Stigma of Atheism

[PratchettFan]

So much for the right to life being the actual issue.

????.....obviously its the only issue....

If it were the only issue then the only thing which would matter would be whether or not the action resulted in the loss of life. If I don't get your blood, I will die. If I can't have the organs from your dead body, I will die. But that clearly doesn't matter. The situation has to be very specific to abortion or it just doesn't apply. If the right to life only applies to abortion, then it is not about the right to life.

but you won't die because you don't get my blood.....you will die because you have a rare blood disorder.......you won't die because I won't give you my heart.....you will die because your own heart has failed......the fetus isn't going to die because it has a rare blood disorder or has a failing heart.....why is the fetus going to die?.....

All you are doing is narrowing the parameters so it only applies to abortion.

narrowing the parameters has a tendency to reduce scope....if that's the problem, I suppose we can also argue that having an abortion is a lot like driving a car, but with narrowed parameters

No, we couldn't say that at all. Narrowing the parameters of a moral position so it only applies to the things you want it to apply and not the things you don't want it to apply to is nothing more than justification - it is not morality. If you hold that the right to life is paramount, then it should be paramount. In all cases, not just the ones you find convenient. If the right to the control of your own body is paramount, then it is paramount in all cases, not just in the ones you don't object to.

Of course, if your moral position only applies to you, you can cherry pick it to your heart's delight. It only affects you. But if you want to impose that position on others, then accept the consequences of that position on yourself as well. If their bodies can be owned by the needs of others, so can yours. If you claim yours cannot, then insisting theirs can is pure hypocrisy.

 

[PratchettFan]

Clearly that is not the deciding factor. So this is not about the right to life. This is about imposing a moral standard upon others you do not want imposed upon you.

I will concede that I believe killing your unborn children is immoral.......however the primary concern is still the life of the child......if I am opposed to you walking down the street and shooting every third person you meet is the deciding factor that I believe you are immoral for doing so?.......

You can certainly believe it is immoral. In which case, you should not have an abortion. I don't believe anyone is suggesting you be forced to have one. No one who says it is moral is trying to impose that morality upon you.

We have two competing rights involved in this, whether you wish to admit it or not. If you consider one to be more important than the other, then accept the consequences of that choice. Don't say it's more important when it impacts that person but not when it impacts me.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I don't think you know the ones. Your feverish, sweaty tirades don't list a single, specific, instance.

Hard to believe that there is another poster who enjoys your beatings as much as Political Chic does. They should start a club.

lol......Hollie beating someone.....that's an amusing fantasy......[/Q

I know right?....that's why we no longer have In God We Trust on our money......why we aren't allowed to say the pledge of allegiance any more.....why Congress no longer opens its sessions with prayer.......why they tore down that cross on the secluded cemetery hilltop in California.......

Yeah, right?

That's why fundamentalist Christianity under burkas of different names have been ruled by the courts as disallowed in public schools.

lol.....wtf does that even mean?........

I know right?....that's why we no longer have In God We Trust on our money......why we aren't allowed to say the pledge of allegiance any more.....why Congress no longer opens its sessions with prayer.......why they tore down that cross on the secluded cemetery hilltop in California.......

Yeah, right?

That's why fundamentalist Christianity under burkas of different names have been ruled by the courts as disallowed in public schools.

lol.....wtf does that even mean?........

You should read the Dover transcript so you would have a clue.
.

why....the judges involved in the Dover case didn't have one.....

That's as pointless as your usual piffle.

It's just a shame that you fundie cretins assume that the public schools are the venue for your tales and fables as opposed to science send learning.

so, instead you teach fables about life crawling out of mud puddles and single celled organisms evolving into multicelled organisms and human beings evolving from lemurs?.......love that science based learning, right?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

????.....obviously its the only issue....

If it were the only issue then the only thing which would matter would be whether or not the action resulted in the loss of life. If I don't get your blood, I will die. If I can't have the organs from your dead body, I will die. But that clearly doesn't matter. The situation has to be very specific to abortion or it just doesn't apply. If the right to life only applies to abortion, then it is not about the right to life.

but you won't die because you don't get my blood.....you will die because you have a rare blood disorder.......you won't die because I won't give you my heart.....you will die because your own heart has failed......the fetus isn't going to die because it has a rare blood disorder or has a failing heart.....why is the fetus going to die?.....

All you are doing is narrowing the parameters so it only applies to abortion.

narrowing the parameters has a tendency to reduce scope....if that's the problem, I suppose we can also argue that having an abortion is a lot like driving a car, but with narrowed parameters

No, we couldn't say that at all. Narrowing the parameters of a moral position so it only applies to the things you want it to apply and not the things you don't want it to apply to is nothing more than justification - .

then by your own definition your argument is a justification......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Clearly that is not the deciding factor. So this is not about the right to life. This is about imposing a moral standard upon others you do not want imposed upon you.

I will concede that I believe killing your unborn children is immoral.......however the primary concern is still the life of the child......if I am opposed to you walking down the street and shooting every third person you meet is the deciding factor that I believe you are immoral for doing so?.......

You can certainly believe it is immoral. In which case, you should not have an abortion. I don't believe anyone is suggesting you be forced to have one. No one who says it is moral is trying to impose that morality upon you.

so saying you cannot shoot every third person you meet is also nothing more than forcing morality upon you?

We have two competing rights involved in this, whether you wish to admit it or not. If you consider one to be more important than the other, then accept the consequences of that choice. Don't say it's more important when it impacts that person but not when it impacts me.

do you consider a right to privacy to be of equivalent weight as a right to live?........

 

[Hollie]

Hard to believe that there is another poster who enjoys your beatings as much as Political Chic does. They should start a club.

lol......Hollie beating someone.....that's an amusing fantasy......[/Q

Yeah, right?

That's why fundamentalist Christianity under burkas of different names have been ruled by the courts as disallowed in public schools.

lol.....wtf does that even mean?........

Yeah, right?

That's why fundamentalist Christianity under burkas of different names have been ruled by the courts as disallowed in public schools.

lol.....wtf does that even mean?........

You should read the Dover transcript so you would have a clue.
.

why....the judges involved in the Dover case didn't have one.....

That's as pointless as your usual piffle.

It's just a shame that you fundie cretins assume that the public schools are the venue for your tales and fables as opposed to science send learning.

so, instead you teach fables about life crawling out of mud puddles and single celled organisms evolving into multicelled organisms and human beings evolving from lemurs?.......love that science based learning, right?......

The problem you have is that your utter lack of a science vocabulary causes you to mindlessly reiterate the nonsense you read at fundamentalist creation ministries.

Your loathing for science is to be expected for those who see science as a threat to their YEC'ist views. You should realize however, that you appear buffoonish and child-like as you rail against science with ignorant, fundie zealot cliches' and slogans.

 

[Iceweasel]

Don't Christians say that our country is falling apart and the end of days are nearing because people are turning away from god?

And for hundreds of years you Christians gave us three choices. Leave, Convert or Die. Much like Kim Jong Un does in North Korea now. You guys might not be doing that today to non Christians but not because you wouldn't like to.

Admit it. You don't like America having so many Atheists and Muslims living here. You're ok with the Jews but that's because you want their vote and the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

You can't read.

 

[PratchettFan]

If it were the only issue then the only thing which would matter would be whether or not the action resulted in the loss of life. If I don't get your blood, I will die. If I can't have the organs from your dead body, I will die. But that clearly doesn't matter. The situation has to be very specific to abortion or it just doesn't apply. If the right to life only applies to abortion, then it is not about the right to life.

but you won't die because you don't get my blood.....you will die because you have a rare blood disorder.......you won't die because I won't give you my heart.....you will die because your own heart has failed......the fetus isn't going to die because it has a rare blood disorder or has a failing heart.....why is the fetus going to die?.....

All you are doing is narrowing the parameters so it only applies to abortion.

narrowing the parameters has a tendency to reduce scope....if that's the problem, I suppose we can also argue that having an abortion is a lot like driving a car, but with narrowed parameters

No, we couldn't say that at all. Narrowing the parameters of a moral position so it only applies to the things you want it to apply and not the things you don't want it to apply to is nothing more than justification - .

then by your own definition your argument is a justification......

I apply my position consistently. Your body belongs to you and I have no claim to it regardless of my need. I am not entitled to so much as a fingernail clipping without your consent. A woman's body is her own and the fetus has no claim to it regardless of its need. The right to personal sovereignty over rides the right to life, in all cases. You apply your position inconsistently. It only applies when your like the result, not when you don't.

 

[PratchettFan]

Clearly that is not the deciding factor. So this is not about the right to life. This is about imposing a moral standard upon others you do not want imposed upon you.

I will concede that I believe killing your unborn children is immoral.......however the primary concern is still the life of the child......if I am opposed to you walking down the street and shooting every third person you meet is the deciding factor that I believe you are immoral for doing so?.......

You can certainly believe it is immoral. In which case, you should not have an abortion. I don't believe anyone is suggesting you be forced to have one. No one who says it is moral is trying to impose that morality upon you.

so saying you cannot shoot every third person you meet is also nothing more than forcing morality upon you?

We have two competing rights involved in this, whether you wish to admit it or not. If you consider one to be more important than the other, then accept the consequences of that choice. Don't say it's more important when it impacts that person but not when it impacts me.

do you consider a right to privacy to be of equivalent weight as a right to live?........

As to the first, an irrelevant non sequitur.
As to the second, no.

 

[sealybobo]

If it were the only issue then the only thing which would matter would be whether or not the action resulted in the loss of life. If I don't get your blood, I will die. If I can't have the organs from your dead body, I will die. But that clearly doesn't matter. The situation has to be very specific to abortion or it just doesn't apply. If the right to life only applies to abortion, then it is not about the right to life.

but you won't die because you don't get my blood.....you will die because you have a rare blood disorder.......you won't die because I won't give you my heart.....you will die because your own heart has failed......the fetus isn't going to die because it has a rare blood disorder or has a failing heart.....why is the fetus going to die?.....

All you are doing is narrowing the parameters so it only applies to abortion.

narrowing the parameters has a tendency to reduce scope....if that's the problem, I suppose we can also argue that having an abortion is a lot like driving a car, but with narrowed parameters

No, we couldn't say that at all. Narrowing the parameters of a moral position so it only applies to the things you want it to apply and not the things you don't want it to apply to is nothing more than justification - .

then by your own definition your argument is a justification......

I have a new one for you. You guys love to laugh and say AH HAH! when we admit the most rational position to have is agnostic atheist. And we explain to be an atheist you would have to be a god yourself or you would have had to met god yourself.

If that is true, no one can truly call themselves a theist. If theist is the opposite of atheist then you too would have to have met or be a god yourself to know 100% for sure. So at best you are an agnostic theist.

 

[sealybobo]

lol......Hollie beating someone.....that's an amusing fantasy......[/Q

lol.....wtf does that even mean?........

lol.....wtf does that even mean?........

You should read the Dover transcript so you would have a clue.
.

why....the judges involved in the Dover case didn't have one.....

That's as pointless as your usual piffle.

It's just a shame that you fundie cretins assume that the public schools are the venue for your tales and fables as opposed to science send learning.

so, instead you teach fables about life crawling out of mud puddles and single celled organisms evolving into multicelled organisms and human beings evolving from lemurs?.......love that science based learning, right?......

The problem you have is that your utter lack of a science vocabulary causes you to mindlessly reiterate the nonsense you read at fundamentalist creation ministries.

Your loathing for science is to be expected for those who see science as a threat to their YEC'ist views. You should realize however, that you appear buffoonish and child-like as you rail against science with ignorant, fundie zealot cliches' and slogans.

I watch their religious shows lie about science all the time. Funny they don't ever invite an atheist scientist on to have a real debate on the subject. They wouldn't dare give the other side an honest moment to explain their side. Not a chance.

 

[PratchettFan]

but you won't die because you don't get my blood.....you will die because you have a rare blood disorder.......you won't die because I won't give you my heart.....you will die because your own heart has failed......the fetus isn't going to die because it has a rare blood disorder or has a failing heart.....why is the fetus going to die?.....

All you are doing is narrowing the parameters so it only applies to abortion.

narrowing the parameters has a tendency to reduce scope....if that's the problem, I suppose we can also argue that having an abortion is a lot like driving a car, but with narrowed parameters

No, we couldn't say that at all. Narrowing the parameters of a moral position so it only applies to the things you want it to apply and not the things you don't want it to apply to is nothing more than justification - .

then by your own definition your argument is a justification......

I have a new one for you. You guys love to laugh and say AH HAH! when we admit the most rational position to have is agnostic atheist. And we explain to be an atheist you would have to be a god yourself or you would have had to met god yourself.

If that is true, no one can truly call themselves a theist. If theist is the opposite of atheist then you too would have to have met or be a god yourself to know 100% for sure. So at best you are an agnostic theist.

Seriously... read the post you are responding to before you respond.

 

[PostmodernProph]

lol......Hollie beating someone.....that's an amusing fantasy......[/Q

lol.....wtf does that even mean?........

lol.....wtf does that even mean?........

You should read the Dover transcript so you would have a clue.
.

why....the judges involved in the Dover case didn't have one.....

That's as pointless as your usual piffle.

It's just a shame that you fundie cretins assume that the public schools are the venue for your tales and fables as opposed to science send learning.

so, instead you teach fables about life crawling out of mud puddles and single celled organisms evolving into multicelled organisms and human beings evolving from lemurs?.......love that science based learning, right?......

The problem you have is that your utter lack of a science vocabulary causes you to mindlessly reiterate the nonsense you read at fundamentalist creation ministries.

Your loathing for science is to be expected for those who see science as a threat to their YEC'ist views. You should realize however, that you appear buffoonish and child-like as you rail against science with ignorant, fundie zealot cliches' and slogans.

I rather enjoy science.....it's folks like you that I loath.....

 

[Hollie]

You should read the Dover transcript so you would have a clue.
.

why....the judges involved in the Dover case didn't have one.....

That's as pointless as your usual piffle.

It's just a shame that you fundie cretins assume that the public schools are the venue for your tales and fables as opposed to science send learning.

so, instead you teach fables about life crawling out of mud puddles and single celled organisms evolving into multicelled organisms and human beings evolving from lemurs?.......love that science based learning, right?......

The problem you have is that your utter lack of a science vocabulary causes you to mindlessly reiterate the nonsense you read at fundamentalist creation ministries.

Your loathing for science is to be expected for those who see science as a threat to their YEC'ist views. You should realize however, that you appear buffoonish and child-like as you rail against science with ignorant, fundie zealot cliches' and slogans.

I rather enjoy science.....it's folks like you that I loath.....

I think self-hate is your issue.

 

[PostmodernProph]

but you won't die because you don't get my blood.....you will die because you have a rare blood disorder.......you won't die because I won't give you my heart.....you will die because your own heart has failed......the fetus isn't going to die because it has a rare blood disorder or has a failing heart.....why is the fetus going to die?.....

All you are doing is narrowing the parameters so it only applies to abortion.

narrowing the parameters has a tendency to reduce scope....if that's the problem, I suppose we can also argue that having an abortion is a lot like driving a car, but with narrowed parameters

No, we couldn't say that at all. Narrowing the parameters of a moral position so it only applies to the things you want it to apply and not the things you don't want it to apply to is nothing more than justification - .

then by your own definition your argument is a justification......

I apply my position consistently. Your body belongs to you and I have no claim to it regardless of my need. I am not entitled to so much as a fingernail clipping without your consent. A woman's body is her own and the fetus has no claim to it regardless of its need. The right to personal sovereignty over rides the right to life, in all cases. You apply your position inconsistently. It only applies when your like the result, not when you don't.

and yet you totally ignore the right of the fetus to its own body.....I consider that a major inconsistency......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Clearly that is not the deciding factor. So this is not about the right to life. This is about imposing a moral standard upon others you do not want imposed upon you.

I will concede that I believe killing your unborn children is immoral.......however the primary concern is still the life of the child......if I am opposed to you walking down the street and shooting every third person you meet is the deciding factor that I believe you are immoral for doing so?.......

You can certainly believe it is immoral. In which case, you should not have an abortion. I don't believe anyone is suggesting you be forced to have one. No one who says it is moral is trying to impose that morality upon you.

so saying you cannot shoot every third person you meet is also nothing more than forcing morality upon you?

We have two competing rights involved in this, whether you wish to admit it or not. If you consider one to be more important than the other, then accept the consequences of that choice. Don't say it's more important when it impacts that person but not when it impacts me.

do you consider a right to privacy to be of equivalent weight as a right to live?........

As to the first, an irrelevant non sequitur.

because you like the result?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

but you won't die because you don't get my blood.....you will die because you have a rare blood disorder.......you won't die because I won't give you my heart.....you will die because your own heart has failed......the fetus isn't going to die because it has a rare blood disorder or has a failing heart.....why is the fetus going to die?.....

All you are doing is narrowing the parameters so it only applies to abortion.

narrowing the parameters has a tendency to reduce scope....if that's the problem, I suppose we can also argue that having an abortion is a lot like driving a car, but with narrowed parameters

No, we couldn't say that at all. Narrowing the parameters of a moral position so it only applies to the things you want it to apply and not the things you don't want it to apply to is nothing more than justification - .

then by your own definition your argument is a justification......

I have a new one for you. You guys love to laugh and say AH HAH! when we admit the most rational position to have is agnostic atheist. And we explain to be an atheist you would have to be a god yourself or you would have had to met god yourself.

If that is true, no one can truly call themselves a theist. If theist is the opposite of atheist then you too would have to have met or be a god yourself to know 100% for sure. So at best you are an agnostic theist.

at best, you're mentally deficient.....

 

[Steven_R]

You should read the Dover transcript so you would have a clue.
.

why....the judges involved in the Dover case didn't have one.....

As I asked in a different thread, if Dover wasn't about using pseudoscience to shoehorn Christianity into the science class, why did the school board use a law firm that bills itself as "the sword and shield for people of faith"?

 

[PostmodernProph]

You should read the Dover transcript so you would have a clue.
.

why....the judges involved in the Dover case didn't have one.....

As I asked in a different thread, if Dover wasn't about using pseudoscience to shoehorn Christianity into the science class, why did the school board use a law firm that bills itself as "the sword and shield for people of faith"?

a much better question.....why did the judge think that abiogenesis was "science".......did no one think to explain it to him?.......

 

[Steven_R]

You should read the Dover transcript so you would have a clue.
.

why....the judges involved in the Dover case didn't have one.....

As I asked in a different thread, if Dover wasn't about using pseudoscience to shoehorn Christianity into the science class, why did the school board use a law firm that bills itself as "the sword and shield for people of faith"?

a much better question.....why did the judge think that abiogenesis was "science".......did no one think to explain it to him?.......

Here's Judge Jones' decision. http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/highlights/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf

Show me where the question of abiogenesis is even addressed.