias. You do not want any points raised because you need your argument to succeed, so when you limit it down to a "yes/no" only answer because you want to avoid reason, then when you finally get just a 'yes/no" you then turn around trying to call out the lack of explaining. You can't decide how you want this debate to go, because you do not want to reason, you just want to feel that your atheistic ego is superior and you can't hack the fact that you've been shown to be highly obtuse and ignorant.

I'll reply to your points above, but as a palate cleanser first:

You can't decide how you want this debate to go, because you do not want to reason, you just want to feel that your atheistic ego is superior and you can't hack the fact that you've been shown to be highly obtuse and ignorant.

You see, it would not matter to me if I learned something from a monotheist, pantheist, buddhist, atheist, doctor, lawyer, gardener, paperboy, etc. If someone shows me that my thinking was incorrect, I’d not only change my thinking - I’d thank the person for showing me. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as I can. Turn about is fair play, if an atheist showed you a flaw in your thinking, would you change your thinking?

I think your answer here will really be telling.

 

[Xavier363]

But when I gave you just a "yes/no", you complained that i had no explanation attached to it. Why would you just want a yes/no question in a debate anyway, answers are mostly explained and given reason behind them. It seems you just do not want to read any points at all so you can feel that you have an argument.


But you also ignore that in the end you are still paying corrupt officials that you chose to put in there. You also still ignore the 3rd world argument, in where the citizens aren't able to remove their bad politicians because of an over populated poverty that is being swindled to vote them in. So you are the one ignoring any point given because you don't want to lose.


But that goes for your excuses now. Tithes are in another way mandatory because if the church doesn't get any money, then how will it remain in a specific location? You are really trying to be one sided. Your argument is bias.



You haven't refuted anything bro. You are being obtuse, hypocritical, and bias. You do not want any points raised because you need your argument to succeed, so when you limit it down to a "yes/no" only answer because you want to avoid reason, then when you finally get just a 'yes/no" you then turn around trying to call out the lack of explaining. You can't decide how you want this debate to go, because you do not want to reason, you just want to feel that your atheistic ego is superior and you can't hack the fact that you've been shown to be highly obtuse and ignorant.

Nope, you are consistently lying again. I ask you yes / no questions and you do not answer with a yes or a no - if you answer at all it is with a deflection, "what about ism", a red herring, etc. This is really easy; if I ask you a yes no question - go ahead and answer with a yes or a no. After that, you can add whatever explanation you like to justify you answer. I encourage you to do this. But you must do it AFTER you answer the question. But you won't because you cannot handle being shown to be wrong in your thinking.

I think this will really help your thinking on your "what about ism". You say tithing is the same as taxes. You have already conceded that taxes are mandatory and tithing is voluntary:

People who give tithes are being taken advantage of, because even if it isn't a civil law,

Your use of "even if it it isn't a civil law" is your concession that tithing is not mandatory. Thank you for doing so.

When I pay my mandatory taxes, not a cent goes to a bad actor - my $ goes to public servants, employees of the government. If an employee does something wrong THEY THEN become a bad actor and no longer receive $ from my taxes. Super simple, my taxes never fund a bad actor - they fund government employees. Super simple, super straight forward.

Here is the part about your "what about ism" that you really need to pay attention to. This is your "what about the third world" ism that you love. I just bought a new watch that I quite like and keeps good time. Lets compare my watch to your third world watch that does not keep reliable time.

If I look at my watch at noon, and arrange to meet someone at 4 pm - using my watch I will reliably be able to meet that person at 4 pm. My watch is reliable.

If I was to use your unreliable third world watch and saw that it was noon - I would not reliably be able to use it to meet someone at 4 pm. The third world watch in this example is unreliable.

I live in the first world. My system of mandatory taxes that fund the government pay the employees of the system of government. None of my tax $ goes to bad actors - it goes to employees. If an employee LATER BECOMES a bad actor, funding is terminated and they are punished.

If mandatory taxes in the third world pay employees of the government WHO ARE KNOWN TO BE BAD ACTORS and the corrupt system ignores this then the third world system of government is as broken as the watch in my analogy.

You are trying to judge my watch that keeps accurate time by a watch that is shown to NOT KEEP ACCURATE TIME. If your watch is broken, go ahead and fix your watch. Don't pretend that you can judge the accuracy of my watch by the flawed third world watch.

Super simple analogy. Go ahead and spin your wheel of excuses.

You haven't refuted anything bro. You are being obtuse, hypocritical, and bias. You do not want any points raised because you need your argument to succeed, so when you limit it down to a "yes/no" only answer because you want to avoid reason, then when you finally get just a 'yes/no" you then turn around trying to call out the lack of explaining. You can't decide how you want this debate to go, because you do not want to reason, you just want to feel that your atheistic ego is superior and you can't hack the fact that you've been shown to be highly obtuse and ignorant.

I've refuted your claim that tithing is mandatory, and you conceded this. I've refuted your claim that paying mandatory taxes is equivalent to optional tithing. You claim that I'm trying to avoid reason - this is exactly the opposite of my approach. You keep referring to my ego, and yet you believe the creator of the universe is on your side. You claim that I've been shown to be obtuse and ignorant - care to back that up "bro"?

 

[Cis.jd]

Nope, you are consistently lying again. I ask you yes / no questions and you do not answer with a yes or a no - if you answer at all it is with a deflection, "what about ism", a red herring, etc. This is really easy; if I ask you a yes no question - go ahead and answer with a yes or a no. After that, you can add whatever explanation you like to justify you answer. I encourage you to do this. But you must do it AFTER you answer the question. But you won't because you cannot handle being shown to be wrong in your thinking.

Look at your post on #144
"All you said was no.. please point out". LOL

What about ism isn't deflection, it is making you think. You are neglecting the "what about ism" because you do not like seeing the logical fallacy in your arguments.

Your use of "even if it it isn't a civil law" is your concession that tithing is not mandatory. Thank you for doing so.

When I pay my mandatory taxes, not a cent goes to a bad actor - my $ goes to public servants, employees of the government. If an employee does something wrong THEY THEN become a bad actor and no longer receive $ from my taxes. Super simple, my taxes never fund a bad actor - they fund government employees. Super simple, super straight forward.

But some of those public servants and employees can be corrupt. I've referenced examples of that, and also referenced the political issues in 3rd world countries, which you still ignore because you can't comprehend it. You are not intentionally supporting a "bad actor" but they are still getting food on the table and retaining their chair thanks to you.

Here is the part about your "what about ism" that you really need to pay attention to. This is your "what about the third world" ism that you love. I just bought a new watch that I quite like and keeps good time. Lets compare my watch to your third world watch that does not keep reliable time.

If I look at my watch at noon, and arrange to meet someone at 4 pm - using my watch I will reliably be able to meet that person at 4 pm. My watch is reliable.

If I was to use your unreliable third world watch and saw that it was noon - I would not reliably be able to use it to meet someone at 4 pm. The third world watch in this example is unreliable.

I live in the first world. My system of mandatory taxes that fund the government pay the employees of the system of government. None of my tax $ goes to bad actors - it goes to employees. If an employee LATER BECOMES a bad actor, funding is terminated and they are punished.

If mandatory taxes in the third world pay employees of the government WHO ARE KNOWN TO BE BAD ACTORS and the corrupt system ignores this then the third world system of government is as broken as the watch in my analogy.

Wow you really are dense. This watch analogy shows how you are almost hopeless in having an intelligent argument because you do not get anything you are reading. The point of that reference was against your logic of catholics paying tithes are guilty (hence evil and deserve hell) for supporting pedo priests. Never mind that they share no intention or knowledge of where their money is going to. You then try to make a case why your side is excused due to being mandatory, and I'm showing you another part of the world in where certain countries are being swindled to chose and keep their "bad actors".
So by your logic, people who are in poverty living in 3rd world countries are "evil and bad" because they are choosing to keep the same "bad actors" in office due to their lack of knowledge and how these "bad actors" have managed to infiltrate their masses well enough to swindle them. It isn't mandatory for these countries to retain the same officials, yet these officials still win the votes and are able to survive any form of protest because of the fact that the poverty's population overtakes the other economic classes.
This whole watch analogy shows that you can't understand anything no matter how many times it has to be dumbed down over and over just to help you understand what is being talked about.

You've haven't refuted anything at all.

 

[Xavier363]

Look at your post on #144
"All you said was no.. please point out". LOL

What about ism isn't deflection, it is making you think. You are neglecting the "what about ism" because you do not like seeing the logical fallacy in your arguments.



But some of those public servants and employees can be corrupt. I've referenced examples of that, and also referenced the political issues in 3rd world countries, which you still ignore because you can't comprehend it. You are not intentionally supporting a "bad actor" but they are still getting food on the table and retaining their chair thanks to you.


Wow you really are dense. This watch analogy shows how you are almost hopeless in having an intelligent argument because you do not get anything you are reading. The point of that reference was against your logic of catholics paying tithes are guilty (hence evil and deserve hell) for supporting pedo priests. Never mind that they share no intention or knowledge of where their money is going to. You then try to make a case why your side is excused due to being mandatory, and I'm showing you another part of the world in where certain countries are being swindled to chose and keep their "bad actors".
So by your logic, people who are in poverty living in 3rd world countries are "evil and bad" because they are choosing to keep the same "bad actors" in office due to their lack of knowledge and how these "bad actors" have managed to infiltrate their masses well enough to swindle them. It isn't mandatory for these countries to retain the same officials, yet these officials still win the votes and are able to survive any form of protest because of the fact that the poverty's population overtakes the other economic classes.
This whole watch analogy shows that you can't understand anything no matter how many times it has to be dumbed down over and over just to help you understand what is being talked about.

You've haven't refuted anything at all.

Ahem, you are making the argument that my paying mandatory taxes is equivalent to the voluntary tithes paid to the catholic church that protects pedophile priests. I'm refuting your argument. You can continue to deny my refutations, in your child like manner.
Your words:

You are not intentionally supporting a "bad actor" but they are still getting food on the table and retaining their chair thanks to you.

Thank you for conceding that my taxes do not intentionally supporting bad actors.

Any government employee is going to buy groceries with the salaries they are paid. And they should be free to purchase what they like with their salaries. For as long as they do not break the law and become a bad actor. This is super simple. As soon as they are found to break the law, they no longer are funded by my taxes and are punished. Seriously, what part of this do you not understand? Are you saying that the government should NEVER EVER HIRE ANY EMPLOYEES JUST IN CASE SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD THEY MAY BREAK THE LAW? You, sir are an idiot.

Yes, I absolutely ignore your "what about ism" regarding the third world - it is completely irrelevant. You, sir, accused me of funding bad actors through my taxes. You made this accusation. You are wrong. You might as well accuse me of crimes because the people of North Korea are forced to fund Kim Jong-un. You, sir are an idiot.

Your words:

This watch analogy shows how you are almost hopeless in having an intelligent argument because you do not get anything you are reading. The point of that reference was against your logic of catholics paying tithes are guilty (hence evil and deserve hell) for supporting pedo priests. Never mind that they share no intention or knowledge of where their money is going to.

I've always been quite careful and clear here. I've always said, or very much tried to, that the people who are aware (again INTENTIONALITY HERE!!) that the catholic church has been protecting child raping pedophile priests for decades, and still fund the organization are complicit. Yes. Yes. Intentionality matters!! Anyone financially supporting the catholic church being aware that they have been protecting pedophile child raping priests for decades IS ABSOLUTELY COMPLICIT IN FUNDING THE CHILD RAPE FACTORY THAT IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. My taxes do not fund anything similar. You, sir are an idiot.

Your words:

Never mind that they share no intention or knowledge of where their money is going to.

So, which side of the argument can use this? Hmmmm? I absolutely do mind about their intention. If you are aware that the catholic church protects child raping pedophile priests and you still fund the organization, you are INTENTIONALLY FUNDING THE ORGANIZATION THAT PROTECTS PEDOPHILE PRIESTS. Super duper clear here. You, sir are an idiot.

Your words:

You then try to make a case why your side is excused due to being mandatory, and I'm showing you another part of the world in where certain countries are being swindled to chose and keep their "bad actors".

Again, "what about ism". Another part of the world is completely irrelevant when you accuse me of paying taxes that support bad actors. Nope. My watch keeps accurate time. Your irrelevant third world "what about my broken watch" does not. Don't try to use your broken watch to judge my accurate watch. You, sir are an idiot.

Your words:

This whole watch analogy shows that you can't understand anything no matter how many times it has to be dumbed down over and over just to help you understand what is being talked about.

Go ahead, "bro", please point out the flaw in my watch analogy. You, sir are an idiot.

Also, you never answered my question:

Almost forgot, super curious if you think a catholic priest who killed himself before raping the child he totally wanted to rape would go to heaven.

Spin the wheel of excuses again, looking forward to it.

 

[Cis.jd]

Ahem, you are making the argument that my paying mandatory taxes is equivalent to the voluntary tithes paid to the catholic church that protects pedophile priests. I'm refuting your argument. You can continue to deny my refutations, in your child like manner.
Your words:


Thank you for conceding that my taxes do not intentionally supporting bad actors.

No. I'm making the argument that your arguments on the context of Hell, and your example of Catholics because they are paying tithes that is supporting pedophile priests, in which you said is only 10%.
You see, you are so lost even in your arguments. You can claim that you are "refuting my arguments" as much as you want to make your self feel better, but the fact that you don't even know what is the point of the arguments shows that you've lost.

Any government employee is going to buy groceries with the salaries they are paid. And they should be free to purchase what they like with their salaries. For as long as they do not break the law and become a bad actor. This is super simple. As soon as they are found to break the law, they no longer are funded by my taxes and are punished. Seriously, what part of this do you not understand? Are you saying that the government should NEVER EVER HIRE ANY EMPLOYEES JUST IN CASE SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD THEY MAY BREAK THE LAW? You, sir are an idiot.

Which is all because you've been paying them through your taxes. I've already told you that not all politicians get caught, or face the law when they do get caught as referenced in 3rd world countries, yet you ignore this because you know nothing about it. You are really dense. No matter how many times I've dumbed down my posts for you to have an easier time to comprehend you still can't understand it.

Yes, I absolutely ignore your "what about ism" regarding the third world - it is completely irrelevant. You, sir, accused me of funding bad actors through my taxes. You made this accusation. You are wrong. You might as well accuse me of crimes because the people of North Korea are forced to fund Kim Jong-un. You, sir are an idiot.

Your words:

You ignore it because you don't like to read any points showing the fallacy in your arguments. You want to narrow it down so that there are no points being presented on my end and you want this a one sided argument on your favor because you do not like the fact that you are being outsmarted by a theist.

I've always been quite careful and clear here. I've always said, or very much tried to, that the people who are aware (again INTENTIONALITY HERE!!) that the catholic church has been protecting child raping pedophile priests for decades, and still fund the organization are complicit. Yes. Yes. Intentionality matters!! Anyone financially supporting the catholic church being aware that they have been protecting pedophile child raping priests for decades IS ABSOLUTELY COMPLICIT IN FUNDING THE CHILD RAPE FACTORY THAT IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. My taxes do not fund anything similar. You, sir are an idiot.

Yes, and we agreed on that because it all depends on INTENTION. The Catholic Church and every other entity has their corruption, it's not just the church that has been sweeping their issues under the rug even the government does, the government in 3rd world countries protect their bad officials because most of these governments are orchestrated through a dynasty in where the children end up taking the offices of their parents, or their fame gives them the advantage of winning over the poverty masses due to the intentional downgrade of their education system which is made to assure the poverty remains and the masses are not educated enough to understand the concept of voting right.

Your taxes do fund, just like the people in 3rd world countries fund their bad politicians through their taxes. In the end of the day, you can't consider them bad for being the financial support of their governments that are "protecting" their officials.

PS. i already gave you a link about the Pope putting a law against it in the church so that additionally debunks your statement

So, which side of the argument can use this? Hmmmm? I absolutely do mind about their intention. If you are aware that the catholic church protects child raping pedophile priests and you still fund the organization, you are INTENTIONALLY FUNDING THE ORGANIZATION THAT PROTECTS PEDOPHILE PRIESTS. Super duper clear here. You, sir are an idiot.

Catholics are not protecting pedophile priests. They do not give tithes under any knowledge or intention that the priest who work at their local church is doing such things. You are really just throwing dirt because it is religion, and you being a neo-atheist wants to assure that any form of dirt is exclusive to religious establishments only which is why everything else has an excuse except religious people. You really are one sided and just here out of ego not because of anything else.

You are done. You are still very immature in your atheism that you have no care at all for reason, it's just all to religion bash. You can't even string a cohesive argument nor apply any form of regular comprehension towards what you read

 

[Xavier363]

No. I'm making the argument that your arguments on the context of Hell, and your example of Catholics because they are paying tithes that is supporting pedophile priests, in which you said is only 10%.
You see, you are so lost even in your arguments. You can claim that you are "refuting my arguments" as much as you want to make your self feel better, but the fact that you don't even know what is the point of the arguments shows that you've lost.


Which is all because you've been paying them through your taxes. I've already told you that not all politicians get caught, or face the law when they do get caught as referenced in 3rd world countries, yet you ignore this because you know nothing about it. You are really dense. No matter how many times I've dumbed down my posts for you to have an easier time to comprehend you still can't understand it.


You ignore it because you don't like to read any points showing the fallacy in your arguments. You want to narrow it down so that there are no points being presented on my end and you want this a one sided argument on your favor because you do not like the fact that you are being outsmarted by a theist.



Yes, and we agreed on that because it all depends on INTENTION. The Catholic Church and every other entity has their corruption, it's not just the church that has been sweeping their issues under the rug even the government does, the government in 3rd world countries protect their bad officials because most of these governments are orchestrated through a dynasty in where the children end up taking the offices of their parents, or their fame gives them the advantage of winning over the poverty masses due to the intentional downgrade of their education system which is made to assure the poverty remains and the masses are not educated enough to understand the concept of voting right.

Your taxes do fund, just like the people in 3rd world countries fund their bad politicians through their taxes. In the end of the day, you can't consider them bad for being the financial support of their governments that are "protecting" their officials.

PS. i already gave you a link about the Pope putting a law against it in the church so that additionally debunks your statement



Catholics are not protecting pedophile priests. They do not give tithes under any knowledge or intention that the priest who work at their local church is doing such things. You are really just throwing dirt because it is religion, and you being a neo-atheist wants to assure that any form of dirt is exclusive to religious establishments only which is why everything else has an excuse except religious people. You really are one sided and just here out of ego not because of anything else.

You are done. You are still very immature in your atheism that you have no care at all for reason, it's just all to religion bash. You can't even string a cohesive argument nor apply any form of regular comprehension towards what you read

Dude, I've told you before that your "what about ism" regarding the third world or any other distraction you want to bring up will be ignored. I don't live in the third world. You bring up these distractions because you know that you cannot support your argument. You say that my taxes, paid to support the country of Canada go to support bad actors. I've refuted this and you conceded.

Your words:

Yes, and we agreed on that because it all depends on INTENTION. The Catholic Church and every other entity has their corruption, it's not just the church that has been sweeping their issues under the rug even the government does, the government in 3rd world

Third world "what about ism" distraction ignored.

Your words:

Your taxes do fund, just like the people in 3rd world countries fund their bad politicians through their taxes.

Refuted multiple times, third world "what about ism" distraction ignored.

Your words:

Catholics are not protecting pedophile priests.

My words:

If you are aware that the catholic church protects child raping pedophile priests and you still fund the organization, you are INTENTIONALLY FUNDING THE ORGANIZATION THAT PROTECTS PEDOPHILE PRIESTS. Super duper clear here.

I don't know what a neo-atheist is. I've been an atheist (a person who does not believe that any gods exist) since I was about 8 years old, I think. I'm thinking that you want to use neo here to try to conflate atheists with nazis - just an ad hominem attack. You sir, made the claim that as a Canadian, my mandatory taxed go to support bad actors. I've refuted this many times and you have conceded my points on this: taxes are mandatory, tithing is voluntary, intentionality matters (except for priests, apparently). Go ahead, defend your claim that as a Canadian paying mandatory taxes that I'm somehow complicit in supporting bad actors before they are discovered to be bad actors in the same way that voluntary tithing when aware that the catholic church has protected pedophile priests for decades is complicity in supporting these priests. Go ahead. Try to defend your claim without resorting to your "what about ism", which I've repeatedly pointed out are irrelevant distractions and will be pointed out and ignored. Go ahead, dude.

 

[Xavier363]

No. I'm making the argument that your arguments on the context of Hell, and your example of Catholics because they are paying tithes that is supporting pedophile priests, in which you said is only 10%.
You see, you are so lost even in your arguments. You can claim that you are "refuting my arguments" as much as you want to make your self feel better, but the fact that you don't even know what is the point of the arguments shows that you've lost.


Which is all because you've been paying them through your taxes. I've already told you that not all politicians get caught, or face the law when they do get caught as referenced in 3rd world countries, yet you ignore this because you know nothing about it. You are really dense. No matter how many times I've dumbed down my posts for you to have an easier time to comprehend you still can't understand it.


You ignore it because you don't like to read any points showing the fallacy in your arguments. You want to narrow it down so that there are no points being presented on my end and you want this a one sided argument on your favor because you do not like the fact that you are being outsmarted by a theist.



Yes, and we agreed on that because it all depends on INTENTION. The Catholic Church and every other entity has their corruption, it's not just the church that has been sweeping their issues under the rug even the government does, the government in 3rd world countries protect their bad officials because most of these governments are orchestrated through a dynasty in where the children end up taking the offices of their parents, or their fame gives them the advantage of winning over the poverty masses due to the intentional downgrade of their education system which is made to assure the poverty remains and the masses are not educated enough to understand the concept of voting right.


So, just because you have not replied (perhaps you got hit by a bus, etc) I'll not read anything into your silence. Just would like to offer you another opportunity to defend your position.

My words:

You sir, made the claim that as a Canadian, my mandatory taxed go to support bad actors. I've refuted this many times and you have conceded my points on this: taxes are mandatory, tithing is voluntary, intentionality matters (except for priests, apparently). Go ahead, defend your claim that as a Canadian paying mandatory taxes that I'm somehow complicit in supporting bad actors before they are discovered to be bad actors in the same way that voluntary tithing when aware that the catholic church has protected pedophile priests for decades is complicity in supporting these priests. Go ahead. Try to defend your claim without resorting to your "what about ism", which I've repeatedly pointed out are irrelevant distractions and will be pointed out and ignored. Go ahead, dude.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

To answer the OP, I want to die and I don't think it is wrong. I long for it and hope that I can get a good death in a war but any will suit me.

 

[Xavier363]

To answer the OP, I want to die and I don't think it is wrong. I long for it and hope that I can get a good death in a war but any will suit me.

While, IMHO it is not "wrong" to want to die, I'd sure want you to think about why you want to cease to exist. Death is, as far as I can tell, just like it was years before you were born. If you want to die / cease to exist expecting to experience something afterwards - I'd say that is a hard "no". I'm especially concerned that you seem to think that a violent death fighting on one side of a war would be (my words) glorifying? Is it that you think that somehow your life has a "value" that can be "paid" towards some debt if you die doing something that you think is virtuous? I'd sure like to hear some clarification. Also, there are many avenues for treating mental health if you think that it might be to your benefit.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

While, IMHO it is not "wrong" to want to die, I'd sure want you to think about why you want to cease to exist. Death is, as far as I can tell, just like it was years before you were born. If you want to die / cease to exist expecting to experience something afterwards - I'd say that is a hard "no". I'm especially concerned that you seem to think that a violent death fighting on one side of a war would be (my words) glorifying? Is it that you think that somehow your life has a "value" that can be "paid" towards some debt if you die doing something that you think is virtuous? I'd sure like to hear some clarification. Also, there are many avenues for treating mental health if you think that it might be to your benefit.

I don't want or expect an after life. I don't necessary want a violent death, a sniper taking me out or some bomb or missile will do. It doesn't need to be glorious and would prefer nobody even knew my name. I just don't want to die of organ failure in my bed where someone else has to clean up the mess.

 

[Xavier363]

I don't want or expect an after life. I don't necessary want a violent death, a sniper taking me out or some bomb or missile will do. It doesn't need to be glorious and would prefer nobody even knew my name. I just don't want to die of organ failure in my bed where someone else has to clean up the mess.

Thanks for the clarification, I can relate better now. I see that you are a veteran - I am not. I skydive (centre), but I really hope that I don't die from a jump related accident. I really hope that my death is not violent, and is on my terms. I've kind of been planning my death since I was a child - it just made sense to me. I super duper do not want anyone to have to clean up my death scene and experience gore. Just as I think it is abhorrently wrong to turn into oncoming traffic (involving an innocent third party) I think it is irresponsible to make a mess. While I own firearms, I would absolutely NEVER use one to end my life.

I kind of get the "nobody even knew my name" part too. I'd like my life to have a minimal negative impact on the planet so I'd like to donate my remains in one of several ways (medical training, body farm, etc.) and not take up room in a graveyard. I feel like I'm just one of billions of individually insignificant humans on the planet just trying to live a good life and not unnecessarily harm the environment.

Do you live in a state that allows Physician assisted death? Are you currently suffering from a debilitating illness or maybe depression? I'm not a doctor, I'm an engineer so my advise in these areas is flimsy at best. Have you reached out to speak with a therapist? How long have you been feeling this way? Is your partner aware of your feelings on this issue?

No rush, and all the best

 

[Xavier363]

No. I'm making the argument that your arguments on the context of Hell, and your example of Catholics because they are paying tithes that is supporting pedophile priests, in which you said is only 10%.
You see, you are so lost even in your arguments. You can claim that you are "refuting my arguments" as much as you want to make your self feel better, but the fact that you don't even know what is the point of the arguments shows that you've lost.


Which is all because you've been paying them through your taxes. I've already told you that not all politicians get caught, or face the law when they do get caught as referenced in 3rd world countries, yet you ignore this because you know nothing about it. You are really dense. No matter how many times I've dumbed down my posts for you to have an easier time to comprehend you still can't understand it.


You ignore it because you don't like to read any points showing the fallacy in your arguments. You want to narrow it down so that there are no points being presented on my end and you want this a one sided argument on your favor because you do not like the fact that you are being outsmarted by a theist.



Yes, and we agreed on that because it all depends on INTENTION. The Catholic Church and every other entity has their corruption, it's not just the church that has been sweeping their issues under the rug even the government does, the government in 3rd world countries protect their bad officials because most of these governments are orchestrated through a dynasty in where the children end up taking the offices of their parents, or their fame gives them the advantage of winning over the poverty masses due to the intentional downgrade of their education system which is made to assure the poverty remains and the masses are not educated enough to understand the concept of voting right.

Your taxes do fund, just like the people in 3rd world countries fund their bad politicians through their taxes. In the end of the day, you can't consider them bad for being the financial support of their governments that are "protecting" their officials.

PS. i already gave you a link about the Pope putting a law against it in the church so that additionally debunks your statement



Catholics are not protecting pedophile priests. They do not give tithes under any knowledge or intention that the priest who work at their local church is doing such things. You are really just throwing dirt because it is religion, and you being a neo-atheist wants to assure that any form of dirt is exclusive to religious establishments only which is why everything else has an excuse except religious people. You really are one sided and just here out of ego not because of anything else.

You are done. You are still very immature in your atheism that you have no care at all for reason, it's just all to religion bash. You can't even string a cohesive argument nor apply any form of regular comprehension towards what you read

I hear nothing but crickets...

I don't know what a neo-atheist is. I've been an atheist (a person who does not believe that any gods exist) since I was about 8 years old, I think. I'm thinking that you want to use neo here to try to conflate atheists with nazis - just an ad hominem attack. You sir, made the claim that as a Canadian, my mandatory taxed go to support bad actors. I've refuted this many times and you have conceded my points on this: taxes are mandatory, tithing is voluntary, intentionality matters (except for priests, apparently). Go ahead, defend your claim that as a Canadian paying mandatory taxes that I'm somehow complicit in supporting bad actors before they are discovered to be bad actors in the same way that voluntary tithing when aware that the catholic church has protected pedophile priests for decades is complicity in supporting these priests. Go ahead. Try to defend your claim without resorting to your "what about ism", which I've repeatedly pointed out are irrelevant distractions and will be pointed out and ignored. Go ahead, dude.

 

[Cis.jd]

I hear nothing but crickets...

You are useless to respond too. You end up making your own rules on how an argument should go, from flip flopping to only wanting yes or no answers and then going "you didn't explain anything" after you get the exact demand. You really just can't hack the fact that you were schooled and proven to be illiterate.

You have no knowledge of the world which is why you can't understand the 3rd world politician reference, you don't know anything about it or care to absorb that reality. You made a really ridiculous example to back up your hell argument with the whole Catholic priest - tithes reference and you even got confused and lost in your own arguments on the basis of what deserves hell. You are just trying to make a one sided debate to help feed the ego of your newbie atheist image. You failed and you lost, get over it.