'Duck Dynasty' Star Imagines Vivid Rape And Murder Scenario For Atheist Family

a reply to: Xaphan

And then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?’”

Well except for the law... You can't argue THAT doesn't exist. Also, if the law exists and morality doesn't come from god (as this atheist family would believe) then that means humans came up with the law. Ergo, humans can have morality without god.

I don't like that guy. I hate his "show", too. What a bunch of morons. Looks like Phil got a bit turned on when talking about that, too.
I also think he's way off base. I'm not at all religious but I have morals. I care very much how I treat people. I also care very much about right and wrong. You don't need religion for that.
ETA: The thing about marrying underage girls really made me sick. What the hell is wrong with him? You don't even joke about that.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
We'd better not get rid of religion. All the Christians would be pillaging and looting and raping without their heavenly reward system.

They did that when they came here to the US. If you bring that up though they'll say that they weren't real Christians.

a reply to: Xaphan

The mentally handicapped really should limit their public speaking engagements. What an imbecile. I hope this destroys at least their tv show. It's total crap.

ETA to clarify, if this DOESN'T pull the show off the air, this society is sicker by far than even i estimated.

a reply to: Urantia1111

The problem is that the viewership that watches his show LIKE those comments. The last time they tried to kick him off the show for his insane comments, public backlash caused them to reverse the decision.

Phil Robertson - GQ Comments

On December 18, 2013, A&E announced the indefinite suspension of Robertson from the network following an interview with Drew Magary of GQ.[2] When during the interview for a featured article in GQ's January 2014 issue entitled "What the Duck?" Robertson was asked what he thought was sinful and responded,[22] "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men." He paraphrased a Biblical passage from First Corinthians by saying "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right." Robertson also questioned the appeal of same-sex relationships saying that a vagina is more appealing to a man. Robertson said that he does not judge anyone, but leaves that up to God saying,[2][23][24][25] "We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus—whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?"

In response to initial criticisms A&E released a statement from Robertson saying, "I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me." later that day the network announced his suspension.[26] After a strong backlash from supporters, including a Facebook page that accumulated 1.5 million likes and statements from political figures condemning the move,[27][28] A&E lifted the suspension before any episode was affected.[6]

I also remember this playing out on ATS. Many were crying about his first amendment rights being violate (they weren't).

a reply to: Skid Mark

It would seem to me that with the examples set by the inquisition, the witch burnings of the 14th and 15th centuries,the treatment of slaves in our early history that they were being Christians of the first order.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Don't forget European "settlement" *cough*invasion*cough* of the Americas.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

To add the 12 million American Indians killed!

a reply to: flammadraco

and enslaved.

Religion has done so much for this world, hasn't it.

I believe it was Christ who said," No more of this." and proceeded to heal the centurions ear. Lot's of" Christians" sure seem to love their violence???

Ya know...it's all very well and good to beat up on religious people...but I still haven't seen a consistent defense by a materialistic atheist for why such behavior is objectively wrong.

a reply to: StalkerSolent Secular humanism is a hard animal to pin down. If you succeed please kill it, mercifully of course.

originally posted by: kenzohattori69
a reply to: StalkerSolent Secular humanism is a hard animal to pin down. If you succeed please kill it, mercifully of course.

I will try, but as with all such creatures, secular humanism can only die of old age and after losing the will to live. Thanks anyway

originally posted by: Skid Mark
I don't like that guy. I hate his "show", too. What a bunch of morons. Looks like Phil got a bit turned on when talking about that, too.
I also think he's way off base. I'm not at all religious but I have morals. I care very much how I treat people. I also care very much about right and wrong. You don't need religion for that.
ETA: The thing about marrying underage girls really made me sick. What the hell is wrong with him? You don't even joke about that.

I care very much how I treat people. I also care very much about right and wrong.

How can you truly care for people when you say "you hate this guy" and say "What a bunch of morons?"

I don't like that guy. I hate his "show", too. What a bunch of morons.

How often here at ATS do agnostic and atheist members remind Christians of not judging one another and then spit out bible verses but then ignore those agnostics and atheist who do the exact same thing? I think we can add hypocrite to the list.

A lot of rhetoric here at ATS would stop if the agnostic and atheist members used the same rules that they push down the throats of Christians.

Don't like.......hate..........morons........judgemental much?

Should I now spit out numerous bible verses as the agnostic and atheist do to prove my point?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because those of the Native Peoples were mentioned, perhaps the Descendants were evoked?? But it was The Great Sioux Nation that provided the following saying: "Religion is for people afraid of Hell, "Spirituality" is for people who've already been"...

To the group proper- And wasn't it Jesus The Chris† who said "You Are the Church"? So if I AM the Church why would I go to another Church and listen to that person (usually Male) give their interpretation of what God (Here it is God, there it is Allah. Praying to the same Entity, but because of the different names this throws the prayees) I wonder if the name was eliminated would they still fight?

I read a post here once in which an ATS™ member wrote a very poignant piece in which "Worship equals War Ship" I copied the writing but until I can find the author to give credit.. Basically it explained "Blind Faith" and how anyone not praying to the same exact stuff is an opponent to Us etc..

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao..

namaste


EDIT: It appears that Mr. Robertson is in violation of Leviticus 19.19 about mixing 2 different threads, no way should denim go with anything polyester... And His masturbatory fantasy hidden in His snippet also mentions guns, guns and more guns.. So if/when the "would-be assailants" ever got caught they can blame their firearm fetish to watching too much Duck Dynasty™...

a reply to: JimNasium

I think I read that post too. That comparison sounds strangely familiar...

originally posted by: kenzohattori69
a reply to: StalkerSolent Secular humanism is a hard animal to pin down. If you succeed please kill it, mercifully of course.

Hmmm...

originally posted by: kenzohattori69
Lot's of" Christians" sure seem to love their violence???

Yes, they sure do seem to love it. At least it is a "merciful" death, whatever that is supposed to mean.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Ya know...it's all very well and good to beat up on religious people...but I still haven't seen a consistent defense by a materialistic atheist for why such behavior is objectively wrong.

Why do you think that the behavior suggested is "objectively" wrong"?

originally posted by: windword

Why do you think that the behavior suggested is "objectively" wrong"?

Because they unjustifiably and senselessly violate the inherent natural dignity possessed by all human beings as intended by their Creator.