Do it on the daily basis, if you truly seek the truth, god will supply you with it

i used to pray every evening when i was younger i dont know it somehow got lost over time

i should start reading the bible

surely

i started reading the bible too when i was younger too but i dont think i got very far actually i wasnt the biggest reader back then

@Sentient23 The Romans passage is more "Respect authority" rather than prescribing monarchy per se

conetxtually they were speaking of the monarch

So if a monarch is tyrannical or corrupt, then should Christians not rebel against said monarch?

@Sentient23 it is not the government's job to enforce the bibles morals

except in the case of public decency because that is a bit different

Of course not. Again if you actually read the context, that concern is answered

Why cherry pick where you apply Christian morality and where you not apply Christian morality? Which criteria is being used for when its okay to apply and when it isn't? And why?

I'm not Christian

and I think religion should mostly stay out of legislation

because if you do this then you isolate other religions

You said that there would be circumstances in which Christian morality would be enforced?

when did I say that

"except in the case of public decency"

that has nothing to do with Christian morals

I just think that children shouldn't see grown men naked

Then why say "except in such and such cases" when you previously said "the government shouldnt enforce bibles morals"

because that is an exception

and because it harms other citizens

Why is that an exception?

because it can mentally scar children

So?

I don't want children to be mentally scarred

That's all

I am have lax views on what is allowed and what isn't but atleast do it with some pants on for the love of god

You can't justify it without religion, which is the point

yes you can

you can say how it harmfully affects children

that has nothing to do with religion

yes but you cant explain why that in and of itself is bad fundamentally speaking

because mental health is important

why should i suppress my pleasurie urges just because some kid willl be scared? At the end of the day, its just two pieces of meat rubbing against one another, in which one piece of meat has a chemical react in a certain way, and the other also has a chemical react in a certain way?

because mental health is fuckin important

at that point you are exposing the child to something harmful

thus infringing upon its rights

Its rights?

Are you seriously defending people who walk naked around children? @Sentient23

Lol justify that its a right to not have your mental health downplayed

@Florida Man Im demonstrating the absurdity of atheism

calm down bucko

you are right, I misspoke, I meant that it is harming the child

you don't need religion to justify that that is bad

Again, So what. Why should "mental health is important" trump my mental health which would gets an urge to sexually abuse children every 2 weeks

Yes you do

Without religion, morality is subjective

Fundamentally speaking, you can't justify it

Without appealing to a higher being

no there should be a standard in place, if it harms another being, then it is immoral

Why

and also if you are harmed by not harming other people, then a mental institution should be recommended

Wait why? I'm not harming anyone am I? And yet I'm being harmed, so its immoral for me not to molest children, but its also immoral if i molest children

you are harming the child

if you are harmed by not harming then that is immoral

Exactly

based on the same standard I already stated

See the contradiction?

no I am not

Me not molesting children is immoral
But me molesting children is immoral

So wait, if I harm another man, it's immoral, but if I don't harm another man, it's also immoral?

The latter being true entails the falsity of the former, but the former is true, but if the former is true, it entails the falsity of the latter. Which breaks the law of non contradiction

yes I misspoke

what I meant to say is that you cannot use that justification if that involves harming another being

and that an alternate solution should be prescribed then

No well those are the only two alternatives

If i get put into a mental institution i obviously don't get to rape children

If I don't get put in a mental institution, but refrain from raping children, i still get hurt

but if i decide to rape children, it would also be immoral

no but you get help to diminish that urge

no it is not immoral to be in a mental institution

You realize that's impossible

Its impossible to cure pedophiles

Which is why people wanna just kill them

No?

google it

That's demonstrably false

Those who are given therapy are statistically less likely to reoffense

me going to a mental institution would entail me not raping kids, but me not raping kids would harm me mentally

@✧☽ 𝒹 𝓇 𝑒 𝒶 𝓂 𝒾 𝓃 𝑔 ☾✧ Incorrect. You need to prove that its the therapy that does it not the fear of jail

There's legitimate statistics on the reoffense rate of those who are given therapy and those who aren't and those who do receive it reoffense less

Incorrect. You need to prove that its the therapy that does it not the fear of jail

Well it's consistent with rehabilitation oriented crime stats across the world

Ok?

Which are proven to be more effective in lowering offense rates than prison systems

How does that demonstrate its the therapy rather than fear of jail

Well you are aware that the ones who go to jail reoffend more than those who get treatment?

that you don't need religion to justify that public indecency is bad

That literally ends the argument right there

Provide evidence that those who go to jail reoffend more than those who go to therapy in terms of pedophilia

@moira Yes you do mate. Even mainstream atheists agree

with this

You mean in terms of sexual violence?

Yes

Pedophilia and sexual offense aren't synonymous

You don't

Well we were referring about "making an offense'

am I a mainstream atheist?