Communism and Atheism - Especially for resident atheists

[byteresistor]

Your arguments have been destroyed many times already. It is only you who refuses to see it. It is clear you aren't here to debate. You are here to present your opinions as facts and nothing is going to change your stubborn mind.

[iandonlyhim]

lol, but you just destroyed your own argument by bringing up mother theresa. Our argument is that good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

LOL and how is that? You are just putting words in my mouth man. You say I said something or at least meant something which I did not. your first and second sentense are contradictory. How can you in once sentense say that good people will do good and bad people will do bad and in second sentense you say for good people to do bad things it takes religion? If good people do good things and bad people bad then how can good people do bad things with religion? How can you say that, really? isnt it bad people that are doing bad in the name of religion?

If you are saying communism is religion then it is not. I know you atheists would like to make it that to denigrate religions but communism is not religin at all.

I don't expect you to read this rebuttal since you've already admitted you don't read other people's posts, but it's useful for other people who may be confused by your bullshit.

Again, do all you want to put words in my mouth but truth is not the above. I only dont read and respond to posters who dont read and respond to my posts or people who write essays to dance around the bush to bore you. So say all you want this is not truth.

[iandonlyhim]

Your arguments have been destroyed many times already. It is only you who refuses to see it. It is clear you aren't here to debate. You are here to present your opinions as facts and nothing is going to change your stubborn mind.

Well, that all depends from where you look at it. You can in your little world think whatever you want but it is not true. From where I look at it the feeling is likewise.

So how can you say what you said above when you dont know the other side? So I say the same thing to you.

You AND YOUR POSSE are here to present your opinions as facts and nothing is going to change your stubborn mind.

[iandonlyhim]

Very true, Dio, very true!!! Yes they do and when it is proven that a Athiest can be as bad as theist there is no acceptance there but instead, like muslims, they will try to make million excuses as if someone cares!!!

Having fun beating on your straw man? You seem to be enjoying yourself.

Any of these would be such a nice avatar for iandonlyhim



Or maybe this ..



Or this



or this ...

This is the best defence a punjabi can come up with? post pictures? Why because I am not atheist and dont agree with your BS?

[byteresistor]

How can you in once sentense say that good people will do good and bad people will do bad and in second sentense you say for good people to do bad things it takes religion? If good people do good things and bad people bad then how can good people do bad things with religion?

Ladies and gentlemen, we're dealing with a complete moron here.

[iandonlyhim]

How can you in once sentense say that good people will do good and bad people will do bad and in second sentense you say for good people to do bad things it takes religion? If good people do good things and bad people bad then how can good people do bad things with religion?

Ladies and gentlemen, we're dealing with a complete moron here.

you copy my posts, modify them or dont copy it wholly and I am moron. Ob boy! What is the world coming to? I guess too much atheism in it.

I have become from anti-muslim to anti-atheist right on this forum. I am no longer Anti-muslim. I will instead fight atheism and this is final.

[Sten]

How can you in once sentense say that good people will do good and bad people will do bad and in second sentense you say for good people to do bad things it takes religion? If good people do good things and bad people bad then how can good people do bad things with religion?

Ladies and gentlemen, we're dealing with a complete moron here.

I've been saying that ever since he got here. Took you guys THIS long to figure that out?

[iandonlyhim]

When you are left with no defence do you usually act like kids?

[byteresistor]

When you are left with no defence do you usually act like kids?

We defended our case already. Now we're just mocking you because you don't understand to admit you've lost in this silly little crusade of yours.

you copy my posts, modify them or dont copy it wholly and I am moron. Ob boy! What is the world coming to? I guess too much atheism in it.

I haven't modified your posts. As for the fact that I haven't copied them wholly... so fucking what? You already admitted you don't even read my posts.

I have become from anti-muslim to anti-atheist right on this forum. I am no longer Anti-muslim. I will instead fight atheism and this is final.

What made you come to that conclusion? Because the atheists overwhelmed you with common sense and logic and it was too much for your brain to handle? God save you from those evul bloodthirsty atheists. They're going to get you in your sleep, better watch out... boohoo

[Sten]

When you are left with no defence do you usually act like kids?

Mockery is the best defence against stupidity. We tried debating properly with you, and you admitted you don't even read our posts. You're a joke, and you deserve to be treated like one.

[joseph]

I have become from anti-muslim to anti-atheist right on this forum.

I am no longer Anti-muslim. I will instead fight atheism and this is final.

Enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You are from today God's friend.

[iandonlyhim]

When you are left with no defence do you usually act like kids?

Mockery is the best defence against stupidity. We tried debating properly with you, and you admitted you don't even read our posts. You're a joke, and you deserve to be treated like one.

Well, I will tell you this. You call me stupid because now you gave communism a status of religion because if you dont, your case becomes weak. Even if communism is like religion who made it? Atheists. But now you also want to call atheists a followers of religion because they were good people and they did bad thing in name of communism. Why do you get authority to call communism a religion? Who are you? Communism is a political system not a belief. It is not a religion. If you want to call it a religion, prove it. Bring me a proof from a valid source that communism is religin.

So over an all, your case revolves around this: as long as someone does something bad it is due to a religion. So you can call me stupid or whatever but for a change, are you going to be reasonable and fair in your posts? WTF, wherever your belief is questioned you get into unfair and dishonest mode to defend it and you do it by most irresonable way and then have nerves to call me stupid.

you work with simple theory, best way of defence is offence. That might be true in wars but not in reason. Why dont you defend yourself fairly and reasonably?

[joseph]

iandonlyhim, you are a reasonable guy.

You can see the most Atheists are incapable of seeing logical or scientific evidence.

Use your gift fully only on those who are reasonable.

Would you waste time preparing good food for those who like to eat only garbage?

[byteresistor]

So over an all, your case revolves around this: as long as someone does something bad it is due to a religion.

You are very good at selecting what to read and then twisting it to suit your pov.

Why dont you defend yourself fairly and reasonably?

We did. You admitted that you don't read our rebuttals. And looking at your comments (including the one above) it is no wonder you don't see that we used reason in our arguments.

[ixolite]

iXolite wrote:

Communism =/= atheism. Communism is like other religions, it doesn't like competition and tries to erradicate it.

I totally agree, Communism != atheism . I diddnt say that they were same either.

No? What's this then?

Since atheists consider their non-belief and skepticism as superior to others and that is fine, everyone is free to think that way but since atheists blame so many crimes of humanity on religions and religious leaders would they truthfully and honestly take the blame for supression and killing of religious people in communism since communism is atheist.

Honestly, there is no way around it and no argument on it. Atheists claim superiority in being atheists because religions caused so much "evil" so then will they honestly take responsibility for the likes of Marx, Lenin, Mao and pol pot?

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=4643

Btw, pretty funny that you chose communism and not i.e. Buddhism.

The main thing here is fine so religions teach violence and because of that much suffering has happened but why diddnt the lack of religion bring any better results?

It doesn't? So how comes there are i.e. so much less atheists in prison?

If communism is like other religions then it was made by athiest like religions were made by theists.

Communism was made by the same type of people who made religions, powerhungry conmen and/or delusional fucks.

Btw, I notice you seem to be here only to discuss atheism. You know we are a forum about Islam, right?

You are right again but when I find athiesm as a bigger threat to my freedom than I naturaly speak up against it.

Yeah, because we atheists have holy scriptures that say we should slay all theists...oh, wait, we haven't.

Yes it is anti-islam site but I am here because I am anti muslim actions, not Islam.

I will take Islam over athiesm anyday.

Not surprising, considering the links of Sikhism to Islam.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 512#544512
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 708#553708 (garbage can, you need to be logged in to see it)

And you may pleaes ask the same questions to athiests on this site, it would be great.

Been there, done that.

If this is anti-Islam site you should be telling atheists the same instead telling me as I can easily prove that I have not been a big poster on this athiest subject until recently and I have been here more than 3 years.

Yeah, I noticed, before that you were busy in the old Islam vs Other Religions forum, before we cleaned it, also not discussing Islam.


Frankly, seeing your latest topic, confirms to me that you're just trolling and this one confirms it even more.

[Sten]

Well, I will tell you this. You call me stupid because now you gave communism a status of religion because if you dont, your case becomes weak. Even if communism is like religion who made it? Atheists. But now you also want to call atheists a followers of religion because they were good people and they did bad thing in name of communism. Why do you get authority to call communism a religion? Who are you? Communism is a political system not a belief. It is not a religion. If you want to call it a religion, prove it. Bring me a proof from a valid source that communism is religin.

I didn't call communism a religion. Communism is an IDEOLOGY. Religion is also an ideology. The ideological similarities between, say, Stalinist communism and religious belief are undeniable. Not that you'd know this, since you don't appear to know what ideology is, and you don't appear to know what communism is. Discussing this is like discussing a topic with a child who parrots half-remembered phrases from his parents. You don't even bother to find out about what you're arguing, you just spew rhetoric.

So over an all, your case revolves around this: as long as someone does something bad it is due to a religion. So you can call me stupid or whatever but for a change, are you going to be reasonable and fair in your posts? WTF, wherever your belief is questioned you get into unfair and dishonest mode to defend it and you do it by most irresonable way and then have nerves to call me stupid.

You are stupid, and an idiot, and this will be something like the fourth time I have repeated this: Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

lol, it seems that the angrier you get, the worse your sentence structure and spelling becomes. This could be fun.

you work with simple theory, best way of defence is offence. That might be true in wars but not in reason. Why dont you defend yourself fairly and reasonably?

Tried that, you didn't read or understand my posts. I'm not going to waste time writing detailed responses to a moron who's proved he doesn't even read what I write. Now I'm just having fun treating you like the lolcow you are. How does it feel being the laughingstock of the forum, mr lolcow?

[iandonlyhim]

Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

I understand that punk but the question was why is it that what you say is supposed to be correct? Why should this statement be a taken as a fact? Is it because you say so or because you actually have a reason to say so? Because just in your post above you said communism is not a religion but an ideology and religion is also an ideology. So is it ideology or religion that is needed for good people to do bad things?

If you meant ideology then sure we agree but then communism is atheist ideology. So either we accept that atheists are also capable of being as evil as theists with a wrong ideology or you prove otherwise? In other words, there is no gaurantee that being atheist will be any better of an option as far as crimes on humanity is concerned. Agree?

Tried that, you didn't read or understand my posts. I'm not going to waste time writing detailed responses to a moron who's proved he doesn't even read what I write. Now I'm just having fun treating you like the lolcow you are. How does it feel being the laughingstock of the forum, mr lolcow?

You make it sound like I actually care and as if you actually bother me. I am just calming down myself because I got a warning because one of you cowards went and complained to Ms otherwise I am sure you remember you were my B!tch for longest time. About reason, NO you have not been reasonable all you have been is made excuses to prove that atheism is in anyway a better option, by hook or crook. I will never back down or get tired get it punk? If you bothered me a wee bit I wouldn't be here as I am as free to not come here.

ANd I am not the only one who thinks you atheists never debate reasonably. A agnostic man in Athiesm = Islam thread said the same. Wonder why that is????

[Sten]

Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

I understand that punk but the question was why is it that what you say is supposed to be correct? Why should this statement be a taken as a fact? Is it because you say so or because you actually have a reason to say so? Because just in your post above you said communism is not a religion but an ideology and religion is also an ideology. So is it ideology or religion that is needed for good people to do bad things?

If you meant ideology then sure we agree but then communism is atheist ideology. So either we accept that atheists are also capable of being as evil as theists with a wrong ideology or you prove otherwise? In other words, there is no gaurantee that being atheist will be any better of an option as far as crimes on humanity is concerned. Agree?

Totalitarian Communism (not just communism, not that you'd know the difference) is an atheist ideology that is similar to religious belief, it just substitutes a head of state in place of a god. It's a religion in everything but name.

Tried that, you didn't read or understand my posts. I'm not going to waste time writing detailed responses to a moron who's proved he doesn't even read what I write. Now I'm just having fun treating you like the lolcow you are. How does it feel being the laughingstock of the forum, mr lolcow?

You make it sound like I actually care and as if you actually bother me. I am just calming down myself because I got a warning because one of you cowards went and complained to Ms otherwise I am sure you remember you were my B!tch for longest time. About reason, NO you have not been reasonable all you have been is made excuses to prove that atheism is in anyway a better option, by hook or crook. I will never back down or get tired get it punk? If you bothered me a wee bit I wouldn't be here as I am as free to not come here.

ANd I am not the only one who thinks you atheists never debate reasonably. A agnostic man in Athiesm = Islam thread said the same. Wonder why that is????

You just got done telling me how you don't care etc, then you tell me you need calming down because of something that happened... on this forum. Newsflash little miss crybaby - NOTHING that happens on the internet should emotionally affect you in any way, if it does you need to look at some self control techniques. You must be a real no-lifer to actually have your mood affected by something that happens on the internet. I can tell when you get angry because your spelling and grammar becomes childlike and messy. It's entertaining and makes me laugh. The fact that you keep going on about "debating reasonably" almost makes me shoot fanta out my nose. I don't think you'd know a reasonable debate if it clubbed you over the head and then kicked you in the nads.

lol I love internet tough guys. Why don't you call me punk some more and act all tough, maybe we can have an internet fistfight and give each other internet bloody noses.

[diotima64]

I know you Catholics are really into revisionist history, but please... Catholicism was fine with birth control?


Not even close. Pope Pius XI (Papacy 6 February 1922-10 February 1939) said, "Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, ... in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, ... proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

1930, mind; 1930.

This was the official position of the Catholic Church for ages; well into the 20th century. Pius' successors (including the "liberal" John Paul II) all kept the strong anti-birth control (and de-facto pro-STD) position. So again: Untold suffering, and on top of that, horrifically anti-scientific arrogance that assumes that all the world needs to do is to become "more Christian" and everything will be fine.

What ARE you blubbering on about? For one, ALL christian denominations banned birth control until 1932 the CoE caved in, so how would your "accusation" be specific to catholics? Second- what does birth control have to do with "repressing sexuality" or whatever it is, you rant on about? "Untold suffering" until finally the pill was invented? Oh, give me a break! Hard as it might be for you to understand, but there WERE times (most times, actually, in history), when NOT having children - lots of them - was considered a misfortune.
Fyi: there´s a good reason to ban artificial means of birth control as well as abortion - wide field that I have no intention of going in right now, but "repressing sexuality" certainly is not part of it. And how disingenious of you, to now mix in "horrifically anti-scientific arrogance" - just one more proof to show, how completely ignorant you are.
But that is nothing new. You are a mere parrot - I bet you never had a single thought in your whole life, that was really YOURS. All you do is repeat the drivel-du-jour you have been fed with. Colleges abound with your type, I know it well, having done my bit of law and philosophy in four different universities.

I know you love to think that I'm just an ignorant dilettante in the face of your oh-so-superior knowledge, but I know plenty, and you yourself are staggeringly ignorant or blind when it comes to your own religion.

Lol - I never claimed to have "superior" knowledge - unlike you arrogant little puppy, I don´t bow to my image in the mirror admiringly - I just know a pathetic fraud when I see it.
I AM old enough to realise, that reading books is far from enough... you actually have to digest and understand them, think about them. You don´t. You just swallow them without a single critical thought of your own.
For example - you uncritically repeat the drivel of how the church "repressed sexuality", when the CHURCH actually thinks Sex is SACRED, part of a sacrament, and while of course there have been ascetics and repressed people among catholics, our doctrine is far from anti-sex... we just give it a certain place, like ALL of western civilisation did, until the sixties.You obviously have NO clue about catholic culture, or art. And btw: most people CAN live AND enjoy life without having to screw just about anything that moves. It´s hardly "untold suffering" to stay faithful to your husband or wife for most people. The church does NOT ban sex - it even declares it part of a sacrament, i.e. marriage. It connects sex with respect of your partner, with love. Hormone-driven freshmen might find that limiting on a friday night, true, but most grown-ups can handle it. Also, the church teaches we are all sinners. Making mistakes is no reason to be desperate. Caholics used to have a markedly LOWER need for psychiatrists, than other people. Thanks to confession.
In all this, as usual, you argue without knowing facts, let alone truly understanding them, and without so much as thinking about your premise, that this is BAAAAAD, causing "untold misery". Indiscriminate fudging around also caused and causes "untold misery", you know. But that is too much to consider, when one can simply repeat what one has been fed, and what everyone "cool" on campus thinks, too. Oh, and of course no word from you on Mr. Freud´s ideas on the matter... he was far more puritanical, than the church, you know. HE thought "repression" of one´s urges the source of all culture. An idea obviously completely alien to you.

[crazymonkie_]

What ARE you blubbering on about? For one, ALL christian denominations banned birth control until 1932 the CoE caved in, so how would your "accusation" be specific to catholics?

Of course all of them were against birth control. All Christian sects were railing against the Pill when it was invented in the early 60s.

However- your sect was still a part of this business. And it's not as if this was some big break from their beliefs.

Second- what does birth control have to do with "repressing sexuality" or whatever it is, you rant on about?

Plenty. If birth control is not available- and there were ancient methods, also suppressed by Christianity (and later Islam) that allowed more free reign to sexuality- the danger for damage to a woman giving birth with no regard for spacing, and the danger of a person who, pushed away from healthier expressions of sexuality, would find very dangerous outlets (like prostitutes) was great. Again: Sexuality is a powerful thing. It should not be, and cannot be, pushed into a little corner; those who do the pushing have no right or reason to pretend that they're "sex-positive" for allowing that puny space.

"Untold suffering" until finally the pill was invented? Oh, give me a break! Hard as it might be for you to understand, but there WERE times (most times, actually, in history), when NOT having children - lots of them - was considered a misfortune.

Yeah, but that's not relevant. I didn't say the Pill specifically. Latex condoms were available years before the Pill. When it comes to having lots of children: In those times, people were often ignorant of spacing. If they weren't ignorant of spacing, they were ignorant of the fact that child birth leeches calcium out of the woman's bones, causing serious (sometimes dangerous) bone density loss.

My grandmother, for instance, had ten children, spaced out over 20 years. Which doesn't seem that bad- until you consider that she broke her hip and it didn't even stay together after they tried to pin it. Why? Well, all that wonderful child-rearing you're implying is better than family planning.

The people of those times (not even that long ago) were ignorant. We today have no excuse. It causes suffering, especially for the women having the children. As great as I think kids are, we humans are not meant to have loads of kids.

Fyi: there´s a good reason to ban artificial means of birth control as well as abortion - wide field that I have no intention of going in right now, but "repressing sexuality" certainly is not part of it.

Yes, I know you think that you've got a good reason, but it really comes down to your dogma- some vague sense about the "sanctity of life" and "souls" or something like that.

And how disingenious of you, to now mix in "horrifically anti-scientific arrogance" - just one more proof to show, how completely ignorant you are.

Spacing, bone density, calcium, etc. Yeah. I'm disingenuous.

But that is nothing new. You are a mere parrot - I bet you never had a single thought in your whole life, that was really YOURS. All you do is repeat the drivel-du-jour you have been fed with. Colleges abound with your type, I know it well, having done my bit of law and philosophy in four different universities.

So you focus your life through two disciplines where the point isn't truth or evidence, but how well you can present the case so it looks truthful, and you complain about me being disingenuous? And you claim to be able to tell, based on what I present of myself in an Internet forum, based on off-the-cuff remarks and mostly dismissive remarks against people who bend the truth, like yourself, who I am, what I think, what I've read, what I've done with what I've read? You really are arrogant- I no longer have even the slightest doubt.

I know you love to think that I'm just an ignorant dilettante in the face of your oh-so-superior knowledge, but I know plenty, and you yourself are staggeringly ignorant or blind when it comes to your own religion.

Lol - I never claimed to have "superior" knowledge - unlike you arrogant little puppy, I don´t bow to my image in the mirror admiringly - I just know a pathetic fraud when I see it.

Oh? So this:

You are a mere parrot - I bet you never had a single thought in your whole life, that was really YOURS. All you do is repeat the drivel-du-jour you have been fed with. Colleges abound with your type, I know it well, having done my bit of law and philosophy in four different universities.

....is you NOT acting superior?

Just casually mentioning that you have "done (your) bit of law and philosophy in four different universities," and not using that fact as a way to impress your sense of intellectual superiority on me or whoever may be reading?

I AM old enough to realise, that reading books is far from enough... you actually have to digest and understand them, think about them. You don´t. You just swallow them without a single critical thought of your own.

Duh and duh. Again- you presuming to know who I am, what I believe, and what I've done with the knowledge that I've picked up, marks you as arrogant and foolish, no matter your age or the letters behind your name.

For example - you uncritically repeat the drivel of how the church "repressed sexuality", when the CHURCH actually thinks Sex is SACRED, part of a sacrament, and while of course there have been ascetics and repressed people among catholics, our doctrine is far from anti-sex... we just give it a certain place, like ALL of western civilisation did, until the sixties.

So if I say, "I think eating is sacred, a gift from god. Therefore, it has to be in a special place: I made a room, sanctified it, and we'll only eat on Wednesday" would you call that "food positive?" Hardly. Same thing with sexuality. It was FAR more open before Christianity suppressed it- pushed it to a special spot and gave it the term "sacred," which translates, in Christian sense, to "don't touch it, it's from god, and therefore perfect and unchangeable."

You obviously have NO clue about catholic culture, or art.

I have plenty of "clues" about Catholic culture. It was the reason the West lost classical Latin until the 15th century. Good job, RCC!

And btw: most people CAN live AND enjoy life without having to screw just about anything that moves.

Now you're trying to make it seem like I said "SCREW EVERYTHING!" My, how dishonest of you! Does "un-repressed sexuality" mean "whore?" No, not even close.

It´s hardly "untold suffering" to stay faithful to your husband or wife for most people.

And I never even hinted that it was so. So please stop making straw men. I was talking about how repression of sexuality, and more specifically sex education, caused untold suffering. That the fact that even discussing sexuality was avoided, thus leading to staggering ignorance, plus the male bias in all Western culture into the 20th century, combined to cause a fairly decent number of men to get STDs (which they wouldn't have gotten if they had been able to be sexually active with 'respectable women,' had it been historically possible) and then pass them on to their children and wives unwittingly. Or just not tell them.

So yes, untold suffering is a good way to describe that. Your Church had a hand in the damage that was done.

The church does NOT ban sex - it even declares it part of a sacrament, i.e. marriage.

I said *suppresses*, not *bans.* Read my previous comment about food.

It connects sex with respect of your partner, with love. Hormone-driven freshmen might find that limiting on a friday night, true, but most grown-ups can handle it. Also, the church teaches we are all sinners. Making mistakes is no reason to be desperate. Caholics used to have a markedly LOWER need for psychiatrists, than other people. Thanks to confession.

Official Church doctrine still calls for the submission of the female partner to the male partner. I'd not call that respect- I'd call that domination.

Besides which, you're sticking to this black/white vision of "all or nothing", either married or celibate until marriage. It's not healthy. It's also very possible it has nothing to do with confession- as confession is another form of the "talking cure," it's not surprising Catholics had a lower need for psychiatrists. It's also possible that they didn't "need" it in the same way that Jehovah's Witnesses don't "need" blood transfusions. More a matter of culture and privacy- taking care of things "in house" so to speak. Though that's really speculation.

In all this, as usual, you argue without knowing facts, let alone truly understanding them, and without so much as thinking about your premise, that this is BAAAAAD, causing "untold misery".

And you don't even have a premise. You're just making false connections, either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I wrote, and doing your lawyerly best to make it seem like I have no ground to stand on.

Indiscriminate fudging around also caused and causes "untold misery", you know.

Yeah, and I never said it didn't.

Remember? SAFE sex? I mentioned birth control earlier- and you took that to mean the Pill- and now you're acting like I didn't mention ANY birth control. And going back again to your black/white ideas of what I mean by un-repressed sexuality.

But that is too much to consider, when one can simply repeat what one has been fed, and what everyone "cool" on campus thinks, too. Oh, and of course no word from you on Mr. Freud´s ideas on the matter... he was far more puritanical, than the church, you know. HE thought "repression" of one´s urges the source of all culture. An idea obviously completely alien to you.

I didn't mention Freud because he's been debunked. Why would I bring in someone like Freud? I might as well bring in Lamarck when talking about evolutionary theory. I'm plenty familiar with Freud, and except for the very, very basic ideas of the unconscious, there's not really anything worthwhile about his theories left to talk about.

Though I'm not sure I'd agree that he was far more puritannical than the Church. He was just much more explicit in what he believed the origin of sexuality was and the way it worked. He was dead wrong, of course, but at least, unlike the Church, his ideas *can* be discarded.