Stupid things religious people say

[The Grand Nudger]

Who decides how, when, and for what your body is used?

The natural biological processes of reproduction.

Wrong again, as magic book plainly states, it's a jealous husband and his supernatural god who determine whether or not a woman will keep her child.

[Rev. Rye]

The natural biological processes of reproduction.

Naturalism fallacy nature makes no judgements on how ones body should be used

I would like to point out that, technically, cancer is also a natural biological process.

[The Grand Nudger]

The naturalism fallacy, fwiw, states that something is not necessarily right or wrong just because it does or doesn't happen in nature - for novel values of those terms mused on below, but not..necessarily, that nature has no say or "makes no judgements". It's a strange line to navigate. We're a part of nature, we make those judgements. One or more of those judgements may be genuinely informed by nature and..say we have more qualifiers...explicitly rational inferences.

None of it matters to a god. Not in general..because it's supernatural....not in specific, because yahweh is a proud babykiller. Not in any objective sense, with respect to any facts of the matters themselves. Not in any relative sense..say the will of the people. Just the fickle attitudes of a subjective supernatural authority. Any natural appeal is fundamentally useless to a supernatural dominionist. Any supernatural appeal is illegal. What's a separatist to do?

[The Architect Of Fate]

My general point was you can't say this happen in biology therefore it ought be how things are to exclusion of any other state of affairs you can't say because women can get pregnant they therefore ought to remain so

[arewethereyet]

The Catholic display of corpses is creepy, but when it's a kid's body, it seems particularly morbid to bring schoolkids to see and pray to it.

Pilgrims have been pouring into this medieval hilltop town to venerate not only two of the Catholic Church’s most celebrated saints, Francis and Clare, but its newest — Carlo Acutis, the first millennial saint, who will be canonized on April 27.

https://apnews.com/article/italy-saint-c...3733fd671d

When I was in sixth grade, my first year in Catholic school, most of our music class was learning funeral dirges.  If a family wanted a children's choir to sing at their loved one's funeral, we were marched across the schoolyard to the church and sang those dirges from the balcony.  Quite festive and a hell of a way to learn the ins and outs of Catholic school life. 

Wakes were a big thing in town too.  I was marched past more dead bodies than I care to think about, some of them people I didn't even know when they were alive.  Then there was the sitting in the funeral home for a couple days when my grandparents died because our family was so small we had to bring in the grandkids to meet the mourners.

Super creepy but also expected.

[Rev. Rye]

These days, when I think about the naturalistic fallacy, I think about this infamous debate between Vegan Gains and the only two people to ever make him seem sane: Sv3rige and Milk Jar, two YouTubers who live on a particularly batshit version of the paleo diet. Namely, eating only raw (and often ROTTING*) meat.





It's extremely rough going, but starting around halfway, you start to see how absurd the argument is. Once something is established as natural, it becomes impossible for them to condemn it. Whether it's things like rape and murder, or even just getting infected by parasites. Don’t ask me how the fuck they’re still alive, I couldn’t fucking tell you.

* Apparently, Sv3rige believes that doing so unlocks the ability (which he believes primal ancestors who lived in nature did) to live naturally high 24/7. The euphoric highs are somehow supposed to be a sign of good health, according to him.

[Fake Messiah]

Wakes were a big thing in town too.  I was marched past more dead bodies than I care to think about, some of them people I didn't even know when they were alive.  Then there was the sitting in the funeral home for a couple days when my grandparents died because our family was so small we had to bring in the grandkids to meet the mourners.

Super creepy but also expected.

Wake? This kid died in 2006. How long do these wakes last?

[Sheldon]

Who decides how, when, and for what your body is used?

The natural biological processes of reproduction.

What an absurd claim, are you saying when you have sex you have no choice? We will put a pin thin that troubling revelation and come back to it later. 

Now, are you saying that "natural biological processes of reproduction" decided to turn on your computer, and seek out this site, and post that ludicrously evasive mendacity? Or that they entirely determine your choices, sexual or otherwise? Even for your posts, that was a spectacularly stupid thing to assert. 

I note without any surprise my question remains unanswered. 

Why would we grant a clump of microscopic insentient cells permission to use the body of a woman against her will, when we never do this for fully formed human beings in any other circumstances? Your "right to life" is a misnomer and no one is denying the blastocyst that, only to use a woman's body against her will. 

If an adult could not survive without using the body of it's parent, we would never insist that parent's body be used against its will, so your lying when you asserted this a right all humans have.

[Sheldon]

No, they're a conservative group of medical professionals who cite their beliefs, not facts, to push their beliefs on others and use their professional titles to make them sound legitimate.

Also, if you call me "hunny", "honey", or anything else in that vein to try and somehow degrade my opinion, in you're mind, you'll regret it.

So they are professionals who have dedicated their lives to their subject, 

That's pure sophistry. 

The American College of Paediatricians  is a socially conservative advocacy group founded in 2002. The group advocates in favour of abstinence-only sex education and conversion therapy, and advocates against vaccine mandates, abortion rights and rights for LGBT people.

They are not a scientific body, and they are no advocating science. Those things they're advocating are based on religious ideology, and they are not only unscientific, they are deeply pernicious, and have directly caused great harm to children and adolescents in the US. The UK has announced plans to ban conversion therapy, and make it illegal, and rightly so. Since in the US it has an appalling record, often including exorcism, physical violence and food deprivation, and remember these are vulnerable children. 

"The British Psychological Society, and other professional bodies, including NHS England and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, have warned that all types of conversion therapy are "unethical and potentially harmful"."

FYI, the BPS is a scientific body, and they are offering a scientific opinion, acting as the representative and professional body for psychology and psychologists in the UK, promoting excellence and ethical practice in the field. 

There is also global scientific opposition to conversion therapy:

"The world's largest organisation for psychiatrists - the World Psychiatric Association - has announced their opposition to the so-called practice of "gay conversion" or "reparative" therapy, declaring it unethical, unscientific and harmful to those who undergo it."

So not only is that conservative advocacy group you cited not a scientific body, their claims and goals are  directly at odds with global scientific opinion. This reminds of creationist lying that evolution is a theory in crisis, then offering a list of "scientists" who oppose it, but the list apart from being infinitesimally small, list people who are not remotely qualified in the actual fields of study, people who have a doctorate in engineering commenting on biology, or a primary school religious education teacher, being labelled scientists to create a false impression. 

Just as @TheWhiteMarten is doing here of course. They are offering their subjective religious ideology, and it is an extreme conservative view of religion as well. It is neither based on, nor does it reflect a scientific consensus from experts in the related fields of study.

[Sheldon]

No, they're a conservative group of medical professionals who cite their beliefs, not facts, to push their beliefs on others and use their professional titles to make them sound legitimate.

Also, if you call me "hunny", "honey", or anything else in that vein to try and somehow degrade my opinion, in you're mind, you'll regret it.

So they are professionals who have dedicated their lives to their subject, they just don't agree with you so they are wrong. Brilliant.

They're listed as a hate group, according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre.

https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extr...atricians/

Quelle surprise, The White(supremacist)martens, is citing hate groups in his arguments for controlling and enslaving women.