Why do the God-haters persist?

[Uncensored2008]

Did you see Americans would rather vote for a pot smoking cheater than they would an atheist? Once that is not true anymore, I'll get less militant. I really don't care unless I think that ignorant view is holding me or society back, which I do. Stem cell & the way the Catholic church treated Galileo are just two of many examples.

200 million dead in Atheist genocide, makes reasonable people not trust you...


Oh and fetal stem cells were a bust, the stem cells used in ALL research is the last decade are harvested from adults. The ignorance appears to be on the part of those promoting non-viable technology.

Oh, and the AGW morons are the new Catholics, demanding "consensus" as a substitute for science.

 

[Hollie]

You're getting quite frantic. You are a bit reality challenged in that you are unable to connect disbelief in gods with the actions of political ideologies and megalomaniacs.

Your "irrefutable fact" is not a fact at all but the ranting of someone who has not studied the facts.

Oh my, well then we'll have to inform the victims of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al. that they really are not dead after all - a whackjob internet troll has declared that her religion is flawless and therefore their genocide is hereby revoked..


ROFL

You're a joke, sparky - though the subject isn't really funny.

I mean, you DO realize that you are every bit as fanatical and irrational as GISMYS, don't you?

It's tragically comical that you hope to blame the atheist left for the Holocaust. Try learning a bit of history so you don't make yourself the village idiot.

Hitler's SS wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. Do a web search for what that translation.

I suspect you failed to complete your education through the sixth grade, but grown ups are aware that as abominable as the slaughter of 14 million by Hitler was, it is dwarfed by the 200 million slaughtered by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pot, Kim. et al.

Junior High really would have helped you...



Yet all you can spew is mindless bigotry.

Ignorance on your part does make being clueless so much easier.

I'm not the one ignorantly denying the slaughter of 200 million people, sploogy.

Does that come with a Jingle?

Your application for martyrdom is rejected. You weren't quite pompous enough. I am prepared however, to make you Queen for a Day.

You're not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag, are you?

My goodness, but you do know your slogans and cliches.

Aside from your pointless, invented claims of "atheist killers", you never seem to be able to understand that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pot, Kim. et al. furthered political ideologies. Lack of religious affiliation was not the cause of their atrocities.

As usual, you're too lazy or too dishonest to actually compare the numbers killed by your religious heroes.

 

[Hollie]

Did you see Americans would rather vote for a pot smoking cheater than they would an atheist? Once that is not true anymore, I'll get less militant. I really don't care unless I think that ignorant view is holding me or society back, which I do. Stem cell & the way the Catholic church treated Galileo are just two of many examples.

200 million dead in Atheist genocide, makes reasonable people not trust you...


Oh and fetal stem cells were a bust, the stem cells used in ALL research is the last decade are harvested from adults. The ignorance appears to be on the part of those promoting non-viable technology.

Oh, and the AGW morons are the new Catholics, demanding "consensus" as a substitute for science.

What atheist genocide? My, but you're an angry little boy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What atheist genocide? My, but you're an angry little boy.

I realize that you are a zealot protecting your religion, but if you truly are unaware of the 200 million people slaughtered in the 20th century by Atheist dictators, then you are far too ******* stupid to bother with.

You probably think you're clever, but trust me, you're not....

 

[Hollie]

Here as usual, religious zealots such as boss presume a right to force their fundamentalist views on others.

The extremist religious nutters on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point.

Hold on there, toots... can't let you get away with this. I don't have a "fundamentalist" view on abortion. My "political" solution to the issue of abortion is to allow states to determine the law for themselves.

My viewpoints are from a humanitarian and biological perspective and involve ethics, which you probably know little about. Human life begins at a successful conception, when the fused sperm/egg zygote produces another cell. Biology is very clear on this, and there is no other way to get around it. A unique human being has come to exist, and we all began like this. In order to have any kind of meaningful dialogue with the subject of abortion, this has to be established first.

Hold on, fundie zealot. As usual, your nonsensical "... because I say so", comments are false and basically pointless. A fused sperm/egg zygote is not a "baby".

Out-of-the-wallet-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 few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

People can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of the State to impose their personal impression upon others is antithetical to the libertarian ideal.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coercion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fetus 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.

There is no such thing as "personhood" it's a made-up word to get around killing human beings in the womb. If brain waves are the criteria for it, you're in real trouble, toots. Human beings develop all kinds of different abilities, some things may take well into adulthood to develop. And we all develop at different rates at different times. None of these things qualify us as human beings. There is no arbitrary "time" at which we become human beings, we are what we are from point of conception.

This has already been addressed in Roe v. Wade.

You can pretend that an acorn is an oak tree because it suits your fundamentalist agenda, but no rational person equates a microscopic, insentient human zygote with an actual person as you contrive to do. You would advocate maximal Statist intervention in the most personal of decisions.

Allowing governments such a tyrannical purview permits forced abortions for population control or to eliminate undesirable racial stock, and other such abuses. The presumption that a woman possesses both the moral dimension and vastly superior awareness of her own circumstances to make a superior decision to an impersonal State in such a profoundly personal matter is entirely reasonable; a moral conviction held by most Americans.

I’m actually comfortable with Roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more.

Well, I am not comfortable with Roe because it ignores the right of the unborn. They ARE human beings residing in the United States... they weren't "born" here (yet) but like illegal immigrants, they still should have some constitutional protections. The state does have a compelling interest to protect the human rights of the unborn, but if the state doesn't, the people certainly should.

Such stark simplicity does not pertain in such a complex matter. A fetus gradually becomes a human being, as we generally understand that term, during gestation.

During pregnancy there is a unique biological dependency of the fetus upon the woman. When the fetus achieves a stage of development that is no longer biologically depends upon the woman, a significant stage is achieved that informs regarding the matter. Her unique role significantly diminishes when that biological independence occurs. At an earlier stage, brain waves are, of course, an essential element of personhood.

It's clear to me that your wish is that your fundamentalist views be imposed by government upon women, whether they share your view or not. But recognize that extremists, particular males like you with negative view of women for whom the situation does not arise, who would dictate and force their personal belief upon women who are personally affected.

 

[Hollie]

What atheist genocide? My, but you're an angry little boy.

I realize that you are a zealot protecting your religion, but if you truly are unaware of the 200 million people slaughtered in the 20th century by Atheist dictators, then you are far too ******* stupid to bother with.

You probably think you're clever, but trust me, you're not....

Trust me, angry little man, protecting your religious beliefs with your nonsensical claims is a waste of time.

 

[sealybobo]

Did you see Americans would rather vote for a pot smoking cheater than they would an atheist? Once that is not true anymore, I'll get less militant. I really don't care unless I think that ignorant view is holding me or society back, which I do. Stem cell & the way the Catholic church treated Galileo are just two of many examples.

200 million dead in Atheist genocide, makes reasonable people not trust you...


Oh and fetal stem cells were a bust, the stem cells used in ALL research is the last decade are harvested from adults. The ignorance appears to be on the part of those promoting non-viable technology.

Oh, and the AGW morons are the new Catholics, demanding "consensus" as a substitute for science.

What atheist genocide? My, but you're an angry little boy.

Maybe he's counting abortions? All I know is life isn't so precious that we can't have abortions. It's also not so precious that terminal people have to suffer. That is another bone I have to pick with religion. Another reason why I seem militant. Because one day I could be laying in a hospital dying and I ask for a fatal dose of morphine and religious cock suckers get in my way and make me suffer needlessly because they say you can't take your own ******* life. Why? Because of an imaginary ******* guy in the sky?

 

[Boss]

B: The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.

Bossy, can you explain how using a condom is not an abortion or "killing babies" ? -

* not for men anyway ....

I thought we already covered the birds and bees?

A male gamete cell known as the sperm is released during ejaculation while having intercourse with a female, who has a gamete egg cell. Until the two gamete cells fuse and reproduce cells, there is no unique human organism. The condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and creating a baby. But it isn't 100% effective, no birth control is, other than abstinence. Women take birth control pills which render the egg invalid, taking one of the gamete cells needed for reproduction out of the equation, so... no baby.

Now I realize some religions don't condone birth control, and some oppose you teaching our kids about such things without the expressed consent of the parent. Some people just don't like the idea of their tax money paying for birth control. But they are all lumped together as this big bad boogie-man who is going to somehow BAN contraception. Why do liberal idiots use such weak and pitiful conjecture to scare folks? No one is ever going to take away birth control.

We need to pay for it. Poor women who shouldn't be having kids but can't afford birth control if it isn't covered will end up getting pregnant and society will end up paying for it. We already had this debate and settled this argument a long time ago. But now catholics are acting like they are offended that they have to provide birth control.

No you aren't banning it. You're just making it unaffordable for the people we need it the most. It's like in red states who closed all abortion clinics but one in the state. So people have to drive 2-5 hours go get an abortion. Then the lying ***** say "see, we didn't ban abortion, what are you liberals talking about

Who the **** died and made you King? Save the "poor women" spiel, they are obviously too ignorant and uneducated to understand how making poor decisions about having sex and making babies is not good for them or society. Right? I mean, that's why you're arguing I should give a shit, right? Margaret Sanger was onto something when she made those "just a step higher than the chimpanzee with little sexual control" comments?

Catholics shouldn't be forced to pay for or provide something they don't agree with. I personally don't think we should be forced to pay for anything we don't want. Reason # 1,287 Obamacare is a total clusterfuck.

THEN... we suddenly jump from birth control (still legal in all 50 states, btw)... and we're on to ABORTION! ....Abortion: The Leading Choice in Liberal Contraception! ...Yes, we have to rid the world of these "step above a chimp" people when they spawn their offspring.

 

[Montrovant]

I thought we already covered the birds and bees?

A male gamete cell known as the sperm is released during ejaculation while having intercourse with a female, who has a gamete egg cell. Until the two gamete cells fuse and reproduce cells, there is no unique human organism. The condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and creating a baby. But it isn't 100% effective, no birth control is, other than abstinence. Women take birth control pills which render the egg invalid, taking one of the gamete cells needed for reproduction out of the equation, so... no baby.

Now I realize some religions don't condone birth control, and some oppose you teaching our kids about such things without the expressed consent of the parent. Some people just don't like the idea of their tax money paying for birth control. But they are all lumped together as this big bad boogie-man who is going to somehow BAN contraception. Why do liberal idiots use such weak and pitiful conjecture to scare folks? No one is ever going to take away birth control.

We need to pay for it. Poor women who shouldn't be having kids but can't afford birth control if it isn't covered will end up getting pregnant and society will end up paying for it. We already had this debate and settled this argument a long time ago. But now catholics are acting like they are offended that they have to provide birth control.

No you aren't banning it. You're just making it unaffordable for the people we need it the most. It's like in red states who closed all abortion clinics but one in the state. So people have to drive 2-5 hours go get an abortion. Then the lying ***** say "see, we didn't ban abortion, what are you liberals talking about

Who the **** died and made you King? Save the "poor women" spiel, they are obviously too ignorant and uneducated to understand how making poor decisions about having sex and making babies is not good for them or society. Right? I mean, that's why you're arguing I should give a shit, right? Margaret Sanger was onto something when she made those "just a step higher than the chimpanzee with little sexual control" comments?

Catholics shouldn't be forced to pay for or provide something they don't agree with. I personally don't think we should be forced to pay for anything we don't want. Reason # 1,287 Obamacare is a total clusterfuck.

THEN... we suddenly jump from birth control (still legal in all 50 states, btw)... and we're on to ABORTION! ....Abortion: The Leading Choice in Liberal Contraception! ...Yes, we have to rid the world of these "step above a chimp" people when they spawn their offspring.

Well, not paying for anything we don't want is pretty much impossible. There will always be people not wanting to pay for basic services that government really should be doing, like maintaining roads, paying for the military, etc.

I understand your argument, but it's a matter of degree rather than as black and white as 'if you don't want it, don't pay for it' IMO.

I think abortion should remain legal up to a certain point, but I'm fine with keeping government funds out of it.

And how the hell did we start arguing about abortion here?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Trust me, angry little man, protecting your religious beliefs with your nonsensical claims is a waste of time.

You should have finished 4th grade.

Seriously....

 

[Hollie]

I thought we already covered the birds and bees?

A male gamete cell known as the sperm is released during ejaculation while having intercourse with a female, who has a gamete egg cell. Until the two gamete cells fuse and reproduce cells, there is no unique human organism. The condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and creating a baby. But it isn't 100% effective, no birth control is, other than abstinence. Women take birth control pills which render the egg invalid, taking one of the gamete cells needed for reproduction out of the equation, so... no baby.

Now I realize some religions don't condone birth control, and some oppose you teaching our kids about such things without the expressed consent of the parent. Some people just don't like the idea of their tax money paying for birth control. But they are all lumped together as this big bad boogie-man who is going to somehow BAN contraception. Why do liberal idiots use such weak and pitiful conjecture to scare folks? No one is ever going to take away birth control.

We need to pay for it. Poor women who shouldn't be having kids but can't afford birth control if it isn't covered will end up getting pregnant and society will end up paying for it. We already had this debate and settled this argument a long time ago. But now catholics are acting like they are offended that they have to provide birth control.

No you aren't banning it. You're just making it unaffordable for the people we need it the most. It's like in red states who closed all abortion clinics but one in the state. So people have to drive 2-5 hours go get an abortion. Then the lying ***** say "see, we didn't ban abortion, what are you liberals talking about

Who the **** died and made you King? Save the "poor women" spiel, they are obviously too ignorant and uneducated to understand how making poor decisions about having sex and making babies is not good for them or society. Right? I mean, that's why you're arguing I should give a shit, right? Margaret Sanger was onto something when she made those "just a step higher than the chimpanzee with little sexual control" comments?

Catholics shouldn't be forced to pay for or provide something they don't agree with. I personally don't think we should be forced to pay for anything we don't want. Reason # 1,287 Obamacare is a total clusterfuck.

THEN... we suddenly jump from birth control (still legal in all 50 states, btw)... and we're on to ABORTION! ....Abortion: The Leading Choice in Liberal Contraception! ...Yes, we have to rid the world of these "step above a chimp" people when they spawn their offspring.

Do us a favor, bossie. Make a list of the things you and Catholics shouldn't be "forced" to pay for.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Maybe he's counting abortions? All I know is life isn't so precious that we can't have abortions. It's also not so precious that terminal people have to suffer. That is another bone I have to pick with religion. Another reason why I seem militant. Because one day I could be laying in a hospital dying and I ask for a fatal dose of morphine and religious cock suckers get in my way and make me suffer needlessly because they say you can't take your own ******* life. Why? Because of an imaginary ******* guy in the sky?

I'm curious, do you think that ignoring reality will alter it? I've run into you holocaust deniers before, but I don't grasp your utter stupidity. Do you think lying about history will rewrite it.

Murder By Government--Democide

I don't see you as having much credibility to start with, giving the bigotry you display with your anti-Christian rants - but when you deny the slaughter of the Kulaks, the purges, the killing fields, the cultural revolution, etc., well, you can't really claim to be sane, now can you?

 

[Hollie]

Trust me, angry little man, protecting your religious beliefs with your nonsensical claims is a waste of time.

You should have finished 4th grade.

Seriously....

Short man complex?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Short man complex?

Is Atheism a religion for stupid people? Or are you "special?"

 

[Hollie]

Short man complex?

Is Atheism a religion for stupid people? Or are you "special?"

Agreed, you're suffering from the debilitating disease of short man complex.

 

[Boss]

Hold on, fundie zealot. As usual, your nonsensical "... because I say so", comments are false and basically pointless. A fused sperm/egg zygote is not a "baby".

..... that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

If and when a fetus 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.

During pregnancy there is a unique biological dependency of the fetus upon the woman. When the fetus achieves a stage of development that is no longer biologically depends upon the woman, a significant stage is achieved that informs regarding the matter. Her unique role significantly diminishes when that biological independence occurs. At an earlier stage, brain waves are, of course, an essential element of personhood.

You can pretend that an acorn is an oak tree because it suits your fundamentalist agenda, but no rational person equates a microscopic, insentient human zygote with an actual person as you contrive to do.

Okay, it looks like you've established a double criteria here. This undefined "thing" or "clump-o-cells" has grown and developed into something that clearly resembles a small infant baby of a human being... but it has to meet a couple more "criteria" to qualify, in your mind? Now this is really rich... it has to be "sentient" but you're not "sentient" half the time here! And then it has to possess "viability" as well, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Seems I was about 12 or 13 before I felt confident enough to declare my independence from Mom. If being dependent of the host organism is the criteria, maybe moms have the right to terminate those pesky annoying pre-teens?

But I am curious... before this "clump" has accomplished "personhood" what kind of organism is it? Because it seems as if we're talking about the same living human organism, which does exist already in state of being, so... human being. Now, what stage of development that human has achieved is a different matter, and I understand the point you were trying to make.

People can believe whatever they choose to believe

That's right, and if you choose to believe something is okay because you've devised a word to make it be that way, that's your prerogative as well. Unfortunately, there are many women in this country who are talked into abortion with "personhood" type rhetoric, only to realize what a morally horrible thing they did. The abortion mills don't tell them about that part. Living with yourself afterward.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Agreed,

What are you agreeing with? The voices in your head?

you're suffering from the debilitating disease of short man complex.

What's sad is this really is the best you can do..

So, were you born retarded, or did you suffer severe brain trauma?

I'm just curious.....

 

[Hollie]

Hold on, fundie zealot. As usual, your nonsensical "... because I say so", comments are false and basically pointless. A fused sperm/egg zygote is not a "baby".

..... that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

If and when a fetus 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.

During pregnancy there is a unique biological dependency of the fetus upon the woman. When the fetus achieves a stage of development that is no longer biologically depends upon the woman, a significant stage is achieved that informs regarding the matter. Her unique role significantly diminishes when that biological independence occurs. At an earlier stage, brain waves are, of course, an essential element of personhood.

You can pretend that an acorn is an oak tree because it suits your fundamentalist agenda, but no rational person equates a microscopic, insentient human zygote with an actual person as you contrive to do.

Okay, it looks like you've established a double criteria here. This undefined "thing" or "clump-o-cells" has grown and developed into something that clearly resembles a small infant baby of a human being... but it has to meet a couple more "criteria" to qualify, in your mind? Now this is really rich... it has to be "sentient" but you're not "sentient" half the time here! And then it has to possess "viability" as well, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Seems I was about 12 or 13 before I felt confident enough to declare my independence from Mom. If being dependent of the host organism is the criteria, maybe moms have the right to terminate those pesky annoying pre-teens?

But I am curious... before this "clump" has accomplished "personhood" what kind of organism is it? Because it seems as if we're talking about the same living human organism, which does exist already in state of being, so... human being. Now, what stage of development that human has achieved is a different matter, and I understand the point you were trying to make.

People can believe whatever they choose to believe

That's right, and if you choose to believe something is okay because you've devised a word to make it be that way, that's your prerogative as well. Unfortunately, there are many women in this country who are talked into abortion with "personhood" type rhetoric, only to realize what a morally horrible thing they did. The abortion mills don't tell them about that part. Living with yourself afterward.

Sorry, bossie. Your whining has already been presented by arguments previously made by extremists.

Read the decision surrounding Roe v. Wade

 

[Hollie]

Agreed,

What are you agreeing with? The voices in your head?

you're suffering from the debilitating disease of short man complex.

What's sad is this really is the best you can do..

So, were you born retarded, or did you suffer severe brain trauma?

I'm just curious.....

You can get help for the emotional damage you inflict on yourself due to short man complex.

 

[Boss]

Well, not paying for anything we don't want is pretty much impossible. There will always be people not wanting to pay for basic services that government really should be doing, like maintaining roads, paying for the military, etc.

I understand your argument, but it's a matter of degree rather than as black and white as 'if you don't want it, don't pay for it' IMO.

I think abortion should remain legal up to a certain point, but I'm fine with keeping government funds out of it.

And how the hell did we start arguing about abortion here?

I just meant in the philosophical sense, humans should have freedom to decide what they will or will not pay for. I don't have a problem with basic services from government but I think that should be determined by the people and more at the state and local level. Washington D.C. has way too much control on our freedoms.

Why are we talking abortion? She reared her ugly head as always.