I've come to hate seeing this thread.  So I created a new one:  The Obsession with Discussing the Supposed Rudeness of Atheists.


Everyone is invited.

(September 30, 2015 at 12:11 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: I've come to hate seeing this thread.  So I created a new one:  The Obsession with Discussing the Supposed Rudeness of Atheists.


Everyone is invited.

The conversation has moved on from rudeness, Whitey. Stick around.

(September 30, 2015 at 11:42 am)Wyrd of Gawd 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'.

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

Everyone who kudos this must be ignorant of the fact that hens lay unfertilized eggs. Anti-science dopes.

(September 30, 2015 at 1:06 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 11:42 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: When you eat a boiled egg are you eating a boiled chicken?

Everyone who kudos this must be ignorant of the fact that hens lay unfertilized eggs. Anti-science dopes.

I find a fertilized yolk every so often when baking.   The blood is a give away.  Is it it a chicken?  Nope.

(September 30, 2015 at 1:13 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(September 30, 2015 at 1:06 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Everyone who kudos this must be ignorant of the fact that hens lay unfertilized eggs. Anti-science dopes.

I find a fertilized yolk every so often when baking.   The blood is a give away.  Is it it a chicken?  Nope.

Actually it is. Any living fertilized egg is a genetically distinct example of that species at its earliest stage of development. I completely agree that a woman owns her own body. The fertilized egg inside her is not her own body; but rather, another very very young human being with its own individual DNA.

(September 30, 2015 at 1:06 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Everyone who kudos this must be ignorant of the fact that hens lay unfertilized eggs. Anti-science dopes.

What about immaculate conception? It's been established that your god can do anything - and that includes f***ing a hen. You may potentially be eating a chicken messiah, you of little faith...

That's probably the basis, such as it is, for the RCC's obsession over contraception and abortion. They're scared shitless that some young woman whose mind they can't control might 'murder' the second coming.

Incidentally, before someone else snatches it up triumphantly - it was Mary who was supposedly immaculately conceived, not the godboy.

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

Quote:
"I already mentioned Dietrich Bonhoeffer but you can add William Wilberforce[...]"

"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."

William Wilberforce was a devout evangelical Christian, true, and his conversion was clearly a catalyst for his dedication to self-criticism and introspection, the practice of moral reasoning, which naturally led him to his convictions and his contribution towards the abolition. 
Wilberforce's intent was motivated by his religious conviction, certainly, but the intent does not justify the deed, nor the deed the intention. 
Abolition of slavery does not, in any way, shape or form embody the principles of Christian doctrine.

Throughout the entirety of the New Testament, Christ does not once express any objection to the ownership of a people.
The apologists haven't even found a vague quote to reinterpret as a condemnation of slavery.
The most attention he ever pays to the subject is in the form of this little parable: 

Quote:Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

 
The Messiah himself used slavery as an analogy for the Christian worldview.

The Biblical scriptures contain instructions on proper treatment of slaves, the instructions do not in any way condemn abuse or mistreatment of human beings, they are administrative procedures concerning management of chattel.

Considering his views as the Bible portrays them, I think it's fair to assume that the Atlantic slave trade was either of no concern to Yahweh, or the passing of the 13th amendment left him feeling disappointed. 
William Wilberforce may have been condemned to Hell for challenging slavery; and in the event that he wasn't, Wilberforce ascended into Eternal Paradise and in stood in the presence of God to discover his Lord and Savior thought his pursuit of justice was boring and kind of dumb.

(September 30, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Stimbo Wrote: [...]
Incidentally, before someone else snatches it up triumphantly - it was Mary who was supposedly immaculately conceived, not the godboy.

You mean - Mary DID get her snatch pounded? Good for her...

It's more to do with the tradition that JC had to be born free from 'sin', so couldn't possibly have come from a 'soiled' womb. So his dad magically kept her 'immaculate' - free from Original Sin™ - while baking in her mum.