Alberta Catholic high school under fire for pro-life presentation comparing abortion

[Seth1968]

http://www.newstalk770.com/2017/04/10/alberta-catholic-high-school-under-fire-for-pro-life-presentation-comparing-abortion-to-holocaust/

So they consider it murder. Ok fine.

The irony is, these people believe in and worship an invisible man (mental disorder), and this invisible man is by far the most prolific serial MURDERER of all time :nut:

[HiTempguy1]

Its actually pretty reasonable. Many people cite medical issues and abnormalities as reasons for getting abortions :dunno:

Sure sucks when people are called out on it and are actually required to confront the shitty things they do.

Maybe AIM should get the gay porn off their grade school websites before worrying about a differing opinion to theirs being taught. They keep citing "evidence based decisions and teaching", what that has to do with abortion I have no idea, but nothing they said was factually incorrect. But it certainly goes against the current liberal dogma to completely silence dissent.

Just wait, we can have grade school kids being taught how to have proper anal sex like they do in Ontario :nut:

[Seth1968]

Sure, they can compare it to anything they want. I was just pointing out their laughable hypocrisy.

[Brent.ff]

I'm more surprised that anyone would think differently that this would happen at a Catholic school. I went to a catholic school as a kid and this wouldn't have been an unheardof comparison

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Brent.ff
I'm more surprised that anyone would think differently that this would happen at a Catholic school. I went to a catholic school as a kid and this wouldn't have been an unheardof comparison

You're surprised at an outcome that believes in a invisible friend? That's not going to go well.

I'm looking at you Dauner.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968

I'm looking at you Dauner.
I'm flattered. :love:


Originally posted by Seth1968
The irony is, these people believe in and worship an invisible man (mental disorder)
Straw man.



Originally posted by Seth1968
and this invisible man is by far the most prolific serial MURDERER of all time
How so?

As to the discussion: http://www.str.org/quickthoughts/is-abortion-a-holocaust#.WO1XX4WcHoo

[Feruk]

To compare abortion to the holocaust is just laughable. If a person believes the systematic planned extermination of a specific race of people (for no logical reason) compares in ANY way to random terminations of unwanted babies, that person is an idiot who needs to research the Holocaust some more.


Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Sure sucks when people are called out on it and are actually required to confront the shitty things they do.
Please explain how abortion is a "shitty thing to do." Isn't 7 billion people enough? We spend so much time worrying about some confused sense of human morality and zero time thinking of the impact every additional person has on the ecosystem we live in.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Feruk

Please explain how abortion is a "shitty thing to do." Isn't 7 billion people enough? We spend so much time worrying about some confused sense of human morality and zero time thinking of the impact every additional person has on the ecosystem we live in.

It doesn't, you are wrong, and your moral relativism is showing :dunno:

[A790]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


It doesn't, you are wrong, and your moral relativism is showing :dunno:
LOL Do you even try anymore dude? At least you used to be a quality troll.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by duaner

I'm flattered. :love:


Straw man.



In other words, you've got nothing.

Let's try again:

1) If a child believes in an invisible friend, they do so as a source of comfort. The child eventually grows out of it. You haven't.

2) To add insult to injury, your invisible friend is an egotistical, psychotic murderer. How do you justify that? How also do you justify that his followers continuously cause both psychological and physical suffering?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Feruk
We spend so much time worrying about some confused sense of human morality

I've said the same many times.

The main cause of this? Oh look, there's that religion thingy again.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by Seth1968
I've said the same many times.

The main cause of this? Oh look, there's that religion thingy again. :werd:

[Seth1968]

When a child invents an invisible friend we know it's just their imagination. But a religious person would very well shun the kids friend, yet force their invisible friend on the kid. This is is done under the threat of eternal suffering. It's not only idiocy, but also child psychological abuse. Yet, it's accepted :banghead:

Religion wants people to suffer. That's why they oppose abortion, gay rights, woman rights, contraception, dying with dignity, etc, etc.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Feruk

Please explain how abortion is a "shitty thing to do." Isn't 7 billion people enough? We spend so much time worrying about some confused sense of human morality and zero time thinking of the impact every additional person has on the ecosystem we live in.
What do you mean by "some confused sense of morality"?

There are a few things wrong with your argument. First, if abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, precisely how does any supposed negative impact (implied) on the ecosystem justify it? Second, your argument presupposes that the unborn are not full members of the human race, which is to beg the question. Third, you are also presupposing that every additional person will have a negative impact on the ecosystem. How do you know that is actually the case? Fourth, if we carry your argument to its logical conclusion, we should be aborting every single unborn child. Or one could also argue that everyone who is having a negative impact on the ecosystem, however that is subjectively defined, should be killed.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968

In other words, you've got nothing.

Let's try again:

1) If a child believes in an invisible friend, they do so as a source of comfort. The child eventually grows out of it. You haven't.
Kids may make-up an invisible friend for any number of reasons. They grow out of it because they know they made them up. This is not at all the case with belief in the Christian God, hence why your argument is a straw man.


Originally posted by Seth1968
2) To add insult to injury, your invisible friend is an egotistical, psychotic murderer. How do you justify that?
You didn't even answer my question, which suggests you are the one who has nothing. Let's try again:

You stated: "and this invisible man is by far the most prolific serial MURDERER of all time "

I asked: "How so?"

And now I also ask how is God egotistical? How is he psychotic?


Originally posted by Seth1968
How also do you justify that his followers continuously cause both psychological and physical suffering?
In what way?

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Religion wants people to suffer. That's why they oppose abortion, gay rights, woman rights, contraception, dying with dignity, etc, etc.

You're like the poster child for illogical atheist militancy.

You can argue the ethics of many of those points without involving god and simply using reason.

Abortion might be problematic if for example you consider a child to be a person once the umbilical cord is cut but seconds prior to that it's a fetus with no rights. That's hilariously arbitrary and not based on any semblance of fact or logic. Preterm babies can survive after 4 months yet you can abort in theory all the way up to delivery. Do I believe we should ban abortions? No but it's the height of idiocy to be somehow outraged that people have issues with this wanton destruction of human life.

Dying with dignity is the same kind of can of worms. How do you decide if someone has the right mind frame to make that decision or the capability? We treat people with mental illness and discourage suicide but now we want to allow suicide? I mean yeah you can certainly make the argument that this is bordering on if not full on eugenics. Why shouldn't I have the right to use my power of attorny put down grandma whose gone senile so I can inherit earlier?

Trying to pretend we shouldn't have these discussions because someone might have their PC feelings hurt is just stupid. These societal issues are not black and white. They don't even have anything to do with religion. There's quite simple ethical issues independent of anything else involved.

In short stop making atheist look like morons...

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968

Religion wants people to suffer.
Maybe some religions want people to suffer, not Christianity.


Originally posted by Seth1968
That's why they oppose abortion, gay rights, woman rights, contraception, dying with dignity, etc, etc.
The main problem with your argument here is that there most certainly are non-religious people who oppose such things. Not to mention not all religious people oppose all of those things. You make a lot of generalizations with no support. It's almost like you've never actually done any study yourself but have read a book or two or just read atheist arguments on the Internet.

Most Christians oppose abortion because it is the unjustified taking of a human life, which is why some non-religious people also oppose it. This is something the law calls murder.

Most Christians oppose "dying with dignity" (not sure when suicide became dignified) on the same grounds as abortion--the sanctity of human life.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


You're like the poster child for illogical atheist militancy.

You can argue the ethics of many of those points without involving god and simply using reason.

Abortion might be problematic if for example you consider a child to be a person once the umbilical cord is cut but seconds prior to that it's a fetus with no rights. That's hilariously arbitrary and not based on any semblance of fact or logic. Preterm babies can survive after 4 months yet you can abort in theory all the way up to delivery. Do I believe we should ban abortions? No but it's the height of idiocy to be somehow outraged that people have issues with this wanton destruction of human life.

Dying with dignity is the same kind of can of worms. How do you decide if someone has the right mind frame to make that decision or the capability? We treat people with mental illness and discourage suicide but now we want to allow suicide? I mean yeah you can certainly make the argument that this is bordering on if not full on eugenics. Why shouldn't I have the right to use my power of attorny put down grandma whose gone senile so I can inherit earlier?


I never claimed a position on abortion.

As far as dying with dignity goes, the bottom line is that it's a basic human right for one to be able to choose their own fate. When an animal is suffering, we "put it down" out of compassion. But if a human is in agony and begging for dying with dignity, the self righteous oppose it.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by duaner

Kids may make-up an invisible friend for any number of reasons. They grow out of it because they know they made them up. This is not at all the case with belief in the Christian God, hence why your argument is a straw man.


You didn't even answer my question, which suggests you are the one who has nothing. Let's try again:

You stated: "and this invisible man is by far the most prolific serial MURDERER of all time "

I asked: "How so?"

And now I also ask how is God egotistical? How is he psychotic?


In what way?

Many adults who were forced into theism realize there is no evidence of a god and become atheists or agnostics.

How is the Christian God not egotistical, psychotic, and a mass murderer? Seriously?

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by duaner
Maybe some religions want people to suffer, not Christianity.

This is very likely the most ridiculous post on the Internet.

I think duaner is Sean Spicer IRL.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by Seth1968


I never claimed a position on abortion.

As far as dying with dignity goes, the bottom line is that it's a basic human right for one to be able to choose their own fate. When an animal is suffering, we "put it down" out of compassion. But if a human is in agony and begging for dying with dignity, the self righteous oppose it.

I can put down my dog because he took a shit in the wrong place if I so choose or put down my dog because well I don't like the fact he's no longer a puppy. The vets won't balk and will comply. Dogs get put down for all kinds of reasons and no one ever bothers to ask them if they want to cease to exist.

Assisted suicide is the same kind of trope. You can put down grandma with power of attorney because well she costs too much to keep in her in a old folks home. Same goes with people with developmental issues and mental trouble. Why not put down cousin billy whose got downs? The list goes on and on... Pretending there's no ethical problems with assisted suicide is just being disingenuous.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


This is very likely the most ridiculous post on the Internet.

I think duaner is Sean Spicer IRL.

I think you are a religiphobe. :nut:

It's pretty safe to say that most religions are for the ending of suffering, not the creating of it. Anyone arguing otherwise simply has an irrational and therefore indefensible view of religion.

Man, people on Beyond have been getting crazier lately. Dogmatic.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


I can put down my dog because he took a shit in the wrong place if I so choose or put down my dog because well I don't like the fact he's no longer a puppy. The vets won't balk and will comply. Dogs get put down for all kinds of reasons and no one ever bothers to ask them if they want to cease to exist.

Assisted suicide is the same kind of trope. You can put down grandma with power of attorney because well she costs too much to keep in her in a old folks home. Same goes with people with developmental issues and mental trouble. Why not put down cousin billy whose got downs? The list goes on and on... Pretending there's no ethical problems with assisted suicide is just being disingenuous.

So if a dog is in agony on death's bed, we should allow it to suffer because it can't talk or write? That's fucked up.

Who says you can put down grandma with a power of attorney?

Who says there are no ethical issues with assisted suicide?

BTW- I'm all for mercy killing in some cases.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
It's pretty safe to say that most religions are for the ending of suffering, not the creating of it.

This is true ONLY if you submit to their ideology. Otherwise, Catholicism especially is quite notorious throughout history for killing/attempting to exterminate "non-believers", pagans, etc.

So no, that isn't "for" the ending of suffering. It's coercion at best. You will not suffer now, or in our version of eternity, if you submit and do what we say.

That's not being a "religiphobe", that's just how it is. :dunno:

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


I think you are a religiphobe. :nut:

It's pretty safe to say that most religions are for the ending of suffering, not the creating of it.

Here are just 2 examples:

1) Allowing a person to suffer when they're begging to die.

2) Opposing abortions, contraception, etc, which leads to unwanted children.

[JRSC00LUDE]

If you don't think it's psychological abuse to teach someone that they're going to die if they don't do what you say then I encourage you to go try it out on someone without using religion as a pretense.

[duaner]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


This is very likely the most ridiculous post on the Internet.
How so? It would be nice if you could add something of substance.


Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
I think duaner is Sean Spicer IRL.
Who is Sean Spicer?:dunno:

[Sugarphreak]

...

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Many adults who were forced into theism realize there is no evidence of a god and become atheists or agnostics.
If any were forced into Christianity, they were never Christian to begin with. Not to mention they will likely have a lot of animosity towards Christianity and religion.


Originally posted by Seth1968

How is the Christian God not egotistical, psychotic, and a mass murderer? Seriously?
Now you're avoiding my question. How so? Seriously.

You're making certain claims and I think it is past time you back them up.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by duaner
How so? It would be nice if you could add something of substance.

To be honest, there's no point. I've never seen you do the same, you spout ingrained ideology and not free thought. It's cool you're happy that way but, debate isn't worthwhile against a closed mind. :dunno:


Originally posted by duaner
If any were forced into Christianity, they were never Christian to begin with.

Being baptized as a baby incapable of free will, being placed in a Catholic education system for ideological brainwashing your whole youth and then confirming "your" belief while still a child all while not being given the chance to develop free thought isn't forcible?

I already feel like an idiot for getting suckered in here this far.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

Wait, didn't you guys nail your demi-god to a cross so he could suffer for you or something?
People did nail Jesus to the cross, yes, and he suffered and died. But that is a very different thing then what is being claimed in this thread.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[duaner]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


To be honest, there's no point. I've never seen you do the same, you spout ingrained ideology and not free thought.
If you think I haven't added anything of substance then you are not at all reading the thread nor anything else I have ever posted.

The problem with your argument here is that anyone who doesn't think like you or those who belong to your worldview has had ideology ingrained into them and that they are not "free thinkers." But that is patently false.

Atheism can be just as ingrained into people as any other belief system. And people in all belief systems are free to think for themselves, as is evidenced by the numerous people who change beliefs every day.


Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
It's cool you're happy that way but, debate isn't worthwhile against a closed mind. :dunno:

I already feel like an idiot for getting suckered in here this far.
And another seriously flawed argument. If someone doesn't think like you or your tribe, they're closed-minded. It's an argument often used when people have nothing to say in rebuttal. It's cool if you're happy that way but I choose to remain open-minded and willing to discuss such issues.

I guess I'll just have take it then that you have not seriously studied such issues for yourself. Your ideology is ingrained by all the atheist stuff you read on the Internet.

[Seth1968]

Examples of God personally killing people:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people


If the Old Testament had been marketed as a horror story — like a Stephen King novel — we might think differently about it. We applaud King's talent (if not the actions of his characters). Those who read his belief-suspending books can appreciate the literary value of that genre. We wink as we wince. We could make allowances for the crude (or even campWikipedia's W.svg) writing style of the Old Testament authors if we thought their aim was to entertain by shocking. But the real horror story — the one that made Nietzsche say he needed to put on gloves before reading it — is that those writers were not pretending. And neither were the readers. Today, anyone who takes the Old Testament seriously — and does not wink or wince at the gratuitous splattering of blood — is a troubled person.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

I distinctly recall movies where Christians praise that your god guy suffered a horrible death on your behalf... so technically suffering is a huge part of Christianity
The suffering and death of Christ is central to Christianity, as is his resurrection (good week to bring that up). But that in no way means that Christians are "all about the suffering of others." That's fallacious.


Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Plus in the Divinci Code, the super Christian albino guy that followed the rules exactly was hurting himself with whips and shit specifically so that he could suffer like the guy you sacrificed. It just seems like Christianity is all about the suffering of others.
Lol! The Da Vinci Code? Seriously? You do know that it is make-believe, yes? But to be fair, there are those who do do such things to their bodies. That has nothing to do with the Christianity I know.


Edited to correct who the second quote is attributed to.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by duaner
.....sidestepping/excuses/broad assumptions....



:)

[Seth1968]

Here's more:

​God's 12 Biggest Dick Moves in the Old Testament

http://io9.gizmodo.com/gods-12-biggest-dick-moves-in-the-old-testament-1522970429


Before Jesus arrived and his divine father chilled out, the Old Testament God was, ironically, kind of a hellraiser. He was not a nice guy. He really liked killing people. And he may have actually been insane, if his willingness to randomly murder devout worshippers like Moses was any indication. Here are the 12 craziest, most awful things God did in the Old Testament, back before that wacked-out hippie Jesus softened him up.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by duaner

The suffering and death of Christ is central to Christianity, as is his resurrection (good week to bring that up). But that in no way means that Christians are "all about the suffering of others." That's fallacious.


Lol! The Da Vinci Code? Seriously? You do know that it is make-believe, yes? But to be fair, there are those who do do such things to their bodies. That has nothing to do with the Christianity I know.

In your haste to copy and paste you have attributed something to me I didn't say. :dunno:

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by Seth1968
So if a dog is in agony on death's bed, we should allow it to suffer because it can't talk or write? That's fucked up.

You're placing your own values upon another form of life which may or may not think the same way you do. How you can't seem to grasp this concept is definitely strange. Unless you can ask the dog which it would prefer you're effectively doing what is most convenient for you.

How's putting the dog down when it's on death's door different from not putting the dog down after major surgery? I fail to see how for the dog either scenario is different in one it gets to arbitrarily die and the other it gets to suffer. You're imposing your values and beliefs onto the dog.

You can pretend otherwise but end of the day you choose whatever is most convenient for yourself when dealing with animals. The animal has no say or control so pretending you're somehow acting in it's interests without being able to ask it's interests in the first place is just asinine.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


You're placing your own values upon another form of life which may or may not think the same way you do. How you can't seem to grasp this concept is definitely strange. Unless you can ask the dog which it would prefer you're effectively doing what is most convenient for you.

How's putting the dog down when it's on death's door different from not putting the dog down after major surgery? I fail to see how for the dog either scenario is different in one it gets to arbitrarily die and the other it gets to suffer. You're imposing your values and beliefs onto the dog.

You can pretend otherwise but end of the day you choose whatever is most convenient for yourself when dealing with animals. The animal has no say or control so pretending you're somehow acting in it's interests without being able to ask it's interests in the first place is just asinine.

Wow. Just wow.

[Seth1968]

This one is epic:


3) Hating Ugly People. In what should be good news for intolerant religious conservatives, God really does hate people who are different from the norm. Of course, God isn't as worried about skin color or sexual orientation as he is about whether you're ugly or not. Because if you're ugly, you can just go worship some other god, okay? (Even though God will punish you if you do and also they don't exist.) Here's the people God does not want coming into his churches: People with blemishes, blind people, the lame, those with flat noses, dwarves, people with scurvy, people with bad eyes, people with bad skin, and those that "hath their stones broken." Given that God is technically responsible for giving people all of these afflictions in the first place, this is an enormous dick move. (Leviticus 21:17-24)

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Examples of God personally killing people:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people


Oh, look, you can quote from the Internet! That's great. My nieces and nephews can do that too. It shows that you haven't actually studied this stuff seriously.

Four questions that I have asked that you have yet to answer:

You stated: "and this invisible man is by far the most prolific serial MURDERER of all time".

I asked: "How so?" <--question one


You stated: "To add insult to injury, your invisible friend is an egotistical, psychotic murderer. How do you justify that?"

I asked: "And now I also ask how is God egotistical?" <--question two

I asked: "How is he psychotic?" <--question three


You stated: "How also do you justify that his followers continuously cause both psychological and physical suffering?"

I asked: "In what way?" <-- question four


Please show me that you have seriously studied this stuff and are able to think for yourself.

[duaner]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


In your haste to copy and paste you have attributed something to me I didn't say. :dunno:
Ha! Now I know for certain you aren't actually reading what I am writing. My post clearly shows I quoted Sugarphreak, not you. Not everything is about you, you know. ;)


Wait! I see it now. Ha ha. I thought I had copied Sugarphreaks name. Not intentional. Maybe I should read what I write.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by duaner

Ha! Now I know for certain you aren't actually reading what I am writing. My post clearly shows I quoted Sugarphreak, not you. Not everything is about you, you know. ;)


Wait! I see it now. Ha ha. I thought I had copied Sugarphreaks name. Not intentional. Maybe I should read what I write.

:thumbsup: :)

[duaner]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


The way I understood it, Christians were sort of a cult led by Jesus and were all completely miserable and hated the Romans because they were having fun crushing other countries and then eating grapes at the side of pools filled with beautiful women.

So they were all like &quot;Fuck this&quot; and decided to sacrifice Jesus to show their anger at god. What good was a demi-god if they had to live like slaves? So they nailed his skinny ass to a cross and stood it up. Jesus was kind of pissed about this, so he came back sort of like the ghost of X-mas and scared everybody into not sacrificing people any more. Instead he said they could chastise themselves, deny sex before marriage, and force their kids to sit on uncomfortable wooden benches in church on their day off... and all of this combined suffering would equal the sacrifice of a person that god demanded from them.

So he basically I thought the entire basis for Christianity is he stopped people from doing human and goat sacrifices in exchange for mass suffering?
If you have serious questions, I am willing to discuss but I'm not going to put up with such immaturity and an appeal to ridicule. Please come back when you're reading to discuss things as an adult.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[suntan]

https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/tumblr_lkug59ghmk1qizvnso1_500.gif

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


This is true ONLY if you submit to their ideology. Otherwise

You can not blame those of the present for the sins of the past :dunno: Regardless if it is to do with religion or otherwise.

Islam was also notorious for the same thing, don't just go talking about Christianity. Or do, we get it, you hate Christians :dunno: Like I said, religiphobe.

I'm not religious, and your attitude is ridiculous about this.

If you actually look at a list of genocides, it is quite clear a lot more killing has been done in the name of Islam/religious persecution than in the name of Christianity. Or you could get over the actual "religion" portion of it and submit that both viewed through the lens of cultures wanted to destroy each other, with religion simply being used as the excuse.

Either way, it was the people, not the religion itself that was the problem for BOTH religions.

Zhao should get in here, he learned a lot of hippy dippy historical stuff while in post secondary. :p

[JRSC00LUDE]

I pointed to Catholicism because it was the topic at hand with duaner's comment, genius. :rofl: Call all the funny names you want, it doesn't make it true.

A790 was right, at least you used to be a quality troll. Lately it's just not worth engaging with anymore.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
I pointed to Catholicism

Naw, you always do, not just this one time, as do most of the religion haters on Beyond.

Just a ridiculous stance to take. The weak-suck arguments you guys create in response to anything isn't worthy of much effort. Basically shitposting at its lowest form. Shame, really. :cry:

Edit-
I do love that rather than arguing a viewpoint, you guys just talk about the people commenting, its been getting pretty bad as of late (person posts subject/opinion, counter argument is made that runs against Beyond socially liberal/fiscally conservative values, attack individual instead of ideas). Goes to show how weak of ground an individual stands on with their statements when they can't back them up.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
blah blah blah

You haven't won a debate on Beyond in years, you're not going to start today. Maybe you'll realize no one engages you in a meaningful way because there's nothing there.....

Save your keystrokes, nothing more will be said. :love:

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by duaner

Oh, look, you can quote from the Internet! That's great. My nieces and nephews can do that too. It shows that you haven't actually studied this stuff seriously.

Four questions that I have asked that you have yet to answer:

You stated: &quot;and this invisible man is by far the most prolific serial MURDERER of all time&quot;.

I asked: &quot;How so?&quot; &lt;--question one


You stated: &quot;To add insult to injury, your invisible friend is an egotistical, psychotic murderer. How do you justify that?&quot;

I asked: &quot;And now I also ask how is God egotistical?&quot; &lt;--question two

I asked: &quot;How is he psychotic?&quot; &lt;--question three


You stated: &quot;How also do you justify that his followers continuously cause both psychological and physical suffering?&quot;

I asked: &quot;In what way?&quot; &lt;-- question four


Please show me that you have seriously studied this stuff and are able to think for yourself.

What the hell are you talking about? I CLEARLY answered your questions.

AGAIN:

In regards to god being a prolific murderer, I posted:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people

You outright dismissed it because I didn't write it. Why the hell would I want to type out example after example of these murders instead of posting a public domain link? Also, I suspect that you're going to reply with the difference between killing and murder, or something along the lines of, "we're all sinners, so it's justified".

In regards to dying with dignity, I claimed that those who oppose it do so out of misguided egotism and hypocritical self righteousness. You replied with:


Most Christians oppose "dying with dignity" because they believe in the sanctity of human life

So when a person is on death's bed, the pain is intolerable, they can't move, they piss and shit themselves, and are begging to die, the Christian says, "No, I think you should suffer". Where is the compassion, let alone sanctity in that?

[A790]

Originally posted by duaner

Oh, look, you can quote from the Internet! That's great. My nieces and nephews can do that too. It shows that you haven't actually studied this stuff seriously.

Please show me that you have seriously studied this stuff and are able to think for yourself.
I'm getting dizzy from all the eye rolling.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by A790

I'm getting dizzy from all the eye rolling.

That's all he's got.

In his mind, if you don't believe in said invisible person, then you're the one that's delusional :nut:

Looking forward to his lame and backwards christian apologetics.

[A790]

Originally posted by Seth1968


That's all he's got.

In his mind, if you don't believe in said invisible person, then you're the one that's delusional :nut:

Looking forward to his lame and backwards christian apologetics.
I was more referring to his sentiments of discarding information found on the internet, especially because I highly doubt he goes down to the library to research before spouting off his replies.

[zhao]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


I think you are a religiphobe. :nut:

It's pretty safe to say that most religions are for the ending of suffering, not the creating of it. Anyone arguing otherwise simply has an irrational and therefore indefensible view of religion.

Man, people on Beyond have been getting crazier lately. Dogmatic.

Most organized religions would be complete Hippocracies then. So much suffering comes from not believing the correct story. Go be an open gay lesbian athiest in a Muslim country and talk to me again about how most religions are about ending suffering...

Organized religion is about control. They are also about conformity. You don't need organized religion to believe whatever you want.

Conform or die has been a norm in religions since the start of religions. They attract a certain type of mindset that must one up others on proving how much they conform (now you have loud extremist religious zealots and people looking down on moderates), and couple that with people who like to follow blindly without question and you have a recipe for some pretty crazy shit.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


I think you are a religiphobe. :nut:

It's pretty safe to say that most religions are for the ending of suffering, not the creating of it. Anyone arguing otherwise simply has an irrational and therefore indefensible view of religion.

Man, people on Beyond have been getting crazier lately. Dogmatic.

I am interested to get your take on the story of Saul and the Israelites being commanded by god to exterminate the Amalekites and the fact that even most modern day Christians believe this quite obvious genocide was justified because it was "gods word".

I don't know in my personal experience with Christianity I found we were not taught to be ashamed of these horrible events and do anything to prevent something like that happening again. Instead we were taught to try to understand why we must follow the word of god even if we don't "understand" it at the time. That is probably what Vince Li thought when he was having a psychotic break.

IMO people are peaceful in spite of religion not because of it.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


You haven't won a debate on Beyond in years, you're not going to start today. Maybe you'll realize no one engages you in a meaningful way because there's nothing there.....

Save your keystrokes, nothing more will be said. :love:

:rolleyes: Wow, what a small minded person you are, I'd hope nobody was on Beyond to "win" debates or framed talking on this forum as such. What a childish mentality. Is that how you view this forum? I view it as a place to get a variety of viewpoints on a subject, whether I agree or disagree with them.

You are right though, there is nothing there in the form of your arguments, so I understand how it would be difficult for you to string together a meaningful response when discussing ideas. It's ok that you enjoy your circle jerk, but maybe be mindful that's all it is, you jerking off with like minded individuals. Or don't :dunno:

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by J-hop


I am interested to get your take on the story of Saul and the Israelites being commanded by god to exterminate the Amalekites and the fact that even most modern day Christians believe this quite obvious genocide was justified because it was &quot;gods word&quot;.

I don't know in my personal experience with Christianity I found we were not taught to be ashamed of these horrible events and do anything to prevent something like that happening again. Instead we were taught to try to understand why we must follow the word of god even if we don't &quot;understand&quot; it at the time. That is probably what Vince Li thought when he was having a psychotic break.

IMO people are peaceful in spite of religion not because of it.

"IMO people are peaceful in spite of religion not because of it."

Nailed it.

[duaner]

Originally posted by A790

I was more referring to his sentiments of discarding information found on the internet, especially because I highly doubt he goes down to the library to research before spouting off his replies.
No, I don't go down to the library to research. I buy my own books and have several hundred in my own library. I am not against information on the Internet, as I use it often as well. The problem comes in when that's all someone has and has consistently shown that they haven't taken the time to even try and understand. This is particularly a problem with militant atheists, such as the couple we have here.

[duaner]

Originally posted by zhao


Most organized religions would be complete Hippocracies then. So much suffering comes from not believing the correct story. Go be an open gay lesbian athiest in a Muslim country and talk to me again about how most religions are about ending suffering...

Organized religion is about control. They are also about conformity. You don't need organized religion to believe whatever you want.

Conform or die has been a norm in religions since the start of religions. They attract a certain type of mindset that must one up others on proving how much they conform (now you have loud extremist religious zealots and people looking down on moderates), and couple that with people who like to follow blindly without question and you have a recipe for some pretty crazy shit.
Please do not lump Christianity in with Islam to make your generalizations about religion. They are very, very different. Islam fits much of what you say; Christianity not so much.

[duaner]

Originally posted by J-hop


I am interested to get your take on the story of Saul and the Israelites being commanded by god to exterminate the Amalekites and the fact that even most modern day Christians believe this quite obvious genocide was justified because it was &quot;gods word&quot;.

I don't know in my personal experience with Christianity I found we were not taught to be ashamed of these horrible events and do anything to prevent something like that happening again. Instead we were taught to try to understand why we must follow the word of god even if we don't &quot;understand&quot; it at the time. That is probably what Vince Li thought when he was having a psychotic break.
Such things are difficult to deal with and I think most Christians just don't know how to deal with them. As for not being taught to "do anything to prevent something like that happening again," that shows that you have a deficient understanding of just what it is that Christianity teaches.


Originally posted by J-hop

IMO people are peaceful in spite of religion not because of it.
But this is a generalization that certainly applies to some religions but not all. You simply cannot treat all religions the same.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968


What the hell are you talking about? I CLEARLY answered your questions.

AGAIN:

In regards to god being a prolific murderer, I posted:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people

You outright dismissed it because I didn't write it. Why the hell would I want to type out example after example of these murders instead of posting a public domain link? Also, I suspect that you're going to reply with the difference between killing and murder, or something along the lines of, &quot;we're all sinners, so it's justified&quot;.
I'll get back to you on this, lest you accuse me of ducking out.


Originally posted by Seth1968

In regards to dying with dignity, I claimed that those who oppose it do so out of misguided egotism and hypocritical self righteousness. You replied with:


Well, no, that is not how it went down. My response was quite clearly to your statement:

"That's why they oppose abortion, gay rights, woman rights, contraception, dying with dignity, etc, etc."

Your response that "those who oppose it do so out of misguided egotism and hypocritical self righteousness," came in the post after mine, in response to mazdavirign.


Originally posted by Seth1968
So when a person is on death's bed, the pain is intolerable, they can't move, they piss and shit themselves, and are begging to die, the Christian says, &quot;No, I think you should suffer&quot;. Where is the compassion, let alone sanctity in that?
There is no Christian that believes someone should suffer such things for the sake of suffering. No Christian likes to see someone suffer. I sure didn't like to watch my dad slowly die of cancer when I was young but he fought to the end. That, to me, is dignified.

Christians believe that life is sacred. Here is something from J. P. Moreland:

"Regarding the end of life, sanctity-of-life advocates reject active euthanasia (the intentional killing of a patient), while the quality-of-life advocates embrace it. In the sanctity-of-life view, one gets one's value, not from the quality of one's life, but from the sheer fact that one exists in God's image. The quality-of-life advocates see the value of human life in its quality; life is not inherently valuable. Thus the sanctity-of-life position has a higher, not a lower, moral regard for the dignity of human life."

This is also why euthanasia is such a slippery slope.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Feruk]

Originally posted by duaner

What do you mean by &quot;some confused sense of morality&quot;?

There are a few things wrong with your argument. First, if abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, precisely how does any supposed negative impact (implied) on the ecosystem justify it? Second, your argument presupposes that the unborn are not full members of the human race, which is to beg the question. Third, you are also presupposing that every additional person will have a negative impact on the ecosystem. How do you know that is actually the case? Fourth, if we carry your argument to its logical conclusion, we should be aborting every single unborn child. Or one could also argue that everyone who is having a negative impact on the ecosystem, however that is subjectively defined, should be killed.

What you consider moral is likely not what others do. For example, in Saudi Arabia, women exposing skin is immoral. You probably find that to be disgusting. An Atheist will look at your views on abortion and "right to die" and find those disgusting. Who is wrong? Depends on your point of view.

As for my second point, you can plot just about anything wrong with the natural world right now against population growth and get a pretty good correlation. I suspect there is some tipping point where we get to where overpopulation will guarantee our extinction. We're not there yet, but I'd rather we do something about either shrinking the rate of population growth, or stabilizing the population entirely. Your assertion that I believe every baby should be aborted is just nonsense, and is not a "logical conclusion" at all because you somehow forgot that people die. As we die, if the rate of birth is decreased, we'll just replace ourselves, and hopefully maintain some balance.

I know that is an inherently anti-Christian idea as it implies the use of birth control, but when so many Christians believe Jesus is returning in THEIR lifetime and don't give a shit about the world in 200 years, how can there be a logical discussion?


Originally posted by duaner
No, I don't go down to the library to research. I buy my own books and have several hundred in my own library. I am not against information on the Internet, as I use it often as well. The problem comes in when that's all someone has and has consistently shown that they haven't taken the time to even try and understand. This is particularly a problem with militant atheists, such as the couple we have here.
I think the problem you're ignoring is that most atheists think your bible is a fairy tale. Therefore, asking them to "do research" would equate to asking them to find meaningful quotes in the Harry Potter series.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by duaner

There is no Christian that believes someone should suffer such things for the sake of suffering.

Except in the example I gave, that's EXACTLY what you condone. Despite how you want to twist it, you would prefer someone to suffer even though they're begging to die. That's not your call to make, and you're just inflicting your dogma on someone else. In other words, you're denying the free will of another, then in the same breath claim one of god's gifts is free will.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by duaner

Such things are difficult to deal with and I think most Christians just don't know how to deal with them. As for not being taught to &quot;do anything to prevent something like that happening again,&quot; that shows that you have a deficient understanding of just what it is that Christianity teaches.


But this is a generalization that certainly applies to some religions but not all. You simply cannot treat all religions the same.

So in your experience do Christians condemn the genocide of the Amalekites?

There are very few situations where I believe it's ok to use phrases like "if you don't oppose it you are supporting it". Genocide is one of those few situations........

If you don't condemn these acts regardless of the written "context" ie: gods word then you do not oppose suffering. You can not claim you oppose suffering except when god says it's ok. That means your commitment isn't to end suffering it's to carry out what you perceive as god's will, there is a very important distinction.....

Again that is part of why I make the claim that for Christianity and Islam especially people are peaceful in spite of their religion.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I don't understand why religious people can't back the fuck off from trying to make restrictive legal policy on issues such as euthanasia and abortion.
All while ignoring the utter hypocrisy in using condoms. :rofl:

[A790]

Originally posted by duaner

No, I don't go down to the library to research. I buy my own books and have several hundred in my own library. I am not against information on the Internet, as I use it often as well. The problem comes in when that's all someone has and has consistently shown that they haven't taken the time to even try and understand. This is particularly a problem with militant atheists, such as the couple we have here.
It's funny how the militant theists and militant atheists look for ways to discredit each other without realizing that neither of you had any credibility at all.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by A790

It's funny how the militant theists and militant atheists look for ways to discredit each other without realizing that neither of you had any credibility at all.

Huh?

We are born atheists, and have to be forced into believing in an invisible man.

Big difference in credibility there.

[dirtsniffer]

I'd rather read a Zenops thread.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I don't understand why religious people can't back the fuck off from trying to make restrictive legal policy on issues such as euthanasia and abortion.

Why not just accept that not everybody shares your beliefs and instead of leave it to the people who are actually making the decision.

You don't want to have an abortion because your religion compels you to do otherwise... then don't.
I have pointed out in this thread, and others in the past, that this is a fallacious argument. There are many non-theists who are against abortion. There really is only one argument that is Christian--the sanctity of life. But most arguments against abortion have nothing at all to do with religion, they're based on science and philosophy.


Originally posted by Sugarphreak
However don't force your belief on others that don't share it.
Is that your belief? Why are you forcing it on me?


Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Don't want to check out early and would rather suffer through pain until the end for whatever reason... be my guest.
There is such a thing as pain management for many conditions. Do you think suicide is dignified? What about fighting till the end?


Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Again, don't force your belief on others.

The world would be a lot better if religious nut balls just minded their own business and stopped forcing their bull shit values and beliefs on others.
So why is it that you and other atheists feel you can force your beliefs on religious people but don't like it when our beliefs are forced on you?

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Huh?

We are born atheists, and have to be forced into believing in an invisible man.

Big difference in credibility there.
No, no one is born an atheist. One cannot be born denying the existence of something they know nothing about. People are born agnostic about such things.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by duaner

No, no one is born an atheist. One cannot be born denying the existence of something they know nothing about. People are born agnostic about such things.

Well if you want to go about it in the strictest sense, then we're not born agnostic, atheist or theist. You can't believe or disbelieve in something you're not aware of.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Feruk


What you consider moral is likely not what others do. For example, in Saudi Arabia, women exposing skin is immoral. You probably find that to be disgusting. An Atheist will look at your views on abortion and &quot;right to die&quot; and find those disgusting. Who is wrong? Depends on your point of view.
I would be right, of course. ;) Regarding abortion, a solid case can be made through science and philosophy, so I am comfortable saying the atheist is certainly wrong. Regarding "right to die," the problem comes in with what exactly a "right" is. People love their "rights" these days but don't realize the difficulties with any sort of inherent human rights. I'm not going to argue that here but, yes, that becomes a much more philosophical discussion where things are not as cut-and-dry as with abortion.

And, yes, I find Sharia Law's oppression of women wrong, as any decent human being should.

Differences of opinion do not mean that everyone is right or that there is no right or wrong on an issue.


Originally posted by Feruk

As for my second point, you can plot just about anything wrong with the natural world right now against population growth and get a pretty good correlation. I suspect there is some tipping point where we get to where overpopulation will guarantee our extinction. We're not there yet, but I'd rather we do something about either shrinking the rate of population growth, or stabilizing the population entirely. Your assertion that I believe every baby should be aborted is just nonsense, and is not a &quot;logical conclusion&quot; at all because you somehow forgot that people die. As we die, if the rate of birth is decreased, we'll just replace ourselves, and hopefully maintain some balance.
I never made such an assertion. Please re-read what I wrote. I said it is a logical conclusion of your argument--two different things.


Originally posted by Feruk


I know that is an inherently anti-Christian idea as it implies the use of birth control, but when so many Christians believe Jesus is returning in THEIR lifetime and don't give a shit about the world in 200 years, how can there be a logical discussion?
I don't understand your point about birth control. Do you know Christians who don't care about how the world will be in 200 years? If you do, they are wrong. That is not a biblical position and I know of no Christian who believes that.


Originally posted by Feruk

I think the problem you're ignoring is that most atheists think your bible is a fairy tale. Therefore, asking them to &quot;do research&quot; would equate to asking them to find meaningful quotes in the Harry Potter series.
There are Bible scholars who are not theists as well as those of different religions. There is a ton of material out there by Christian scholars and theologians which give very credible, coherent answers.

Beginning by dismissing anything the Bible says prior to reading it, studying it, and attempting to understand what it says, is rather closed-minded. It is post-truth. And that is the very problem. I don't see how it is rational to disbelieve something that one hasn't actually studied, especially so strongly and vehemently.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone...
Yes, you did. At least two times:

"However don't force your belief on others that don't share it."

"Again, don't force your belief on others."

Those statements are your beliefs about forcing beliefs on others. You are telling me and other "religious nuts" to not do something--the very thing that you say we are doing. That is you forcing your beliefs on me and other "religious nuts".


Originally posted by Sugarphreak

if you ever get terminally ill and want to die a long agonizing death over a period of months, please feel free to do so.

However you shouldn't stand in the way of those who want to use euthanasia
I am not standing in anyone's way. Have you done any reading of what is going on in with euthanasia places such as Belgium? It's pretty scary; once that ball gets rolling...

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968

Originally posted by duaner

No, no one is born an atheist. One cannot be born denying the existence of something they know nothing about. People are born agnostic about such things.

Well if you want to go about it in the strictest sense, then we're not born agnostic, atheist or theist. You can't believe or disbelieve in something you're not aware of.
Sure, let's settle on ignorant. :thumbsup:

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by duaner

Have you done any reading of what is going on in with euthanasia places such as Belgium? It's pretty scary; once that ball gets rolling...

How about this:

http://theconversation.com/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-euthanasia-in-belgium-58203

[suntan]

duaner vs. Seth1968. A battle of the dimwits.

[duaner]

Originally posted by A790

It's funny how the militant theists and militant atheists look for ways to discredit each other without realizing that neither of you had any credibility at all.
So who has credibility? And who is a militant theist, or do you consider defense being militant?

The problem is that militant atheists attack Christianity with many of them showing that they know little to nothing about it. Take Dawkins for example. Someone on these forums even quoted him once. But even atheist philosophers tell him to be quiet because his philosophy and understanding of Christianity is so poor.

If someone has seriously studied Christianity and found issues with it, that's fine, I have no problem with that.

[duaner]

Originally posted by suntan
duaner vs. Seth1968. A battle of the dimwits.
Are you just going to ridicule or do you have something of value to add to the discussion? :rolleyes:

[Seth1968]

.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by duaner
Sure, let's settle on ignorant. :thumbsup: [/B]

I guess in a stretch you can call it that as well:)

[J-hop]

Originally posted by duaner

So who has credibility? And who is a militant theist, or do you consider defense being militant?

The problem is that militant atheists attack Christianity with many of them showing that they know little to nothing about it. Take Dawkins for example. Someone on these forums even quoted him once. But even atheist philosophers tell him to be quiet because his philosophy and understanding of Christianity is so poor.

If someone has seriously studied Christianity and found issues with it, that's fine, I have no problem with that.

Duaner, you cant keep saying people don't understand fundamental principles and then not explain them. To debate effectively you have to try to illuminate someone's ignorance not just say they're ignorant.

You still haven't addressed my rebuttal. You claim that if I don't believe the goal of Christianity is to end suffering then I don't understand it. Yet in the same breath you seem to suggest that carrying out god's will that happens to result in a genocide is a grey area for many Christians. You simply cannot say the goal of Christianity is to end suffering except when god's will demands suffering. Those are two competing ideas.

[suntan]

Originally posted by duaner

Are you just going to ridicule or do you have something of value to add to the discussion? :rolleyes: ROFL, I've shart out corn that's smarter than you.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by suntan
ROFL, I've shart out corn that's smarter than you.

Hey man, attack his points not his person...

[suntan]

His answers so far are "Because God!"

What a load of crap.

When I die, and if somehow my soul ends up at the pearly gates for judgement, I'm going to split Jebus's head open first.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by duaner

Yes, you did. At least two times:

&quot;However don't force your belief on others that don't share it.&quot;

&quot;Again, don't force your belief on others.&quot;

Those statements are your beliefs about forcing beliefs on others. You are telling me and other &quot;religious nuts&quot; to not do something--the very thing that you say we are doing. That is you forcing your beliefs on me and other &quot;religious nuts&quot;.


You can't be serious about this.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Antonito


You can't be serious about this.
Why not? It's called a self-defeating argument. All too common these days.

[duaner]

Originally posted by suntan
His answers so far are &quot;Because God!&quot;

What a load of crap.
Then clearly you haven't been reading my posts.

[duaner]

Originally posted by J-hop


Duaner, you cant keep saying people don't understand fundamental principles and then not explain them. To debate effectively you have to try to illuminate someone's ignorance not just say they're ignorant.

You still haven't addressed my rebuttal. You claim that if I don't believe the goal of Christianity is to end suffering then I don't understand it. Yet in the same breath you seem to suggest that carrying out god's will that happens to result in a genocide is a grey area for many Christians. You simply cannot say the goal of Christianity is to end suffering except when god's will demands suffering. Those are two competing ideas.
I will get to it. I'm just trying to answer between doing other things. That and too many rabbit trails.

[A790]

Originally posted by duaner

So who has credibility? And who is a militant theist, or do you consider defense being militant?

If someone has seriously studied Christianity and found issues with it, that's fine, I have no problem with that.
You've moved the goalposts regarding what you consider having "studied" Christianity means. You very clearly do have problems with it.

When you start making quotes like the one Antonio quoted you on, that's when you cross the line into militant territory I think.


Originally posted by suntan
ROFL, I've shart out corn that's smarter than you.
You ought to chew your food a little bit better, smartiepants.

Originally posted by Antonito
You can't be serious about this.
Of course he is. This is was militant Christians do.

Never mind the fact that the idea that you shouldn't force your beliefs on others is less a belief system and more a respect and understanding of someone else's belief system, but there's also the fact that you can twist logic any way you want when you feel it doesn't apply to you.

Case and point: your points aren't valid unless you've studied my religion (and no, I don't mean using the tool that grants you access to the literal summation of human knowledge, I mean a book you pleb).

[Antonito]

Originally posted by duaner

Why not? It's called a self-defeating argument. All too common these days. From a philosophical standpoint, self defence is allowable and moral. Your right to swing your arms around end at the tip of my nose. Etc

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Antonito
From a philosophical standpoint, self defence is allowable and moral. Your right to swing your arms around end at the tip of my nose. Etc

From a philosophical perspective it's a statement that fails to meet its own standard. In other words, it is a statement that cannot live up to its own criteria.

This is why virtually every topic on controversial issues never really go anywhere on here, because so few make an effort to avoid logical fallacies.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by HuMz


From a philosophical perspective it's a statement that fails to meet its own standard. In other words, it is a statement that cannot live up to its own criteria.

This is why virtually every topic on controversial issues never really go anywhere on here, because so few make an effort to avoid logical fallacies. This requires the actions to be equivalent, but they aren't.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Antonito
This requires the actions to be equivalent, but they aren't.

What actions are you talking about?

[Antonito]

Duaner forcing his beliefs on sugarphreak vs sugarphreak stopping him from doing so