Anonymous hacks and exposes Westboro charlatans Baptist Church internal infrastructure during live c

reply to post by Annee


Humanist Manifesto II is an update of the original 1933 Humanist Manifesto. The Humanist Manifesto II was written in 1973. I do understand what the beliefs entail. If you had actually bothered looking it up, you would know it was written in 73. Continue living in ignorance. Wikipedia, a site you seem to have no problem referring to, clearly says it was written in 1973.
In speaking out against religion, it is a religion. It is the worship of man and is really a contradiction because if evolution of man is true, you do not truly exist because you are simply a thought, an idea. Once your body is no longer alive, that is the end of all that made your identity.

Originally posted by AnonymousFem
reply to post by undo

 

Oh come on the issues with the WBC never fade, if they think you are ignoring them, they up the anttie. It does cause harm after a while you know.

As previously stated they deserve everything that is done to them,. They give religion a bad name as a whole.

i understand but if no one is playing, it's wasted energy. 300 years ago, catholic professors decided the ancient world was a myth, based on a mistake made by one of the higher critics, who claimed the ancient greeks couldn't write. (it had a snowball effect) they were wrong, but today, the ancient world is still interpreted thru the lens of 300 year old mistakes, made before the advent of science or archaeology. what this means is, religion had a bad name 300 years ago. anything new is just fuel for the fire.

it should be pertinent to note here that it is ever so easy to make mince meat out of a topic if you're controlling all its aspects. for example, being the preparer, the defender and then the prosecutor

if that doesn't make sense to you, look at it this way: modern debate calls it "the strawman." that's what we have going on now as regards biblical interpretation and as a result, religion in general: the biggest strawman in human history.

anyway, that people still use the info in the bible as an excuse to abuse other people, is a big warning sign, like when your buddy starts acting uncharacteristically, you don't think "oh that's normal for him." you think "what's wrong with my bud?"

Originally posted by soaringhawk

In speaking out against religion, it is a religion. It is the worship of man and is really a contradiction because if evolution of man is true, you do not truly exist because you are simply a thought, an idea. Once your body is no longer alive, that is the end of all that made your identity.

I consider myself a secular humanist. I can't help if you choose to pick your focus.

It is not a religion. It is not the worship of man. I can't help if you don't understand it.

I brought this back to topic once. If you want to address this - - perhaps a separate thread is in order.

reply to post by Annee


You're serving something. Secular humanism is the worship of self. Then again, what is self if existence exist in only the material. If there's spiritual evolution, where did that come from? No, S.H recognizes only the material. It's a contradiction and hypocritical. I really don't think there's anything else to be said about it. So on that I agree with you.

reply to post by Annee


Thw WBC can be related to other cults such as scientology. Groups like this will,continue unless they are stopped. Gives a bad name to religion as a whole. I for one would be in favourof banning the whole lot of it.

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by Annee

 

Thw WBC can be related to other cults such as scientology. Groups like this will,continue unless they are stopped. Gives a bad name to religion as a whole. I for one would be in favourof banning the whole lot of it.

What?

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Do you even have a clue what Scientology was founded on?

I don't consider either of them a cult. People tend to label what they don't know or understand as cults.

IMO - - real cults are very rare.

Originally posted by soaringhawk
reply to post by Annee

 

You're serving something. Secular humanism is the worship of self.

NO - its not.

As suggested - - please start a separate thread. You might learn something.

reply to post by Annee


Scientology is a cult. It is nothing but a controlling, manipulative, money hungry cult created by sci-fi author L. Ron Hubbard. Anyone that would follow it is a fool.

And yes, S.H is a religion. It serves yourSELF and therefore is worship of SELF. It is nothing but Luciferian garbage.

reply to post by Annee


Oh yes I do, from a book made by an idiot to makemoney,whose son committed suicide,over his homosexuality, which Scientoogy does not recognise. That is why it is a cult. They are as bad as he WBC,if not worse. They are not recognised as a religion,in alot of countries,they are infact classedasa cult/business not a religion.

As for your last comment, tell that to the people whom have sufferred at the hands of Scientology,or the relatives, off those whom have died,at the hand of scientology.

reply to post by soaringhawk


AGAIN - - if you are going to keep making false accusations about Secular Humanism - - - start a separate thread.

Let's really hear the truth. Or could you be wrong?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread title is: Anonymous hacks and exposes Westboro charlatans Baptist Church internal infrastructure

nm

reply to post by Annee


I'm not going to argue with you. It is what I said it is. History and the present are testament to it.
If anyone cares for the truth of S.H, they'll see it for what it is. If they want to live in a fantasy world, they won't. What WBC does are no different than what Secular Humanist's have done. Whether openly or secretly. There's plenty of wrong in our world but when it comes down to it, it's all the same. It is the condition of the human nature. Indeed, love is the fulfillment of all law.

Originally posted by soaringhawk
reply to post by Annee

 

I'm not going to argue with you.

Where am I arguing with you? I don't agree with you - but I am not arguing with you.

I asked you to start a thread discussing Secular Humanism - - so we could get to the truth.

Have you done that?

reply to post by Annee


I don't care for drama. A thread isn't needed. There's nothing to discuss. It is what it is, it's black & white. I have nothing else to say about it. Now goodnight.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Shamatt

 

that would make you fundamental about somethings and not fundamental about other things. .
in this case, you're fundie about WBC and WBC is fundie about gays.
and around and around it goes. all of us have some positions that could be considered extreme, (if that's a better word than fundie?). i'm just pointing out that it's one of those action->reaction things.
to diffuse it, instead of having a strong reaction, you choose not to and the whole thing
kinda fades.

I'm sory, but I have come to the carefully considered opinion that you are now talking rubish.

Originally posted by Shamatt
I'm sory, but I have come to the carefully considered opinion that you are now talking rubish.

my slowed response to your accusation was an example of diffusing the emotion of the situation. by doing so, i was able to emotionally detach from the situation enough that now, i can talk about it without also experiencing the discomfort associated with hackers.

when you don't have a strong response to a person acting strongly, it diffuses the emotional power of the issue. and that was my point. action-->not equal reaction=vicious circle stopped.

Over 9000 sins! Good one.

I did some research about this so called "church" and i think they deserved it hell they deserve a lot more. They did really disgusting stuff and if i had attended one of the funerals where they protested i don´t know what i´ve done with those people. Bunch of morons. Just ignore them and hope they piss some really shady people off. You get what you ask for.

reply to post by undo


derp

2nd line.

reply to post by Annee

Scientology is pretty much a manipulative cult, in my opinion. Semantics aside, its organization has committed crimes for which it must be held accountable - look at the death of Lisa McPherson, for example.
I'm 100% for freedom of religion, but the skeletons in the CoS' closet need to be aired until they admit responsibility for their actions, and take earnest steps to make amends.
Just my opinion on the matter anyways

This was a definite win for Anonymous. Good stuff
EDIT: Second line, for good measure