The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians

[houseofcantor]

Everyone knows how I make these hugs but me D:

Why can't we just have D:

There's a hyphen in it. I just peeked.

[robvalue]

Christians can be one of the most self-righteous and frustrating groups I have ever encountered.  I try not to insult Christians as a whole except for the occasional jab at their doctrine, because I understand that the raving evangelical is not the entire picture and that there are many live-and-let-live Christians out there. I don't condone insulting Christians, but at the same time, I do understand it.  What you guys are feeling is blowback towards what is often used as a hostile doctrine that seeks to rule other people's lives and force their beliefs on everyone else.  If you keep getting insulted, chances are there's something wrong with what you're doing.

You reap what you sow, Randy.

You just missed Randy. He got banned for repeated breach of rules. He had an incredibly arrogant attitude and assumed anyone who disagreed was obviously wrong (this isn't what he got banned for though, that in itself isn't against the rules.) I highly doubt you are going to be like him.

[bambi_swag]

You just missed Randy. He got banned for repeated breach of rules. He had an incredibly arrogant attitude and assumed anyone who disagreed was obviously wrong (this isn't what he got banned for though, that in itself isn't against the rules.) I highly doubt you are going to be like him.

You doubt I'll be like him? Oh no. Here's an example of mean things I've said when my temper blew up on a text to a friend of mine long back:

"Don't wprry. The idiot leftist media are just faggot-lovers and hate conservative people who don't submit to their retarded atheist obcession with chimp-human fetish and communism lololol"

However, things have changed these past few years and I realize more and more how much of a hypocrite. I'm here to wipe my interaction slate clean, and not be the dick I once (and still am to a certain level). That's one reason why I believe that our human nature is intrinsically mean and evil and only manifests itself when we hand it to the anonymous privilege of the internet.

And you are right and I agree. Most of us Christians are actually nasty intolerant people in general. Everyone is nasty, but the organized religious people like Christians and Muslims show this dicky trait a LOT more often.

[Buzz]

Hmm... Buzz....bee icon...Catholic... Hi, Randy!

Did you see this?
Joined: 28th January 2014

He's been around a lot longer than the Randy cathy-lick.

Just seemed a bit coincidental, given style of post and the details of profile.

It's almost worse if this is a different person!

Randy and I are both Catholics, so our mindsets would naturally correspond. Having similar mindsets does not make us the same person.

Lol he even used copy pasta

I copied and pasted a snippet of the linked article which is relevant to my intended message. It's not like I'm spamming the forums.

https://atheistforums.org/rules.php
Spamming

Spamming is not allowed. We consider any of the following behaviors to be spamming:

• Repeatedly creating multiple threads with the same or similar thread subject in a short space of time.
  
• Repeatedly posting responses to existing threads which are unrelated to the current discussion(s) in the thread.
  
• Repeatedly posting links, copy / pasted content, or scripture verses, unless they are relevant to the thread and have the member's own comments added to them.
  

The third bullet point does not apply to me, as I did indeed add my own comments in addition to the posted snippet, which is highlighted in dark blue to be differentiated from my regular words.

You just missed Randy. He got banned for repeated breach of rules. He had an incredibly arrogant attitude and assumed anyone who disagreed was obviously wrong (this isn't what he got banned for though, that in itself isn't against the rules.) I highly doubt you are going to be like him.

And you are right and I agree. Most of us Christians are actually nasty intolerant people in general. Everyone is nasty, but the organized religious people like Christians and Muslims show this dicky trait a LOT more often.

Are you sure that such people are truly nasty? Perhaps they are merely zealous, or overzealous.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Did you see this?
Joined: 28th January 2014

He's been around a lot longer than the Randy cathy-lick.

Randy and I are both Catholics, so our mindsets would naturally correspond. Having similar mindsets does not make us the same person.

Lol he even used copy pasta

I copied and pasted a snippet of the linked article which is relevant to my intended message. It's not like I'm spamming the forums.

https://atheistforums.org/rules.php
Spamming

Spamming is not allowed. We consider any of the following behaviors to be spamming:

• Repeatedly creating multiple threads with the same or similar thread subject in a short space of time.
  
• Repeatedly posting responses to existing threads which are unrelated to the current discussion(s) in the thread.
  
• Repeatedly posting links, copy / pasted content, or scripture verses, unless they are relevant to the thread and have the member's own comments added to them.
  

The third bullet point does not apply to me, as I did indeed add my own comments in addition to the posted snippet, which is highlighted in dark blue to be differentiated from my regular words.

It's cool, Buzz. You just had wonky timing, coming online right at the time Randy got booted, so it looked like a sock. You both used the bee icon, too! Combine that with what appeared at first glance to be a similar type of copypasta and it just seemed fishy.

But you're quite right, you're well within the guidelines, and it was my mistake. Sorry!

[Buzz]

What is a person? A person is simply an individual. All sentient lifeforms are individuals.

And a fetus without a brain is not sentient. Case closed.

Fetuses are still fundamentally human: they have the human nature, appearance, etc. They therefore should be treated as such.

Who cares about a human appearance? Corpses have a human appearance, I don't see you valiantly fighting for their lives.

  Fetuses and corpses cannot be compared with each other. Fetuses, unlike corpses, are still alive.

We don't need to fight for the rights of corpses as much as we need to fight for the rights of those who remain alive, such as fetuses.

As Losty has already explained, even if you want to treat it as a human, that doesn't confer upon it the right to commandeer another human body as a host vessel to prolong its life. If any other human hooked themselves up to a woman without her consent to feed off of her organs to keep themselves alive you would consider that insane, and them criminals. You're trying to grant special rights to fetuses, and therein lies the problem. 

And again, you run afoul of the fact that a sperm can also fully develop into a conscious human in a matter of months, therefore we must allow rape (aka: the use of a woman's body without her consent, which is exactly what we're talking about with abortion) to ensure that every sperm produced has that opportunity. 

You sincerely believe that my statements advocate rape?

"If any other human hooked themselves up to a woman without her consent to feed off of her organs to keep themselves alive you would consider that insane, and them criminals." The problem with this particular statement is that it confers fetuses to be mere parasites; enemies of its host body: the mother. Such a viewpoint seeks to degrade the dignity of human persons; Mankind by extension. It also downgrades the natural aspects of pregnancy. 

Fetuses have the innate right to absorb nutrients from the mother. It's nature; its how the mother's body operates. We shouldn't blame the fetus for obeying nature's laws. The two partners would be irresponsible to engage in an activity that is objectively and widely known to produce additional humans. Based on this, the mother did give consent: she gave consent by having sexual intercourse to begin with.

We know that sexual intercourse produces children, so if we engage in sexual intercourse, we should expect children. It's nature, hence why the fetus isn't at fault.

From the way I see it, we anti-abortion folk do not view the unborn as deserving of special rights, we seek to protect the innate rights of the unborn, and all other humans, particularly the right to life.

It's strange that you would be willing to compare the actions of the unborn to that of criminals and the insane.  

Ah the abortion issue is always full of fun and excitement.   I did some looking around and found that the catholic church does indeed do a lot for the poor children of the world.

there are a number of charities for helping the poor including impoverished children and that's good.

But i want you to remember what your Jesus said

Mark  10: 21 something about selling everything and giving to the poor.

the Catholic church has NOT done this.

http://humansarefree.com/2012/03/christi...ancial.htm

By this estimate they could end hunger altogether but the pope still sits on a golden throne.

So by this example I'm not convinced that the church is that concerned about children born or not.

I believe that you are (those common Catholics that fight abortion rights).  Honestly I truly think that you are really concerned with the welfare of the unborn baby.
It's easy to win sympathy for babies and if you left the pope out of you decision to protest I might sympathies with you however.....

to the popes it's not about right or wrong it's about control.

That link is dead. The page could not be found.

Anyhow, the Catholic Church is not rolling in money. Its expenses include the supplying of parishes and buildings all around the globe, in addition to the charity work you mentioned.

The Pope himself is not personally rich; the money he has access to belongs to the Vatican State, same as how the U.S presidents are not personally rich, but have access to billions of dollars, etc.

You may criticize the pope for “not doing enough to help the poor”. Well, he is doing what he can, within his limitations. As you mentioned, the Church is involved in charity work. We, and plenty of other religious organizations and persons, are doing things to help alleviate the pain of others.   

The Church itself has some limitations. It's necessary for the Church, like all other organizations, both secular and religious, to sustain itself financially. Mark 10:21 seems applicable to persons, rather than organizations.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Buzz - Please read the past, oh, 20 pages or so of this thread. We have covered most of this issue, and your points about fetuses ignore a few of the major arguments that were made and settled, earlier, regarding the status of human rights even if we assume that a fetus is a full-grown adult (skipping over the reduced rights of a minor child and going straight to "full adult citizen"), which still would not grant that fetus the right to/over a person's body for sustinence or sustaining of life. If you have read these points, on the legal background for why medical privacy rights and bodily integrity cannot be violated by another, under any guise, and yet you still persist in the whole "it's a human being" argument, then you are simply throwing out emotional arguments in the face of the legalities that have been established, which is both moot and safely ignored.

[Losty]

Lol he even used copy pasta

I copied and pasted a snippet of the linked article which is relevant to my intended message. It's not like I'm spamming the forums.

https://atheistforums.org/rules.php
Spamming

Spamming is not allowed. We consider any of the following behaviors to be spamming:

• Repeatedly creating multiple threads with the same or similar thread subject in a short space of time.
  
• Repeatedly posting responses to existing threads which are unrelated to the current discussion(s) in the thread.
  
• Repeatedly posting links, copy / pasted content, or scripture verses, unless they are relevant to the thread and have the member's own comments added to them.
  

The third bullet point does not apply to me, as I did indeed add my own comments in addition to the posted snippet, which is highlighted in dark blue to be differentiated from my regular words.

Lol. I'm not accusing you of breaking any rules. I just thought it was funny that you popped up in the thread with your copypasta right after Randy got banned. It was like you senses that our copypasta-er was gone and we were wondering how we would go on without him.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What about the rights of unborn women?

People have rights. No brain, no mind, no person, no problem. As a society we have never been in the business of giving rights to the concepts of people in future, except in the broad sense that we assume that the future will contain people.

Does that mean you are against killing and removing a human being from the womb and cutting open its face to extract its brain?

[Losty]

"Fetuses have the innate right to absorb nutrients from the mother. It's nature; its how the mother's body operates. We shouldn't blame the fetus for obeying nature's laws. The two partners would be irresponsible to engage in an activity that is objectively and widely known to produce additional humans. Based on this, the mother did give consent: she gave consent by having sexual intercourse to begin with."

Buzz. It would be really great if you could go back several pages and read what has already been discussed. All of your points have already been responded to.

From a legal standpoint, most fetuses do not have any rights. You may think someone is irresponsible but to be honest, it's none of your business. Adults are allowed to have sex.

I would say that, just like in sex, a woman has a right to revoke consent at any time. You could be 2 second from reaching climax and if she says nevermind you better jump up and put your damn pants on. A woman's body is her own, and no one else's. No human being has a right to use it in any way intentionally or unintentionally if she doesn't want them to.