Stigma of Atheism

[Hollie]

It is misogynistic. I have never met anyone who actually thought the right to life over rode the right to personal sovereignty, except when it comes to women.

so you don't believe that anyone could favor not killing an unborn child unless they hated women?.......interesting.....overwhelmingly ignorant, but interesting....

can you give me an example of any other situation besides abortion where a "right of personal sovereignty" over rides a right to life?......I mean, if you think I believe abortion is the only time it should be stopped, I would like to know all those other times I should be in favor of it.......

Certainly. I require a blood transplant or I will die. I have a rare blood type and you are the only available match. But I can't force you to donate your blood. I have no right to your blood regardless of my need. Your right to personal sovereignty over rides my right to life. Would you like to see that changed? How about if I need an organ transplant, you are a match and you just died. Should I be able to have your organs harvested regardless how you might have felt about it, regardless of the wishes of your family? At what point do you think my right to life gives me possession of your body?

isn't that the exact opposite of abortion?......you give examples where sovereignty may not be infringed to save a life, to justify the taking of life to protect sovereignty......

No. It is not the opposite. Removing a fetus is removing it from its life support system. Denying me blood is the same thing.

no.....for it to be the same thing you would have had to be receiving the blood before and then had it taken away......now, if a fetus comes along and asks to enter a woman's womb, and she refuses, THEN it would be the same thing.....

I am willing to go on record as saying any woman should have the right to say no to any fetus that comes up to them on the street asking for permission to enter their womb......

You out-of-the-Madrassah-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and generally, only religious zealots believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

You religious extremists can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of your sectarian gods to impose your religious perspectives upon others is antithetical to the ideals that established this nation.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coersion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fœtus achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent.

Only the impregnated female in consultation with her doctor has the right to determine her response to the impregnation during the first trimester of pregnancy despite the judgmental presumptions of those who would presume to seize and control her inherent right. The extremist religious right will not be allowed to exert authority to demand State womb control or deny abortion.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Certainly. I require a blood transplant or I will die. I have a rare blood type and you are the only available match. But I can't force you to donate your blood. I have no right to your blood regardless of my need. Your right to personal sovereignty over rides my right to life. Would you like to see that changed? How about if I need an organ transplant, you are a match and you just died. Should I be able to have your organs harvested regardless how you might have felt about it, regardless of the wishes of your family? At what point do you think my right to life gives me possession of your body?

isn't that the exact opposite of abortion?......you give examples where sovereignty may not be infringed to save a life, to justify the taking of life to protect sovereignty......

No. It is not the opposite. Removing a fetus is removing it from its life support system. Denying me blood is the same thing.

no.....for it to be the same thing you would have had to be receiving the blood before and then had it taken away......now, if a fetus comes along and asks to enter a woman's womb, and she refuses, THEN it would be the same thing.....

what failure?.....I've demonstrated the paucity of every argument an atheist has attempted to raise.......though since you haven't bothered raising any you may not have noticed......

Funny stuff. You've demonstrated only an ability to sidestep and waffle when your claims to magic and supernaturalism are challenged.

Here's your chance to prove you have done what you're falsely claiming you have done. Refute the data that renders the Ark tale as a fable.


I'll wait.

what data would that be?......

The data that confirms your Ark takes.

Give us the peer reviewed data that confirms dinosaurs were on the Ark.

You can follow up with peer reviewed data that supports a global flood within biblical timelines.

There's a start for you. Report back to us what you find.

you seem confused, Hollie.....you asked me to refute data that renders the Ark tale a fable......I'm not aware any such data exists.....do you have some?....

Sure. I've posted it before.

is that another one of your fantasies?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

so you don't believe that anyone could favor not killing an unborn child unless they hated women?.......interesting.....overwhelmingly ignorant, but interesting....

can you give me an example of any other situation besides abortion where a "right of personal sovereignty" over rides a right to life?......I mean, if you think I believe abortion is the only time it should be stopped, I would like to know all those other times I should be in favor of it.......

Certainly. I require a blood transplant or I will die. I have a rare blood type and you are the only available match. But I can't force you to donate your blood. I have no right to your blood regardless of my need. Your right to personal sovereignty over rides my right to life. Would you like to see that changed? How about if I need an organ transplant, you are a match and you just died. Should I be able to have your organs harvested regardless how you might have felt about it, regardless of the wishes of your family? At what point do you think my right to life gives me possession of your body?

isn't that the exact opposite of abortion?......you give examples where sovereignty may not be infringed to save a life, to justify the taking of life to protect sovereignty......

No. It is not the opposite. Removing a fetus is removing it from its life support system. Denying me blood is the same thing.

no.....for it to be the same thing you would have had to be receiving the blood before and then had it taken away......now, if a fetus comes along and asks to enter a woman's womb, and she refuses, THEN it would be the same thing.....

I am willing to go on record as saying any woman should have the right to say no to any fetus that comes up to them on the street asking for permission to enter their womb......

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

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

 

[PostmodernProph]

no, the reason I think they are idiots is the quality of the posts I see from atheists on this and other boards over the last fifteen years.....I mean seriously.....can you consider Seally and Hollie to be anything other than idiots?.......

I think they are wrong, but I have no idea whether or not they are idiots. Too small an issue for that judgment. But you are talking about Atheists as a group, not individuals. You didn't say Sealy was an idiot, you said Atheists were idiots. Are there dumb Atheists? Of course, just as there are dumb Theists. There are brilliant Atheists and brilliant Theists. You are categorizing an entire group and there is only one thing which makes them a group, their belief.

I am categorizing all the atheists I have met on this an any other board.....what makes them a group is the idiocy of their arguments........

I have read the same arguments and the only thing I have had a problem with is the claim that it is not a belief. Otherwise, their arguments are pretty much the same arguments as those made by Theists, just coming at it from the other side. I would call the level of idiocy pretty much equal.

would that then create a trinity of idiocy?......

More of a duet. Unless there is a third side I'm not seeing.

your call........

 

[PostmodernProph]

so you don't believe that anyone could favor not killing an unborn child unless they hated women?.......interesting.....overwhelmingly ignorant, but interesting....

can you give me an example of any other situation besides abortion where a "right of personal sovereignty" over rides a right to life?......I mean, if you think I believe abortion is the only time it should be stopped, I would like to know all those other times I should be in favor of it.......

Certainly. I require a blood transplant or I will die. I have a rare blood type and you are the only available match. But I can't force you to donate your blood. I have no right to your blood regardless of my need. Your right to personal sovereignty over rides my right to life. Would you like to see that changed? How about if I need an organ transplant, you are a match and you just died. Should I be able to have your organs harvested regardless how you might have felt about it, regardless of the wishes of your family? At what point do you think my right to life gives me possession of your body?

isn't that the exact opposite of abortion?......you give examples where sovereignty may not be infringed to save a life, to justify the taking of life to protect sovereignty......

No. It is not the opposite. Removing a fetus is removing it from its life support system. Denying me blood is the same thing.

no.....for it to be the same thing you would have had to be receiving the blood before and then had it taken away......now, if a fetus comes along and asks to enter a woman's womb, and she refuses, THEN it would be the same thing.....

I am willing to go on record as saying any woman should have the right to say no to any fetus that comes up to them on the street asking for permission to enter their womb......

You out-of-the-Madrassah-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and generally, only religious zealots believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

You religious extremists can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of your sectarian gods to impose your religious perspectives upon others is antithetical to the ideals that established this nation.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coersion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fœtus achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent.

Only the impregnated female in consultation with her doctor has the right to determine her response to the impregnation during the first trimester of pregnancy despite the judgmental presumptions of those who would presume to seize and control her inherent right. The extremist religious right will not be allowed to exert authority to demand State womb control or deny abortion.

why do you deny science?......

 

[NoNukes]

Why are Christians so afraid of atheists?
Doubt in their beliefs?
We do not care about your beliefs, leave us to ours.

 

[PratchettFan]

Certainly. I require a blood transplant or I will die. I have a rare blood type and you are the only available match. But I can't force you to donate your blood. I have no right to your blood regardless of my need. Your right to personal sovereignty over rides my right to life. Would you like to see that changed? How about if I need an organ transplant, you are a match and you just died. Should I be able to have your organs harvested regardless how you might have felt about it, regardless of the wishes of your family? At what point do you think my right to life gives me possession of your body?

isn't that the exact opposite of abortion?......you give examples where sovereignty may not be infringed to save a life, to justify the taking of life to protect sovereignty......

No. It is not the opposite. Removing a fetus is removing it from its life support system. Denying me blood is the same thing.

no.....for it to be the same thing you would have had to be receiving the blood before and then had it taken away......now, if a fetus comes along and asks to enter a woman's womb, and she refuses, THEN it would be the same thing.....

I am willing to go on record as saying any woman should have the right to say no to any fetus that comes up to them on the street asking for permission to enter their womb......

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.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Why are Christians so afraid of atheists?
Doubt in their beliefs?
We do not care about your beliefs, leave us to ours.

lol.....no, you don't care about our beliefs......that's why you start all those law suits about rocks in court houses and crosses in cemeteries.....

 

[PratchettFan]

I think they are wrong, but I have no idea whether or not they are idiots. Too small an issue for that judgment. But you are talking about Atheists as a group, not individuals. You didn't say Sealy was an idiot, you said Atheists were idiots. Are there dumb Atheists? Of course, just as there are dumb Theists. There are brilliant Atheists and brilliant Theists. You are categorizing an entire group and there is only one thing which makes them a group, their belief.

I am categorizing all the atheists I have met on this an any other board.....what makes them a group is the idiocy of their arguments........

I have read the same arguments and the only thing I have had a problem with is the claim that it is not a belief. Otherwise, their arguments are pretty much the same arguments as those made by Theists, just coming at it from the other side. I would call the level of idiocy pretty much equal.

would that then create a trinity of idiocy?......

More of a duet. Unless there is a third side I'm not seeing.

your call........

If it's my call, then I would call it a duet of irrationality. Idiocy was your word.

 

[Hollie]

isn't that the exact opposite of abortion?......you give examples where sovereignty may not be infringed to save a life, to justify the taking of life to protect sovereignty......

No. It is not the opposite. Removing a fetus is removing it from its life support system. Denying me blood is the same thing.

no.....for it to be the same thing you would have had to be receiving the blood before and then had it taken away......now, if a fetus comes along and asks to enter a woman's womb, and she refuses, THEN it would be the same thing.....

Funny stuff. You've demonstrated only an ability to sidestep and waffle when your claims to magic and supernaturalism are challenged.

Here's your chance to prove you have done what you're falsely claiming you have done. Refute the data that renders the Ark tale as a fable.


I'll wait.

what data would that be?......

The data that confirms your Ark takes.

Give us the peer reviewed data that confirms dinosaurs were on the Ark.

You can follow up with peer reviewed data that supports a global flood within biblical timelines.

There's a start for you. Report back to us what you find.

you seem confused, Hollie.....you asked me to refute data that renders the Ark tale a fable......I'm not aware any such data exists.....do you have some?....

Sure. I've posted it before.

is that another one of your fantasies?......

It was data you were unable to refute so you tried slithering away... Like now.

 

[Hollie]

Certainly. I require a blood transplant or I will die. I have a rare blood type and you are the only available match. But I can't force you to donate your blood. I have no right to your blood regardless of my need. Your right to personal sovereignty over rides my right to life. Would you like to see that changed? How about if I need an organ transplant, you are a match and you just died. Should I be able to have your organs harvested regardless how you might have felt about it, regardless of the wishes of your family? At what point do you think my right to life gives me possession of your body?

isn't that the exact opposite of abortion?......you give examples where sovereignty may not be infringed to save a life, to justify the taking of life to protect sovereignty......

No. It is not the opposite. Removing a fetus is removing it from its life support system. Denying me blood is the same thing.

no.....for it to be the same thing you would have had to be receiving the blood before and then had it taken away......now, if a fetus comes along and asks to enter a woman's womb, and she refuses, THEN it would be the same thing.....

I am willing to go on record as saying any woman should have the right to say no to any fetus that comes up to them on the street asking for permission to enter their womb......

You out-of-the-Madrassah-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and generally, only religious zealots believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

You religious extremists can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of your sectarian gods to impose your religious perspectives upon others is antithetical to the ideals that established this nation.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coersion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fœtus achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent.

Only the impregnated female in consultation with her doctor has the right to determine her response to the impregnation during the first trimester of pregnancy despite the judgmental presumptions of those who would presume to seize and control her inherent right. The extremist religious right will not be allowed to exert authority to demand State womb control or deny abortion.

why do you deny science?......

Why are you unable to respond with a comment that is connected to my comments?

 

[PostmodernProph]

isn't that the exact opposite of abortion?......you give examples where sovereignty may not be infringed to save a life, to justify the taking of life to protect sovereignty......

No. It is not the opposite. Removing a fetus is removing it from its life support system. Denying me blood is the same thing.

no.....for it to be the same thing you would have had to be receiving the blood before and then had it taken away......now, if a fetus comes along and asks to enter a woman's womb, and she refuses, THEN it would be the same thing.....

I am willing to go on record as saying any woman should have the right to say no to any fetus that comes up to them on the street asking for permission to enter their womb......

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?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

No. It is not the opposite. Removing a fetus is removing it from its life support system. Denying me blood is the same thing.

no.....for it to be the same thing you would have had to be receiving the blood before and then had it taken away......now, if a fetus comes along and asks to enter a woman's womb, and she refuses, THEN it would be the same thing.....

what data would that be?......

The data that confirms your Ark takes.

Give us the peer reviewed data that confirms dinosaurs were on the Ark.

You can follow up with peer reviewed data that supports a global flood within biblical timelines.

There's a start for you. Report back to us what you find.

you seem confused, Hollie.....you asked me to refute data that renders the Ark tale a fable......I'm not aware any such data exists.....do you have some?....

Sure. I've posted it before.

is that another one of your fantasies?......

It was data you were unable to refute so you tried slithering away... Like now.

there was no data....still isn't......

 

[Hollie]

Why are Christians so afraid of atheists?
Doubt in their beliefs?
We do not care about your beliefs, leave us to ours.

lol.....no, you don't care about our beliefs......that's why you start all those law suits about rocks in court houses and crosses in cemeteries.....

"All those lawsuits"? Do you mean the lawsuits that have kept you fundies from pressing your extremist religious views into public schools? The courts have upheld that fundamentalist Christianity under different guises is contrary to the constitution. "All those lawsuits" have been in favor of upholding the law.

What a shame you religious extremists presume to be exempt from the law.

 

[PostmodernProph]

isn't that the exact opposite of abortion?......you give examples where sovereignty may not be infringed to save a life, to justify the taking of life to protect sovereignty......

No. It is not the opposite. Removing a fetus is removing it from its life support system. Denying me blood is the same thing.

no.....for it to be the same thing you would have had to be receiving the blood before and then had it taken away......now, if a fetus comes along and asks to enter a woman's womb, and she refuses, THEN it would be the same thing.....

I am willing to go on record as saying any woman should have the right to say no to any fetus that comes up to them on the street asking for permission to enter their womb......

You out-of-the-Madrassah-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and generally, only religious zealots believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

You religious extremists can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of your sectarian gods to impose your religious perspectives upon others is antithetical to the ideals that established this nation.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coersion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fœtus achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent.

Only the impregnated female in consultation with her doctor has the right to determine her response to the impregnation during the first trimester of pregnancy despite the judgmental presumptions of those who would presume to seize and control her inherent right. The extremist religious right will not be allowed to exert authority to demand State womb control or deny abortion.

why do you deny science?......

Why are you unable to respond with a comment that is connected to my comments?

they are connected......you claim that the only basis on which to conclude the unborn child is a person is religion.......the actual basis is science, which you are denying......the fetus is undeniably alive, it is undeniably human.......there is no scientifically significant difference between a child whose umbilical cord has been cut and one who's cord has not been cut......it is an arbitrary legal fiction that one is a human being entitled to the protection of the law and the other is not......

 

[Hollie]

no.....for it to be the same thing you would have had to be receiving the blood before and then had it taken away......now, if a fetus comes along and asks to enter a woman's womb, and she refuses, THEN it would be the same thing.....

The data that confirms your Ark takes.

Give us the peer reviewed data that confirms dinosaurs were on the Ark.

You can follow up with peer reviewed data that supports a global flood within biblical timelines.

There's a start for you. Report back to us what you find.

you seem confused, Hollie.....you asked me to refute data that renders the Ark tale a fable......I'm not aware any such data exists.....do you have some?....

Sure. I've posted it before.

is that another one of your fantasies?......

It was data you were unable to refute so you tried slithering away... Like now.

there was no data....still isn't......

Sure there is.

Problems with a Global Flood 2nd edition

You hoped to slither away from addressing the obvious absurdity of your YEC'ist beliefs with literal interpretation of your Ark tales.

Are you going to slither away again?

 

[NoNukes]

Why are Christians so afraid of atheists?
Doubt in their beliefs?
We do not care about your beliefs, leave us to ours.

lol.....no, you don't care about our beliefs......that's why you start all those law suits about rocks in court houses and crosses in cemeteries.....

Why should everyone be confronted with such things? You practice your beliefs and we will practice ours. Public space is for everyone.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Why are Christians so afraid of atheists?
Doubt in their beliefs?
We do not care about your beliefs, leave us to ours.

lol.....no, you don't care about our beliefs......that's why you start all those law suits about rocks in court houses and crosses in cemeteries.....

"All those lawsuits"? Do you mean the lawsuits that have kept you fundies from pressing your extremist religious views into public schools?

nope....I mean all the lawsuits that you lost while trying to impose your beliefs on everyone.......you know, the one to change money, change pledges, change Christmas decorations, change crosses on hilltops in California........you know the ones......

 

[PostmodernProph]

you seem confused, Hollie.....you asked me to refute data that renders the Ark tale a fable......I'm not aware any such data exists.....do you have some?....

Sure. I've posted it before.

is that another one of your fantasies?......

It was data you were unable to refute so you tried slithering away... Like now.

there was no data....still isn't......

Sure there is.

Problems with a Global Flood 2nd edition

You hoped to slither away from addressing the obvious absurdity of your YEC'ist beliefs with literal interpretation of your Ark tales.

Are you going to slither away again?

you don't think any of that is actually data, do you?.......that's just crap some atheist made up.......next you'll be telling me it had to have happened in the last 6000 years........you literalists are a hoot......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Why are Christians so afraid of atheists?
Doubt in their beliefs?
We do not care about your beliefs, leave us to ours.

lol.....no, you don't care about our beliefs......that's why you start all those law suits about rocks in court houses and crosses in cemeteries.....

Why should everyone be confronted with such things? You practice your beliefs and we will practice ours. Public space is for everyone.

/shrugs.....I'm confronted with lots of things I don't agree with.......and apparently public space is only for folks who think like you since you want to keep everything else out......
I'm curious....when a Texas football team says a prayer, do your ears actually catch fire, or are you just afraid that you might get sucked into heaven against your will......