Quebec bans religious teaching in publicly subsidized daycares

[Kidlicious]

Imran,

It could be that Paul did eat food that was sacrificed to an idol. If so, he did not say that God commands that we eat food sacrificed to an idol in order not to offend the Gentiles. That's my opinion.

[Elok]

"Think of others" is not the same as putting others before yourself. Again, can an atheist act in a way that is not natural human behaviour? Not that I know of. In fact, it's my experience that they believe that it's good to just be natural.

If we're allowed to go by experience, I've known my agnostic father for twenty-seven years. He might be grumpy, but I'd never call him immoral.

[Kidlicious]

Elok,

I'm assuming he's not the hostile type. Or is he?

[Elok]

Hostile? You mean to religion? Not really, he was raised Unitarian so he's been agnostic all his life. So it's only people who are directly antagonistic to Christianity who aren't allowed to be moral? That gets Lori off the hook, at least. He's not hostile to religion per se, only to you.

[Lorizael]

Take it literally. Idk what the issue is.

A literal interpretation is impossible because it would make your statement untrue. You said you didn't have a response to what I said, yet you responded to me. Therefore I must conclude that there's more to what you said than just a literal statement. The best approximation I can come up with is that you don't have a good response to what I said because it's easier to know when others are lying than when you yourself are lying. This would suggest that you might have a good response to what I said if you were better at knowing when you are lying.

[Kidlicious]

Hostile? You mean to religion? Not really, he was raised Unitarian so he's been agnostic all his life. So it's only people who are directly antagonistic to Christianity who aren't allowed to be moral? That gets Lori off the hook, at least. He's not hostile to religion per se, only to you.

Human nature is the same with everyone.

[Kidlicious]

A literal interpretation is impossible because it would make your statement untrue. You said you didn't have a response to what I said, yet you responded to me. Therefore I must conclude that there's more to what you said than just a literal statement. The best approximation I can come up with is that you don't have a good response to what I said because it's easier to know when others are lying than when you yourself are lying. This would suggest that you might have a good response to what I said if you were better at knowing when you are lying.

[Lorizael]

Yeah. See. This is why debates with you never get anywhere, Kid. Whenever you encounter something you don't understand, you never actually put forth any effort into understanding it. You just say the other person is stupid or crazy or not understanding your point.

You're like the special needs children my girlfriend teaches who throw temper tantrums whenever they fail to get a 100% on their spelling test, which is always.

[Kidlicious]

I'm not throwing any tantrums. It seems to me that your deploying a cheap trick. In fact, this thread stands as an example of how people on this website reason.

[N35t0r]

I'm not throwing any tantrums. It seems to me that your deploying a cheap trick. In fact, this thread stands as an example of how people on this website reason.

It mainly stands as a proof of your complete lack of debating skills.