Stupid things religious people say

[h4ym4n]

... Your idea of justification will boil down to white supremacist garbage...

Yep, Christianity is an inherently white religion.

Until you forced it on your slaves, right?

You Xians are amazing, convincing the slaves to pray to to same savior god.

[h4ym4n]

Nah it's got nothing to do with the value of life it has to do with control like everything in religion

Like I said, secularist/atheists seem to have a hard time understanding at a fundamental level the value Christians put on life.

Oooo, another Gott Mit Uns moment.

Another cheer for the Nazis.

You’re the best @TheWhiteMarten

[Sheldon]

Why can't the (Catholic) clergy understand the notion of assisted dying? Are they stupid, or are they inventing a problem so they can "solve" it and thus create the illusion of usefulness in society?

It's not a matter of "understanding" and to answer the second question - neither. Their position predates the modern euthanasia position by thousands of years.

So doeas slavery what's your point?

I do think a more accurate summary would be that secularists/atheists have a hard time understanding the value of life as it is understood in a Christian worldview.

Now there I can't argue, they can cause untold misery suffering and death with the archaic dogma and doctrine of patricarchal Bedhouin societies, then get all bent out of shape over a woman deliberately shedding a microscopic clutch of insentient cells from the lining of her uterus. They would rather let someone suffer unimginable pain then offer them the choice of a dignified end when there is no hope of recovery or any quality of life, but condemn countless people to death through willful ignorance, such as the risible claim condoms are part of their imagined supernatural curse (sin). They condemn and demonsise people because of why they are, if they are bron gay for example, then offer a free pass into a eternity for literally anyone, no matter what they've done, as long they geneuinely repent at the end. 

This might be the first thing you've said, that I actually do agree with, though I can't speak for other atheists of course.

[Sheldon]

he official dogmatic line is that assisted dying ticks all three boxes for being a mortal (rather than a venial) sin - it is grave, it is done with knowledge of the gravity of the act, and it is done with consent.

Right; the mortal sin being the taking of a life, hence my statement that secularists/atheists tend to fundamentally misunderstand the value that Christians' put on human life.

Unless it's a woman or girl who might die in childbirth, even after a rape, or is sufferring endless abuse from a husband, which will likely end in her untimely death. Then it's "man the fuck up, our imaginary sky daddy doesn't like abortions or divorce". 

Christian plantation owners seemd happy enough to cite the bible to jusitfy owning slaves as well, so yes, again I think you're right for once, I have a real hard time understanding what many theists including christians mean, when they talk about valuing human life. 

As others have pointed out, sufferring doesn't seem to bother them, as much as adherence to archaic doctrine and dogma from bronze age patriarchal Bedhouin societies.

[Sheldon]

And with extreme prejudice, i.e., the Inquisition.

lol

Is that an example of the value you put on human life? Impressive in its own way to be sure.

[Sheldon]

No we understand it's not about life it's about control.

You "perceive" this, but like many things it's a false perception based on internal biases and ignorance of the actual positions held by your opponents.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia, - May 5, 1980 

      II.  Catechism of the Catholic Church:


[b]Suicide

2280 - Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.[/b]

It's the part where religions try to force this delusional unevidneced fanatsy onto others, that the problems begin. I have seen no objective or compelling reason to believe any deity exists or is even possible, so why should I care what some religious control freak thinks I owe their deity of choice? 

It's a fundamental lack of understanding theists have, about atheists and atheism.

[zebo-the-fat]

When my dog had a stroke, it left her blind, deaf and unable to walk, she had zero quality of life, so we had a vet euthanise her, I think this was the kindest thing to do (recovery was very unlikely) I hope if I am ever in a similar situation someone will be equally kind to me.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Indeed if it's considered cruel not to put down a suffering non how can it be consider moral to allow the suffer of a human animal?

[Disagreeable]

"God is an axiom."

On Discord I had a debate with a Christian who said that God is an axiom and can be presupposed rationally. I pointed out that it's special pleading to pick the Christian God as an axiom rather than Hinduism as an axiom, for instance, or a thousand other arbitrary positions.

But he insisted that it's rational to start with the Christian God as an axiom.

He also said that you start with a theory and develop a hypothesis afterwards. Which I said I was pretty sure he got backwards but he insisted that it was the right way around and it made sense to start with God and if you can't disprove him then he's an acceptable "theory". I also pointed out that he had the burden of proof reversed by asking me to disprove God. He insisted that he had the burden of proof the right way around.

Pretty sure this counts as stupid things religious people say.

[Sheldon]

"God is an axiom."

On Discord I had a debate with a Christian who said that God is an axiom and can be presupposed rationally. I pointed out that it's special pleading to pick the Christian God as an axiom rather than Hinduism as an axiom, for instance, or a thousand other arbitrary positions.

But he insisted that it's rational to start with the Christian God as an axiom.

He also said that you start with a theory and develop a hypothesis afterwards. Which I said I was pretty sure he got backwards but he insisted that it was the right way around and it made sense to start with God and if you can't disprove him then he's an acceptable "theory". I also pointed out that he had the burden of proof reversed by asking me to disprove God. He insisted that he had the burden of proof the right way around.

Pretty sure this counts as stupid things religious people say.

The emboldened claim he made is a text book argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, so much for the belief being rational. It's also not an axiom that any deity exists, or is even possible, just because theists accept the existence of a deity as "established, accepted, or self-evidently true" does not mean it is so, that one is called begging the question, so again his claim for rationality seems like the usual rhetoric theists offer when they use words like rational and logic. 

If one were to point out that you can't disprove the claim "no deity exists or is possible", would the claim be axiomatically true I wonder? Two contradictory claims can't rationally both be true at the same time and in the same place after all.