Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why do these people always have something to hi (Score 1) 333

by Atzanteol (#46794923) Attached to: VA Supreme Court: Michael Mann Needn't Turn Over All His Email

What you said doesn't contradict what I said. What you're actually asking is that Manning provide the evidence that Levin *should have had* when he was running off his mouth. This is punishing Manning for trying to defend himself through the only legal means available to him.

I say - if you're running off your mouth about lies for which you have no evidence then you're just as guilty of libel whether or not what you say is true. Or at least should be discouraged. Otherwise that gives me the ability to go running around slandering others as a way of forcing disclosure of whatever I want (transactions, proprietary data, sex tapes, etc.).

Comment: Re:If you make this a proof of God... (Score 1) 595

'God' didn't write the story, a man did, hence the story involves it being okay to gang rape some guys daughters as you put it.

I'm absolutely fine with saying the Bible is not the inspired word actually. I'm not sure why you wouldn't think I am. I'm a bit surprised you are...

You really shouldn't talk about stories you don't understand in the slightest. About the only thing god 'wrote' was the ten commandments, and even that story was ... written by man saying god did it.

See - this is what Christians do when presented with the unpleasant bits of the Bible. All of a sudden "it's man's word." But find parts you agree with and it becomes "God's word" again. I don't know your personal theology. But to me it sounds like we partially agree. The Bible was written by man and is therefore no more important in many regards than anything else - except as an historic text. It proves nothing divine.

Its mind numbing that people like to try and tear religion apart with logic like you are, but you ignore the fact that parts you're picking on were tainted by man.

How do you know this? And how do you know other parts aren't? What justification do you use for cherry-picking parts you like from those you don't?

Comment: Re:If you make this a proof of God... (Score 1) 595

I think the point is that what God considers to be "righteous" is entirely arbitrary and random like the whims of a mad-man. One minute he's saving the life of a man who would give his daughters to an angry mob to be gang-raped, the next he's torturing a guy for being just a little too self-centered, then he's flooding the entire Earth because 'fuck it.'

Comment: Re:If you make this a proof of God... (Score 1) 595

The thing is - Lot was "the guy" God saved. This shining example of humanity offered his daughters up to an angry mob for gang-rape. Sure "in that time and context" it may have been a "big deal." But we're talking about objective morals set forth by a morally perfect deity. God in the story effectively rubber stamps Lot's actions as those of a virtuous man since he allows him to be saved.

Not to mention the laughable tale at the end about how Lot's daughters "get him drunk and sleep with him." Riiiiight. That's it. *They* seduced *me*!

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen