Stigma of Atheism

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?.......
The trial was about the lies of Christian fundies trying to present ID'iosy as science, when it is clearly not.
 
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?.......
The trial was about the lies of Christian fundies trying to present ID'iosy as science, when it is clearly not.

Nonsense. The biologists and paleontologist who testified at the trial clearly weren't qualified to teach Judge Jones on what is science and how science works and why ID isn't science. He should have followed the advice of Dr. Behe and expanded the definition of science to include such things as astrology.
 
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.....

Well then I guess I will continue to call myself an atheist. If you get to call yourself a theist without needing absolute proof a god even exists, I guess we can call ourselves atheists, even though you would either have had to see god or be a god to know if a god exists. And since the Christian story says Jesus said no other gods will visit until he return, none of you 21st century Christians can claim to have seen god because he hasn't come back yet. You all say when he does we will know it.
 
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......

No, I don't. But its right to its body does give it the right to the body of another. I do not deny my rights to my body, but that does not give me the right to yours. Whether any of us think it is fair, the fetus requires the body of the mother and the mother has the right to deny the use of her body. If the fetus were an egg, we could just move it to another nest. If there were a way to remove the fetus and place it in a willing woman, I would fully support that as a substitute for abortion. But ultimately, we all must have the final say as to how our body is to be used by another - even if that means the death of the other person. My need does not give me a right to your body and the fetus' need does not give it a right to the mother's body. There must be consent. Without consent, it is slavery.
 
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?.....

No. Because it is an irrelevant non sequitur.
 
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.
what theory of origins do you believe they will be teaching then?........
 
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......
My need does not give me a right to your body and the fetus' need does not give it a right to the mother's body. There must be consent. Without consent, it is slavery.
your need did not arise in another's body.....nobody is taking anything away from you that you had......the fetus has life and should be entitled to keep it........the slavery claim is bullshit......a woman can't commit a few months to prevent the killing of the child?......you want consent?.....ask the child for consent......
 
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?.....

No. Because it is an irrelevant non sequitur.
only because you say it is irrelevant......abortion was declared legal by RvW based on a right of privacy......you are right.......there are two rights involved....however, the court in RvW ignored one set of rights.......
 
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......
My need does not give me a right to your body and the fetus' need does not give it a right to the mother's body. There must be consent. Without consent, it is slavery.
your need did not arise in another's body.....nobody is taking anything away from you that you had......the fetus has life and should be entitled to keep it........the slavery claim is bullshit......a woman can't commit a few months to prevent the killing of the child?......you want consent?.....ask the child for consent......

I have life and should be entitled to keep it. You can't commit to a few minutes of having your blood taken? Why can't I have you taken at gun point, if need be, to take what I need regardless of your feelings? Why can't I have your organs harvested against the wishes of your family if I need them? You totally ignore my right to my body. What right do you have to withhold what I need just because it is your body? Your body belongs to my need and your feelings about it are irrelevant. That is your position, except you only want it to apply to women. Which, of course, can't possibly be misogynistic.

To force someone to place their body in the service of another against there will is involuntary servitude. It doesn't matter whether or not she can commit. It is whether or not she is willing. If she is unwilling and is forced, that is involuntary. The child has no say in this. It is the child needing her body, not the other way round. If she is unwilling, the child dies - just as I die if you are unwilling.
 
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?.....

No. Because it is an irrelevant non sequitur.
only because you say it is irrelevant......abortion was declared legal by RvW based on a right of privacy......you are right.......there are two rights involved....however, the court in RvW ignored one set of rights.......

I'm sorry, the court ruled shooting people on the street was a matter of privacy? I must have missed that.
 
In Texas they went from something like 30 places you could get an abortion to 7. A rich white bitch will go drive to get an abortion. A poor people might not have a car or the $500 to get her abortion. Abortion is a necessary thing with us human breeders who can't stop doubling the population. STOP!

There it is, the eugenics angle at the root of abortion advocates.

Now go on and tell us that Margaret Sanger wasn't important.

Oh god no! I'm just saying abortion is an option that should remain available to women who get pregnant but aren't ready to be mothers or have a family.

I know you won't admit this but the fact is, a lot of you anti abortion people have your own accidents when it is not the right time in your life and a lot of you end up getting abortions. So you are hypocrites. I compare you to someone who smokes who wishes cigarettes were illegal.

And if you look at society today, how things are for 20 somethings, you would be a fool to ban abortion now. They can't afford kids. Not the ones that go to college and graduate with $50K Plus student loans and not the ones working at Walmart.

So lowering the number of birth control clinics only hurt the poor. So does not funding abortions. They can't afford to drive 2 hours to get an abortion or pay the $500. So you will end up paying more in welfare and foodstamps. But you hate those things. Remember? Well are you going to let those kids starve? Then how much do you really care about life?

Abortions are good, for people that want them. Fuck what everyone else thinks. If you aren't ready, go get it taken care of! We won't blame you. And don't worry about those assholes picketing. They are super guilty about the abortions they had and they have forgotten what it was like when it happened to them. If they could do it all over again, they would. And most woman who have abortions get over it fairly quickly. They don't think they "murdered" their child. That's assholes talking. FACT.

More eugenics.

Can't have them poor folk breeding now can we?
 
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......

No, I don't. But its right to its body does give it the right to the body of another. I do not deny my rights to my body, but that does not give me the right to yours. Whether any of us think it is fair, the fetus requires the body of the mother and the mother has the right to deny the use of her body. If the fetus were an egg, we could just move it to another nest. If there were a way to remove the fetus and place it in a willing woman, I would fully support that as a substitute for abortion. But ultimately, we all must have the final say as to how our body is to be used by another - even if that means the death of the other person. My need does not give me a right to your body and the fetus' need does not give it a right to the mother's body. There must be consent. Without consent, it is slavery.

But it did. If your parents refused to use their bodies to feed and clothe you they would be charged and convicted of neglect. If a man fathers a child and the woman chooses to give birth, the next 18 years of that man's body is compelled by law to be obligated in support of that child.
 
My need does not give me a right to your body and the fetus' need does not give it a right to the mother's body. There must be consent. Without consent, it is slavery.
your need did not arise in another's body.....nobody is taking anything away from you that you had......the fetus has life and should be entitled to keep it........the slavery claim is bullshit......a woman can't commit a few months to prevent the killing of the child?......you want consent?.....ask the child for consent......[/QUOTE]

I have life and should be entitled to keep it.
you can......I'm not threatening to take anything away from you that I have given you before......
Why can't I have your organs harvested against the wishes of your family if I need them?
to be honest?.....I'm okay with that.....

That is your position, except you only want it to apply to women.
no.....I also want it applied to children, who you totally ignore.....

To force someone to place their body in the service of another against there will is involuntary servitude. It doesn't matter whether or not she can commit. It is whether or not she is willing. If she is unwilling and is forced, that is involuntary. The child has no say in this. It is the child needing her body, not the other way round. If she is unwilling, the child dies - just as I die if you are unwilling.
so in your mind the child has no say in this......end its life, it doesn't matter.....its body is just there to be disposed of in service to the will of another........ironic, isn't it......the very thing you accuse me of....
 
Last edited:
so saying you cannot shoot every third person you meet is also nothing more than forcing morality upon you?
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?.....

No. Because it is an irrelevant non sequitur.
only because you say it is irrelevant......abortion was declared legal by RvW based on a right of privacy......you are right.......there are two rights involved....however, the court in RvW ignored one set of rights.......

I'm sorry, the court ruled shooting people on the street was a matter of privacy? I must have missed that.
as dense as you just revealed yourself to be, it could well be that you did......but perhaps you did it deliberately....try again after putting some legitimate effort into thinking.....
 
My need does not give me a right to your body and the fetus' need does not give it a right to the mother's body. There must be consent. Without consent, it is slavery.
your need did not arise in another's body.....nobody is taking anything away from you that you had......the fetus has life and should be entitled to keep it........the slavery claim is bullshit......a woman can't commit a few months to prevent the killing of the child?......you want consent?.....ask the child for consent......

I have life and should be entitled to keep it.
you can......I'm not threatening to take anything away from you that I have given you before......
Why can't I have your organs harvested against the wishes of your family if I need them?
to be honest?.....I'm okay with that.....

That is your position, except you only want it to apply to women.
no.....I also want it applied to children, who you totally ignore.....

To force someone to place their body in the service of another against there will is involuntary servitude. It doesn't matter whether or not she can commit. It is whether or not she is willing. If she is unwilling and is forced, that is involuntary. The child has no say in this. It is the child needing her body, not the other way round. If she is unwilling, the child dies - just as I die if you are unwilling.
so in your mind the child has no say in this......end its life, it doesn't matter.....its body is just there to be disposed of in service to the will of another........ironic, isn't it......the very thing you accuse me of....
But don't you already have eternal life? Aren't those fetuses with god? Isn't heaven a better place to be? :dunno:
 
As to the first, an irrelevant non sequitur.
because you like the result?.....

No. Because it is an irrelevant non sequitur.
only because you say it is irrelevant......abortion was declared legal by RvW based on a right of privacy......you are right.......there are two rights involved....however, the court in RvW ignored one set of rights.......

I'm sorry, the court ruled shooting people on the street was a matter of privacy? I must have missed that.
as dense as you just revealed yourself to be, it could well be that you did......but perhaps you did it deliberately....try again after putting some legitimate effort into thinking.....

Or perhaps you should take the time to actually read what you wrote. And since you don't seem to be able to hold this discussion without attacking the other person, I see no point in continuing it.
 
<div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="" data-width="466"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><a href="">Post</a> by <a href="Joshua Feuerstein Facebook">Joshua Feuerstein</a>.</div></div>
 
In Texas they went from something like 30 places you could get an abortion to 7. A rich white bitch will go drive to get an abortion. A poor people might not have a car or the $500 to get her abortion. Abortion is a necessary thing with us human breeders who can't stop doubling the population. STOP!

There it is, the eugenics angle at the root of abortion advocates.

Now go on and tell us that Margaret Sanger wasn't important.

Oh god no! I'm just saying abortion is an option that should remain available to women who get pregnant but aren't ready to be mothers or have a family.

I know you won't admit this but the fact is, a lot of you anti abortion people have your own accidents when it is not the right time in your life and a lot of you end up getting abortions. So you are hypocrites. I compare you to someone who smokes who wishes cigarettes were illegal.

And if you look at society today, how things are for 20 somethings, you would be a fool to ban abortion now. They can't afford kids. Not the ones that go to college and graduate with $50K Plus student loans and not the ones working at Walmart.

So lowering the number of birth control clinics only hurt the poor. So does not funding abortions. They can't afford to drive 2 hours to get an abortion or pay the $500. So you will end up paying more in welfare and foodstamps. But you hate those things. Remember? Well are you going to let those kids starve? Then how much do you really care about life?

Abortions are good, for people that want them. Fuck what everyone else thinks. If you aren't ready, go get it taken care of! We won't blame you. And don't worry about those assholes picketing. They are super guilty about the abortions they had and they have forgotten what it was like when it happened to them. If they could do it all over again, they would. And most woman who have abortions get over it fairly quickly. They don't think they "murdered" their child. That's assholes talking. FACT.

More eugenics.

Can't have them poor folk breeding now can we?

Not if they can't afford to have a child. Just like a poor person shouldn't have a dog if they can't afford the vet bills.
 
My need does not give me a right to your body and the fetus' need does not give it a right to the mother's body. There must be consent. Without consent, it is slavery.
your need did not arise in another's body.....nobody is taking anything away from you that you had......the fetus has life and should be entitled to keep it........the slavery claim is bullshit......a woman can't commit a few months to prevent the killing of the child?......you want consent?.....ask the child for consent......

I have life and should be entitled to keep it.
you can......I'm not threatening to take anything away from you that I have given you before......
Why can't I have your organs harvested against the wishes of your family if I need them?
to be honest?.....I'm okay with that.....

That is your position, except you only want it to apply to women.
no.....I also want it applied to children, who you totally ignore.....

To force someone to place their body in the service of another against there will is involuntary servitude. It doesn't matter whether or not she can commit. It is whether or not she is willing. If she is unwilling and is forced, that is involuntary. The child has no say in this. It is the child needing her body, not the other way round. If she is unwilling, the child dies - just as I die if you are unwilling.
so in your mind the child has no say in this......end its life, it doesn't matter.....its body is just there to be disposed of in service to the will of another........ironic, isn't it......the very thing you accuse me of....
But don't you already have eternal life? Aren't those fetuses with god? Isn't heaven a better place to be? :dunno:
so you're just sending them to be with God?......do you use the same defense when you shoot pedestrians on the street?.......
 
because you like the result?.....

No. Because it is an irrelevant non sequitur.
only because you say it is irrelevant......abortion was declared legal by RvW based on a right of privacy......you are right.......there are two rights involved....however, the court in RvW ignored one set of rights.......

I'm sorry, the court ruled shooting people on the street was a matter of privacy? I must have missed that.
as dense as you just revealed yourself to be, it could well be that you did......but perhaps you did it deliberately....try again after putting some legitimate effort into thinking.....

Or perhaps you should take the time to actually read what you wrote. And since you don't seem to be able to hold this discussion without attacking the other person, I see no point in continuing it.
don't pretend I thought Roe v Wade was a ruling about shooting people on the street.....you know perfectly well what I was talking about.....
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top