Comments on: sinisterspark

By: Pinoy Heathen

Pinoy Heathen — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:54:14 +0000

Sinisterspark’s target is the Catholic Church because this is what she is familiar with. This is her background as do most Filipinos. You just want the attention taken off the Catholic Church and get it on the Muslims instead. That can be another topic and can best be handled by people familiar with Islam. Besides so much has been written about Islam, and I am sure that you have seen them. You haven’t refuted anything that was said against the Catholic Church because they are painfully true. I don’t want to repeat what Nikolas has said, he did a very good job about it.

You are repeating what believers like to say that atheism is a religion. It is not. All religions have gods, dogmas and beliefs that cannot be proven. If it gives you comfort to call atheism a religion, so be it.

Oh, and by the way, just like the ‘explosive underwear’, those torture devices commissioned by the Catholic Church to punish the heretics – they were also designed to kill, but even better. They can deliver a slow and painful death. The Catholic Church is a better designer!

By: Pinoy Heathen

Pinoy Heathen — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:32:43 +0000

I’m sorry but I just didn’t get what you mean by your message. Please expound.

By: blackshama

blackshama — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:24:44 +0000

Oh yes we can have an idea of what your feminism is! A writer always to an extent denudes him/herself! A rational thinker will come to that conclusion

By: blackshama

blackshama — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:21:32 +0000

Too bad that’s the best you can do. It seems you haven’t read any history of Islam, even by those with more liberal viewpoints. The thesis you have is already a weak logical counterpoint since “explosive underwear” was designed to kill.

“Rationalists” defending intolerance? by justifying historical wrongs? At least Rich Dawkins does not fall into that trap. He is consistent and while I believe he is preaching a religion, he has never defended intolerance of any kind.

The kind of “rationalism” in this blog is nothing but a kind of religion! It is a great disservice to rationalism!

By: nikolas

nikolas — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:42:44 +0000

My two cents: Every one has a right to ” ‘None of your god-damned business’ what I do in my privacy.”

By: nikolas

nikolas — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:40:04 +0000

Reighben was makign a rhetorical statement as to why would a religion misrepresent god as a bigot, the way the Catholic Church had.

i’m not sure if there is an edit option, so I assume you might have figured that out. I’m just clarifying it from my perspective.

By: nikolas

nikolas — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:35:57 +0000

First Point
You don’t need a bomb to kill people. Denying women essential reproductive health services can kill just as Dead as a bomb. It can even be more effective: it can kill generations.

Second Point: Blood thirstyness
BTW catholics were the first Initiator of religious war. Please read up on the first crusade. Even the Orthodox Church and Islam found the Latin Church’s “crusade” an abomination.

The reasons why Islam is as fundamentally intollerant is actually a result of the crusades. IF you’ve read about Church history and read BOTH texts of both sides; Arabs were actually more egaletarian than the Christians. Their women, then, held more rights and privileges than that of christian women.

Also, please read up the Inquisition, the Protestant Movement, history of slavery and Mein Kampf. For something close to home read up on Hermano Puli, the role of the catholic church in Philippine history, etc…

Please double check the meaning of logic, cause if there were any illogical arguments you can cite a specific fallacy the blogger had comited.

Since you can’t and probably wont, then your claim is a false one and a irresponsible attack (because you did not present or point to any evidence for your argument neither did you create a constructive method of inquiry).

By: blackshama

blackshama — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:02:23 +0000

Catholics don’t board planes with explosive underwear and profess to do this in the Name of God. So I don’t buy her thesis at all. I think this rationalist blogger is blasting away (albeit illogically) at a convenient target! Now how about aiming it at the nearest mosque?

By: sinisterspark

sinisterspark — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:45:55 +0000

I am suspicious of your praise as you probably don’t know me and have no basis to judge my feminism.

On the other question – I believe that all men and women are entitled to a sex life (as do all animals in this world). Why the hell not?

By: kathleen estampador

kathleen estampador — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:13:10 +0000

You know what? I really like you, as a feminist in its true essence (unlike those so-called feminist, but not actually in a way they are), and I truly admire the way you attack the Catholic Church, you really have the guts.

By the way, I read in a Marie Claire Magazine about a woman writer (forgot her name, darn!) who said that all single women are entitled to a sex life. I know many so-called purists and conservatives will give a raise of eyebrows about that and I hope you could give an opinion about it.