(September 17, 2015 at 3:47 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Christians are gullible, infantile believers of fairy tales on the level of unicorns, Peter Pan and Tinkerbell, the Easter bunny, leprechauns, “magic,” the tooth fairy, etc.

 
Well yes, this just about sums it up, I don't make a conscious habit of insulting Christians on a daily basis either here or in person but I feel compelled to insult the infantile beliefs that have shaped their every waking moment because it bothers me that millions of decent enough folk have succumbed to indoctrination and built a delusion around fairy tales when they could be concentrating their efforts in a more productive way for our species. That and the fact that some feel the need to come to an atheist forum and play out this superiority complex that comes with said beliefs to those of us that don't subject our kids to the same fairy tale story every fucking day.
 
it's nowhere like personal, I work with a few Christians and we get along fine (at least that's the impression I'm given - could be wrong of course) even though I will gently point out the absurdness of logically insane beliefs in zero evidence gods and ancient myths when, at the same time, they apply intense scrutiny and logical approach with proofs to our engineering work. I just don't get it, it frustrates me that people suffer from these mental illnesses and carry on without getting treatment to make them better.
 
For example, here's a few recent random posts from a Christian forum to demonstrate why this virus irritates me (although I expect you will see nothing wrong with them). There are plenty of examples from yourself, GC and Drich on this forum but we are all familiar with your mental issues.
 

Quote:The Lord knows us because he made us. He knit us together in the wombs of our mothers. That means we were born into the families into which we were born, not by mistake, and not by coincidence, nor by an act of nature, but by divine appointment and the will of God. He purposed that we should have the parents we had, even knowing what bad may happen to us, because he has a purpose and a plan for each of our lives. All that we go through in our lives serves a unique purpose in molding us into the people God intends us to be. So, I thank and praise the Lord for how he made me, and that he loved me enough to mold me into someone he could use for his divine will and purposes to bring others to Jesus Christ.

 

Quote:Sometimes I feel unloved and forsaken. I pray everyday to Jesus for protection and for him to forgive me of all my sins. At times I even think that I am hopeless and am condemned already. Does he still love me and want me to go to heaven?

 

Quote:Very nice! I just briefly read some of the highlights of your book. I missed the part where Mars got water from the Earth. Was it during one of the flybys that Mars absorbed some of the Earth's precipitation/water, or something else?

 

Quote:After reading the bible since my hospitalization I look back and think I may have been spiritually attacked in some way. It's like I'm in chains. I need to be rescued and set free. I love you Jesus so much. I need clear guidance. Can anyone please reading this help me and assure me that I am not alone.
 
What you are up against is the classic method of the devil to come against new believers. You think you are thinking these things, but really, the enemy of God is whispering lies and doubts and making it seem as though it is your own thoughts. You can come against this successfully by speaking out loud that you believe what God says about you. Choosing to believe God (daily!) will drown out the measly accusations and lies that the enemy lodges against you.

 

Quote:I have to agree with you, it really makes my heart sad when i see and hear Born Again Believers that are blinded by the veil of the law...that they cannot grasp all that Jesus has done for them. To set them at liberty, freeing them from the bondage of sin and death. I think the devil has caused good Christian people to think that they have to earn the free gift of righteousness. They have not fully dove in head first into the scriptures to find out what is really theirs. Instead the things of this world have stolen from them their freedom freely given them in God's Grace.

All from here;
http://www.christianforumsite.com/threads/
 
In any other context outside of religion, this type of talk would very quickly be attributed to mental illness. it's a blight on the human race and you are one of the victims Randy. The insults are born out of frustration that Christianity is holding us all back but it's rarely meant at a personal level as you can witness with the affection that is offered to the crazy old fool prof on this forum. It's when this mental illness is thrust in front of us here with the arrogance and sheer condescending attitude that Drich and GC are so adept at, that the insults start flying but, all things considered, it's pretty tame when you can actually experience the continuous veiled insult that Christians spout off (you need to be on this side of the fence to realise).

(September 30, 2015 at 9:24 am)Stimbo Wrote: Aborted foetuses. Please let's not stoop to the weasel words level of language misuse.

If we are going to be biologically honest and stop hiding evil behind euphemisms then the proper term is 'human being'.

(September 30, 2015 at 9:08 am)houseofcantor Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 9:01 am)ChadWooters Wrote: That's really really sad if you think Dawkins is a hero comparable to any of the people I listed.

I didn't know that there was an objective standard for heroic action.

I also made this same point. PT is demonstrating the problem with making value judgments from the perspective of ontological naturalism. Professing 'secular' values is all well and good so long as secularists recognize that they acknowledge that those values are really just cultural norms.In contrast to this, Judeo-Christian values are not culture specific because they point back to Nature and Nature's God.

(September 30, 2015 at 9:50 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 9:24 am)Stimbo Wrote: Aborted foetuses. Please let's not stoop to the weasel words level of language misuse.

If we are going to be biologically honest and stop hiding evil behind euphemisms then the proper term is 'human being'.

Not at all, no more than a sperm cell is a human being. The point of euphemisms is to obscure language, whereas scientific terminology is aimed at being as specific as possible.

As for abortion being evil, maybe you should take that up with your god? As the instigator of every spontaneous abortion in history, it has done more for the cause of evil than abortion doctors ever could.

(September 30, 2015 at 9:50 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 9:24 am)Stimbo Wrote: Aborted foetuses. Please let's not stoop to the weasel words level of language misuse.

If we are going to be biologically honest and stop hiding evil behind euphemisms then the proper term is 'human being'.

You're right! The mother is a human being, with the absolute right under American law to medical privacy under the First Amendment, and that happens to include the concept of medical privacy, which most Americans find quite dear, and that concept includes the right to control her own body-- including what is allowed to feed off of her uterine wall. Or isn't.

Fetuses, or whatever you wish to call it (in non-medical terms?), are on that list.

We cannot force citizens to unwillingly give up a kidney, at risk to their own life, even if they caused kidney failure in another person and that other person will die without the first individual's kidney. It's unthinkable, under law, because they have bodily integrity. You may think that the person who caused the kidney failure in their friend is a dick for being unwilling to risk his life to save the one who lost both kidneys because of him, but he has that right to refuse, under every concept of law and personal integrity/medical privacy we understand.

Asking a woman to involuntarily risk childbirth or C-section is not one shred different. The risks she takes with her own body, and what she does with it, are entirely hers. There are no ifs, ands, or buts after that sentence.

If we are to say that women are people, then that must necessarily include the bodily integrity concept. You can religiously frown on the practice of birth control, of women being something other than breeders, for that is your right. But knock it off with pushing your religious objection to abortion, in an artificial "we like life!" plea, as an agenda.

The funny thing is, though, your Bible is in no way against abortion. I don't know where y'all get that idea. I really don't. It's all "well if you read it this  way..." but it never says abortion is wrong. In fact, it strongly suggests in some places that God is totally okay with it-- see in Numbers chapter 5, where it appears there is a recipe for inducing a forced miscarriage (read: abortion) in a woman who has been suspected of being unfaithful while her husband was away. (Verses 11-31.)

But again, regardless of whether your Holy Book™ is against the practice, it is irrelevant, because our laws are secular and must remain indifferent to and unbiased toward religious ideologies. Oh, and that whole pesky Bill of Rights which seems to strongly imply that citizens (yes, folks, even women!) have all their rights, all the time.

---

(September 30, 2015 at 9:56 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 9:08 am)houseofcantor Wrote: I didn't know that there was an objective standard for heroic action.

I also made this same point. PT is demonstrating the problem with making value judgments from the perspective of ontological naturalism. Professing 'secular' values is all well and good so long as secularists recognize that they acknowledge that those values are really just cultural norms.In contrast to this, Judeo-Christian values are not culture specific because they point back to Nature and Nature's God.

What the fuck does this even mean? What problem?

Plagiarizing Deist concepts from the Declaration, transcribing them into the name of Jehovah, does not constitute an argument. Shame!

You don't just get to throw shit out there and pretend it's sage! All PT said is that Christians claim to have Absolute Truth™, and then by and large live just like the rest of us (for good and for bad), so they clearly make their own moral judgments despite all the rhetoric about "Nature and Nature's God" and the imaginary concept of an Ultimate Lawgiver.

(September 30, 2015 at 9:21 am)Randy Carson Wrote: And 40+ million aborted babies.

So much for our improved morality.

Yeah, what a waste - those fetuses could have made excellent slaves, eunuchs, cannon fodder, or f***-toys for priests - just as your god intended...

(September 30, 2015 at 10:07 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 9:50 am)ChadWooters Wrote: If we are going to be biologically honest and stop hiding evil behind euphemisms then the proper term is 'human being'.

You're right! The mother is a human being, with the absolute right under American law to medical privacy under the First Amendment, and that happens to include the concept of medical privacy, which most Americans find quite dear, and that concept includes the right to control her own body-- including what is allowed to feed off of her uterine wall. Or isn't.

Fetuses, or whatever you wish to call it (in non-medical terms?), are on that list.

We cannot force citizens to unwillingly give up a kidney, at risk to their own life, even if they caused kidney failure in another person and that other person will die without the first individual's kidney. It's unthinkable, under law, because they have bodily integrity. You may think that the person who caused the kidney failure in their friend is a dick for being unwilling to risk his life to save the one who lost both kidneys because of him, but he has that right to refuse, under every concept of law and personal integrity/medical privacy we understand.

Asking a woman to involuntarily risk childbirth or C-section is not one shred different. The risks she takes with her own body, and what she does with it, are entirely hers. There are no ifs, ands, or buts after that sentence.

If we are to say that women are people, then that must necessarily include the bodily integrity concept. You can religiously frown on the practice of birth control, of women being something other than breeders, for that is your right. But knock it off with pushing your religious objection to abortion, in an artificial "we like life!" plea, as an agenda.

The funny thing is, though, your Bible is in no way against abortion. I don't know where y'all get that idea. I really don't. It's all "well if you read it this  way..." but it never says abortion is wrong. In fact, it strongly suggests in some places that God is totally okay with it-- see in Numbers chapter 5, where it appears there is a recipe for inducing a forced miscarriage (read: abortion) in a woman who has been suspected of being unfaithful while her husband was away. (Verses 11-31.)

But again, regardless of whether your Holy Book™ is against the practice, it is irrelevant, because our laws are secular and must remain indifferent to and unbiased toward religious ideologies. Oh, and that whole pesky Bill of Rights which seems to strongly imply that citizens (yes, folks, even women!) have all their rights, all the time.

---

(September 30, 2015 at 9:56 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I also made this same point. PT is demonstrating the problem with making value judgments from the perspective of ontological naturalism. Professing 'secular' values is all well and good so long as secularists recognize that they acknowledge that those values are really just cultural norms.In contrast to this, Judeo-Christian values are not culture specific because they point back to Nature and Nature's God.

What the fuck does this even mean? What problem?

Plagiarizing Deist concepts from the Declaration, transcribing them into the name of Jehovah, does not constitute an argument. Shame!

You don't just get to throw shit out there and pretend it's sage! All PT said is that Christians claim to have Absolute Truth™, and then by and large live just like the rest of us (for good and for bad), so they clearly make their own moral judgments despite all the rhetoric about "Nature and Nature's God" and the imaginary concept of an Ultimate Lawgiver.

Rocket, 

I don't disagree with your take on abortion and a woman's right for her own body.  I don't care for the argument that likens the fetus to a bacterial parasite.  Everyone knows that fetus is/will be a human being.  Also what is often left out of the abortion discussion is the right of the father who helped conceive that child.  This is why abortion is such a tough topic, because there are a lot of variables.  

I want to throw a hypothetical, purely because I'm curious of your opinion, but I know you and your girlfriend are expecting.  What if she decided that she wants an abortion?  You respect her right for her bodily integrity, but what about your right as the father of that child?

(September 30, 2015 at 9:50 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 9:24 am)Stimbo Wrote: Aborted foetuses. Please let's not stoop to the weasel words level of language misuse.

If we are going to be biologically honest and stop hiding evil behind euphemisms then the proper term is 'human being'.

When you eat a boiled egg are you eating a boiled chicken?

(September 30, 2015 at 9:56 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I also made this same point. PT is demonstrating the problem with making value judgments from the perspective of ontological naturalism. Professing 'secular' values is all well and good so long as secularists recognize that they acknowledge that those values are really just cultural norms.In contrast to this, Judeo-Christian values are not culture specific because they point back to Nature and Nature's God.

I haven't been following this thread, but here is what I take away from this statement. Secular values are fine as long as secularists acknowledge they arise simply from cultural norms(which we do, by the way), but I'm going to go on pretending that my values that are actually derived from cultural norms are derived from an invisible and undetectable entity that has knowledge beyond humanity's capability, thereby making my values superior by default.

How narcissistic do you have to be to approach your own and others' values in such a manner?

(September 30, 2015 at 8:44 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

Quote:And there were communists, socialists and other non believers doing the same and perishing the same for their efforts. They just fly under the Chad radar

But the question is whether they were motivated by their unbelief to do so in the same way that the Christian exemplars were? In other words can you honestly say that any particular social reformer or hero stood up and said that their atheism compelled them to fight for their cause? Please give me an example.

Again, if you're going to claim the German Christians who resisted the Third Reich out of their faith, you're going to have to acknowledge the milliions who actively supported it despite their faith.

If Christianity truly impelled men to the best, the number of resisters would be much higher than it was.

(September 30, 2015 at 9:56 am)ChadWooters Wrote: In contrast to this, Judeo-Christian values are not culture specific because they point back to Nature and Nature's God.

This is rot. Judeo-Christian values are certainly tied to the culture that formulated them ... just like any other set of values. The only reason you claim they "point back to Nature and Nature's God." (whatever that gobbledygook means) is because they feel natural to you.

Christianity does not lead to any exalted morality. It is merely one more worldview (albeit based on superstition and a Bronze-Age morality) created by men.

If Christianity led to exalted morality, whence sin? Why are the prisons stuffed with Christians? Why are so many Christians so fucking immoral?