Ask a Catholic

[The Valkyrie]

Yes, that was speculation, despite your denials of facts.

Provide examples.

No, there are no victims in an abortion.

Good for your sister.  That she feels guilty about it doesn't speak for the majority of women who have them.

Cancer treatment kills, too.  Should that be banned?

So, spare me your own sanctimonious bullshit.  (and if you're going to say it, say it!)

I'm not going to type f**k.  I'll type fuck, when I mean to say, fuck!

Do you know anyone who has had an abortion, Beccs?

Ever talk with them about it?

Abortion - One Killed. One Wounded.

Yes, I have.

A number of people.

Abortion: No deaths, no wounded unless they're mentally inclined to think that way.

Thanks for playing (and ignoring all other points - seems to be the way of "apologists".

Of course, anything that needs apologetics is fundamentally flawed.

[Jenny A]

Well we share one thing in common, worry about Islam.  It's just that I worry about Christians and Mormons too.

Is there something about Mormons and genital mutilation that I should know about?

Is genital mutilation the only thing about Islam you worry about?  I haven't noticed any Mormon suicide bombers either.  But I have noticed that American Christians (at least fundamentalist and evangelicals) are become alarmingly anti secular and anti-science and the Mormons share these traits.

Two notes here.  First of all most scientist are atheists, but it doesn't follow that most atheists are scientists.  Second, no complex reasoning is required to comprehend that the god hypothesis remains woefully unsupported.  A basic understanding of how to weigh scientific and historical evidence dispassionately is all that's necessary.  

What scientific evidence would you weigh with regard to God, angels or demons?

The complete absence thereof. And yes I understand that lack of evidence for god is not proof he doesn't exist, but it sure is no reason to believe in him.  Though I've seen various Christians (not you, at least I don't remember your doing it) suggesting in the absence of complete human under of the origin of life or the universe there must be a god.  

Yes, well, this is the internet and we're often surrounded by the pious. This is a place to let our hair down so to speak. You may have noticed that there is more interest in such humor among those of us in the very Christian United States, than in more secular parts of the world. 

Also, you haven't appeared to have spent much time anywhere here but your own threads.  You might get out and about a little.  You see, it gets irritating after a while to have one Christian after another with the same tired arguments presenting them as if they would be news.  Your clones have been here before you.

Jenny, I might venture out but there are two problems:

1. I'm way outnumbered. Consequently, I can't join in too many threads because I would be swarmed.
2. rexbeccarox specifically warned me about not posting often enough...even in my own threads. She was threatening to ban me if I did not step up my game. I think this was a matter of public record and not by PM, btw.

Yes well you did jump in with both feet before looking around didn't you?  And yes, I understand you are outnumbered on this forum.  Given the title you'd expect that wouldn't you?  It's a new position for an American Christian, I'm sure, at least on this particular issue.  But it's one I face every day in the off-line world.  Don't bother with pity, I don't need or want it, but I am aware of your predicament.  The difference is that atheists are very unlikely to knock on your door for the purpose of converting you.  Mormans, JWs, and evangelicals knock on mine.  And you know, they are offended if I have a differing point of view.

No, not generally, although it's a growing movement.  And I wouldn't go so far as to call in lunacy.  I think it's unlikely, but considerably more likely than the divinity of Jesus.

Sorry, Jenny. When atheists like Bart Ehrman and the forum's own Tim O'Neill can be honest enough to admit that Jesus was a real person...and still be atheist...then yeah, the lunatic fringe has its work cut out for it.

And so did I, admit there was most likely a real Jesus.  But that doesn't make the divinity of Jesus more likely the mythical Jesus.   Which is all I said.

How many Jesus mythers have you counted here?

There are plenty of people who turn to god for all of the same reasons.  Campus crusades goes after them deliberately.  It's a good strategy.  But I don't think many atheists here are atheists because they are angry.  However, navigating the U.S. as an atheist certainly can make you angry.

Because Christians are so...well behaved? Family oriented? What? Never mind. I know those 10 Commandment plaques at the County Courthouse tie you up in knots.

Because Christians won't leave us the "insert the foul word of choice here" alone.   And yes I object to the 10 commandments being posted in schools or court houses.   Thou shalt have no other gods before me, keep the sabbath holy and not take the lords name in vain, have nothing to do with secular morality and should not be endorsed by the county court.

But yes, there are people who turn to God for all sorts of reasons. And He answers them in all sorts of ways. But those who turn away from God also get the answer they are looking for, don't they? How can they not? It's self-fulfilling.

Well, we do turn away for a variety of reasons.  But I've yet to see anyone really answered.  If you believe you will find a voice inside that is god you will.  It's self fulfilling.  

I have no interest in god's rules when I find them arbitrary or immoral---yes immoral, like discrimination against gays.  But I don't think many atheists are atheists so they can misbehave.  Compared to the rest of America, atheists divorce less: and are less likely to be in prison (just .07% of the incarcerated population even though we approach 10% of the U.S. population) It seems unlikely therefore, that people are becoming atheists to avoid morality.  But we do see morality differently than you.  Pornography, and *gasp* living together, per-marital sex, and contraceptives, aren't wrong.  

They are if God says they are. Which, of course, is why God must be done away with.

No, it's why we ignore your Bible as a moral guide.  Before I get as far as turning from god, I would need to both know he exists and think him qualified.  If he did exist there would be two possibilities:  1) what is moral is moral because god says so (the view of a despot); or 2) there is objective morality and god merely tells us what it is.  In the first place it's arbitrary and the second, god is unnecessary.  I look a god's actions as depicted in the Bible and declare him immoral by most human standards.  He is arbitrary; genocidal, blood thirsty, and needy.  

You've yet to take off your blinders.  You do not think logically on the subject of god, nor do you weight evidence rationally.  Your ability to compartmentalize is astounding.  Nor do you actually pay attention to much real evolutionary theory.  You're too busy refuting the evolution you have made up to look at what is actually there.

I've said surprisingly little about it, and I will withhold further comment until I've had a chance to read more.

It's the god hypothesis about which you wear blinders.  On the evolutionary question you misdescribe it over and over.  You do not understand it.

A think the phrase here is "new chew toy."

I recommend a good book on logic and one on historical method.  Choose neutral ones not interested in the god debate.  Then apply then to god and the Bible.

Well, my friends do accuse me of being like a dog with a bone at times. So, yeah, I'm pretty interested in learning what you have to say.

Google modern logic and text.  There are many many good ones and all much the same.  Historical method is a little more diverse.  Read several.

[Randy Carson]

Do you know anyone who has had an abortion, Beccs?

Ever talk with them about it?

Abortion - One Killed. One Wounded.

Yes, I have.

A number of people.

Abortion: No deaths, no wounded unless they're mentally inclined to think that way.

Thanks for playing (and ignoring all other points - seems to be the way of "apologists".

Of course, anything that needs apologetics is fundamentally flawed.

"Apologetics" is simply about explaining and defending. 

Lots of things need to be explained and defended. Are they ALL fundamentally flawed.

But let's review, abortion offers:

• the near certainty of death for the unborn child (though some survive the botched attempts at chopping them up in utero) 
  
• the risk of death for the mother (yeah, it really does happen)
  
• the risk of complications (such as sterilization)
  
• the risk of infection (also potentially sterilizing)
  
• the near certainty that the mother (and father) will live with the guilt of having killed their own baby for the rest of their lives (though some claim to be immune from this)
  

So, after a quick review of your posts, I don't think I "ignored" anything. But if I did, you will remind me, won't you?

Thanks.

[The Valkyrie]

Yes, I have.

A number of people.

Abortion: No deaths, no wounded unless they're mentally inclined to think that way.

Thanks for playing (and ignoring all other points - seems to be the way of "apologists".

Of course, anything that needs apologetics is fundamentally flawed.

"Apologetics" is simply about explaining and defending. 

Lots of things need to be explained and defended. Are they ALL fundamentally flawed.

But let's review, abortion offers:

• the near certainty of death for the unborn child (though some survive the botched attempts at chopping them up in utero) 
  
• the risk of death for the mother (yeah, it really does happen)
  
• the risk of complications (such as sterilization)
  
• the risk of infection (also potentially sterilizing)
  
• the near certainty that the mother (and father) will live with the guilt of having killed their own baby for the rest of their lives (though some claim to be immune from this)
  

So, after a quick review of your posts, I don't think I "ignored" anything. But if I did, you will remind me, won't you?

Thanks.

When your deity is supposed to be all perfect but his book is contradictory and, in many places, contradicts known facts, then yes, it's flawed.

Abortion offers:

 - Termination of a fetus
 - Abortions are FAR safer than almost any other medical procedures, including child birth.  Everything medical procedure runs a risk.  You should ask a doctor.  Oh, wait . . .
 - Complications - as above
 - Infections - as above
 - Near certainty?  No, that's a claim.  Some regret it, many don't (though some people will think they have the right to speak for those people and call them liars).

If abortion is murder then male masturbation is genocide.

[Cyberman]

1. I'm way outnumbered. Consequently, I can't join in too many threads because I would be swarmed.

Well, this is a discussion forum after all; can't really expect people not to post so much, especially in a thread inviting them to. Why do you think I haven't started my own "ask me" thread? I know not to bite off more than I can chew.

2. rexbeccarox specifically warned me about not posting often enough...even in my own threads. She was threatening to ban me if I did not step up my game. I think this was a matter of public record and not by PM, btw.

Then you will have no trouble posting the specific link, will you? I've scanned through every interaction she's had with you and the nearest I can find is a greenink suggesting you re-engage with this thread. There is no mention nor indeed intimation of a "threat to ban", nor can one Mod take that action unilaterally against a regular member. You're quite correct that no PMs on the subject were made; I have the logs in front of me.

[rexbeccarox]

2. rexbeccarox specifically warned me about not posting often enough...even in my own threads. She was threatening to ban me if I did not step up my game. I think this was a matter of public record and not by PM, btw. 

1. Randy, your shitty reading comprehension doesn't make you exempt from the rules that you and every other member agreed to abide by when signing up here. Funny how we don't have so much trouble with any other member, religious or not. 

2. I didn't warn you for not posting enough; I warned you for starting threads, then ignoring them to start new threads.  It's spam, and against the rules.  

3. I can't ban you without quorum, and I didn't even bring it up for a vote.  I did make a case for officially warning you, and when that didn't happen, I decided I was hands-off when it comes to you.  If, however, you continue to misrepresent me or anyone else, I have no doubt quorum will easily be met for your ban.

[Cyberman]

In spades.

[Randy Carson]

1. I'm way outnumbered. Consequently, I can't join in too many threads because I would be swarmed.

Well, this is a discussion forum after all; can't really expect people not to post so much, especially in a thread inviting them to. Why do you think I haven't started my own "ask me" thread? I know not to bite off more than I can chew.

2. rexbeccarox specifically warned me about not posting often enough...even in my own threads. She was threatening to ban me if I did not step up my game. I think this was a matter of public record and not by PM, btw.

Then you will have no trouble posting the specific link, will you? I've scanned through every interaction she's had with you and the nearest I can find is a greenink suggesting you re-engage with this thread. There is no mention nor indeed intimation of a "threat to ban", nor can one Mod take that action unilaterally against a regular member. You're quite correct that no PMs on the subject were made; I have the logs in front of me.

2. rexbeccarox specifically warned me about not posting often enough...even in my own threads. She was threatening to ban me if I did not step up my game. I think this was a matter of public record and not by PM, btw. 

1. Randy, your shitty reading comprehension doesn't make you exempt from the rules that you and every other member agreed to abide by when signing up here. Funny how we don't have so much trouble with any other member, religious or not. 

2. I didn't warn you for not posting enough; I warned you for starting threads, then ignoring them to start new threads.  It's spam, and against the rules.  

3. I can't ban you without quorum, and I didn't even bring it up for a vote.  I did make a case for officially warning you, and when that didn't happen, I decided I was hands-off when it comes to you.  If, however, you continue to misrepresent me or anyone else, I have no doubt quorum will easily be met for your ban.

There you go, Stimbo.

rexbeccarox confirms that she "warned" me about "ignoring" my three threads. (I'm guessing that real spammers probably post 10 or 12 in rapid succession before you lock the account, right? And I haven't done anything remotely like that, have I?)

The truth is that one of the other forum members even chided her with the comment that it had only been two hours since I posted and that I should be given more time to respond. Two hours. 

But hey, if I misunderstood the situation and spamming is NOT grounds for banning a member, then I clearly overstated the implied threat. My apologies.

However, if spamming is grounds for banning, then rexbeccarox's reference to the spamming rule does carry an implied threat of banning, doesn't it?

Aside from referencing this (not complaining, just explaining) incident to Jenny A, I have been behaving myself and following all the rules, correct?

[Simon Moon]

But let's review, abortion offers:

• the near certainty of death for the unborn child (though some survive the botched attempts at chopping them up in utero) 
  
• the risk of death for the mother (yeah, it really does happen)
  
• the risk of complications (such as sterilization)
  
• the risk of infection (also potentially sterilizing)
  
• the near certainty that the mother (and father) will live with the guilt of having killed their own baby for the rest of their lives (though some claim to be immune from this)
  

So, after a quick review of your posts, I don't think I "ignored" anything. But if I did, you will remind me, won't you?

Thanks.

Your god has murdered over 50 billion children.

See my thread called "god, the author of the biggest holocaust".

100 billion people born in total.
Half of them died while they are still children.
Most of them from disease your god does nothing about.

Face it, your god could have created any planet for us, yet he decided to put us on a child killer.

Not to mention, that over half of all fertilized eggs never become fetus'. The number of abortions your god is responsible for dwarfs the induced abortions by 10's of billions.

Here's a question for you.

Does anything happen that is not a part of god's plan?

[Polaris]

What is your justification for keeping the Book of Tobias canon?