Fact vs. Fiction

jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Fact vs. Fiction

Let us answer these questions with all the honesty we can muster...

A yes or no - Fact or Fiction

Babys are born with sinful thought.

Babys are born Atheist.

(Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist) Wikipedia

The bible is made up of true life events.

Atheist are as a rule evil people.

Evolution is made up of fact based science.

Christian believe in god.

(The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition).So, like other  propositional attitudes, belief implies the existence of mental states and intentionality, both of which are hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mind whose foundations and relation to brain states are still controversial) Wikipedia

I know there are a lot more where these came from, but lets start with these and see where we end up.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:Quote:So you

Teralek wrote:

Quote:
So you think the god gene is nonsense too ? Ok then.

That was not what I've said. If I say the god gene is nonsense I'd have to say the speech gene is nonsense too...

A marble block isn't a statue until the artist works on it. But it's still a marble block with the right structure to became a statue... it's on its genes... 

By this reasoning there are a lot of things "on it's genes" it's on the crafter or in a childs case parents, environment etc.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


jam1966ful
jam1966ful's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2010-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Fact vs Fiction

Crossover Theist, what an Earth is wrong with you. How are babies born with a 'sinful nature'. Let me guess Original Sin. If you know anything about the Bible then you would understand that the Original Sin was to go to the tree of knowledge and understand the difference between right and wrong and if that's a sin then your scale of values is off kilter

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? (Henry II 1133-89)


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Teralek

Anonymouse wrote:

Teralek wrote:

Quote:
So you think the god gene is nonsense too ? Ok then.

That was not what I've said. If I say the god gene is nonsense I'd have to say the speech gene is nonsense too...

A marble block isn't a statue until the artist works on it. But it's still a marble block with the right structure to became a statue... it's on its genes... 

Okay, I'm confused now. Every source quoted in the link you posted says the the whole idea is nonsense. You yourself claimed that babies aren't born either atheist or theist, right after you claimed that "babies are born believers".

Don't you think you should read up on the science involved here before you start constructing fancy metaphors ?

 

VMAT2 is essential in the presynaptic neuron's ability to facilitate the release of neurotransmitters into the synaptic cleft. If VMAT2 function is inhibited or compromised, neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, cannot be released via normal transport (exocytosis, action potential) into the synapse. VMAT2 function inhibition can have many various effects on neurotransmitter function, specifically, of importance is its effect on the neurotransmitter dopamine. Dopamine, specifically, is highly neurotoxic to most cellular structures, due to its ability to auto-oxidize in the presence of oxygen radicals. Dopamine, and other neurotransmitters, are metabolized via various processes into various substances, by enzymes such as monoamine oxidase (MAO), catechol-O-methyl transferase (COMT), and dopamine beta hydroxylase (DBH). Vesicles normally protect dopamine from auto-oxidation and metabolism by monoamine oxidase and COMT. Impaired VMAT2 function/activity may contribute to symptoms of depression, anxiety, restless leg syndrome, akathisia, Parkinson's disease, social anxiety, and many other conditions, via inhibition of normal dopamine release into the synapse. Long-term use of amphetamine and methamphetamine causes long-lasting reductions in VMAT2 expression/activity, similar to chronic use of cocaine. This reduction of VMAT2 activity contributes significantly to the neurotoxic effects of amphetamine and methamphetamine. Cocaine users display a marked reduction in VMAT2 immunoreactivity. Sufferers of cocaine-induced mood disorders displayed a significant loss of VMAT2 immunoreactivity, this might reflect damage to striatal dopamine fibers. These neuronal changes could play a role in causing disordered mood and motivational processes in more severely addicted users.[2]

Mice bred without VMAT2 display marked depression and hypoactivity symptoms, and die within a few days of birth. Their brains exhibit a significant decrease of monoamine and catecholamine content, compared to wild-type mice. Depolarization does not normalize behavior in VMAT2-KO mice, compared to wild-type mice. Amphetamine, however, decreases the functional deficits caused by VMAT-deletion, indicating that monoamines/catecholamines, such as dopamine, are still present in the presynaptic cytoplasm, but not packaged into vesicles necessary for normal depolarization/exocytosis-induced release. In wild-type mice and humans, amphetamine inhibits VMAT2 function and reverses the dopamine transporter (DAT), causing the release of unprotected free cytoplasmic dopamine into the synaptic cleft. VMAT-2 deletion mimics the VMAT-2 inhibition caused by amphetamine, allowing amphetamine to simply reverse the DAT, releasing dopamine, and subsequently reducing functional deficits in VMAT2-KO mice. VMAT2-KO mice also display significantly increased neurotoxicity in response to amphetamine, due to the unprotected metabolism and auto-oxidation of dopamine in the presynaptic cytoplasm of dopamine neurons.[3][4]

 

 

 The only useful info I got from this is that I'm possibly depressed because of excessive use of tylenol. Yeah I agree with anonymouse here. Read up on your science dude.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
What do you mean "legal action"?

This : http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100629/lawsuit-against-obamas-embryonic-stem-cell-policy-reinstated/index.html

It's from a christian site, so I hope that's ok. The christian organisation in question is the christian medical association. Another plaintiff in the case is the nightlight christian adoption agency.

That's not a lawsuit to block funding for stem cell research.  That's a lawsuit against the federal government for taxing us on what could amount to a violation of federal law.  If it was absolutely certain that the administration was within its rights to fund stem cell research, then a lawsuit would not even enter the picture.  Can you find an example of a Christian group suing someone for doing something related to stem cell research which they know to be legal?

Plus, in the very article you've cited, the plaintiffs also include AVM Biotechnology, which is a secular operation and a biomedical engineer from a university in Boston.  This has nothing to do with theism or atheism.

Finally, let's assume that we cannot find any cases of secular organizations filing lawsuits to block funding for stem cell research.  What exactly does that prove?  That only Christians are capable of taking legal action on matters involving the right to life or that belief that something is unethical does not mean a thing unless you get lawyers involved?  Is it absolutely impossible for an atheist to be such a pro-life advocate that s/he files a lawsuit?  Does atheism automatically preclude such a thing?

Wake up.  There is no one-to-one correspondence between atheism/theism and pro-life/pro-choice.  You'll find pro-life atheists standing alongside pro-life Christians and vice versa.  Even atheists can join up with non-secular organizations if they believe in a common cause.  No doubt that many atheists sided with Martin Luther King, even though they did share his personal convictions.

 

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life wrote:That's

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
That's not a lawsuit to block funding for stem cell research.  That's a lawsuit against the federal government for taxing us on what could amount to a violation of federal law.

Call it what you like, as will the people on the other side of that lawsuit. If they get what they want, the funding will be blocked.

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
If it was absolutely certain that the administration was within its rights to fund stem cell research, then a lawsuit would not even enter the picture.  Can you find an example of a Christian group suing someone for doing something related to stem cell research which they know to be legal?

I guess we'll find out if the administration was within it's rights or not.

"Which they know to be legal" ? They know best, do they ?

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
Plus, in the very article you've cited, the plaintiffs also include AVM Biotechnology, which is a secular operation and a biomedical engineer from a university in Boston.  This has nothing to do with theism or atheism.

Actually, it includes the founder of AVM biotech. Neither of us can really know if she or James Sherley have any religious motives here.

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
Finally, let's assume that we cannot find any cases of secular organizations filing lawsuits to block funding for stem cell research.

Ok, I'll do that, cause I've looked for a while now and haven't found any yet.

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
  What exactly does that prove?

That we can't find any.

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
That only Christians are capable of taking legal action on matters involving the right to life or that belief that something is unethical does not mean a thing unless you get lawyers involved?

Nope.

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
Is it absolutely impossible for an atheist to be such a pro-life advocate that s/he files a lawsuit?  Does atheism automatically preclude such a thing?

Also nope. What's with all the easy questions ?

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
Wake up.

I'm still awake, actually. Don't be so hard on yourself. You're not that boring.

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
There is no one-to-one correspondence between atheism/theism and pro-life/pro-choice.  You'll find pro-life atheists standing alongside pro-life Christians and vice versa.  Even atheists can join up with non-secular organizations if they believe in a common cause.  No doubt that many atheists sided with Martin Luther King, even though they did share his personal convictions.

When exactly did I disagree with any of that ?

All I did was point out that there are christian organisations trying to block funding for stem cell research.

 


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Call it

.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
 MOL I have been out of

 

MOL I have been out of pocket for a while, I see that others have kept you busy.

Now when I left you last you had just said that Christan didn't block stem cell research facility's.

Oh if that were only true then we would have cures now for so much more.

Let me explain why the right wing dumb asses get me so pissed off.

The religious freaks that set up there protest will be the same one getting treatments for themselves or family that use this research. That's not even the worst part that will be when they say

"Oh praise god for these wonderful miracles he has provided us"and "only in his name can such works be performed"

You may not feel as strongly as I do, but i hope your not one of the anti stem cell research guys either.

If you are one of those nuts then I can only say that I hope there comes a day that really puts your faith to the test..

Now I'm not saying I wish death on you. Just something that could be easily cured by stem cell research

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote:MOL I

jimmy.williamson wrote:

MOL I have been out of pocket for a while, I see that others have kept you busy.

Now when I left you last you had just said that Christan didn't block stem cell research facility's.

Oh if that were only true then we would have cures now for so much more.

Let me explain why the right wing dumb asses get me so pissed off.

The religious freaks that set up there protest will be the same one getting treatments for themselves or family that use this research. That's not even the worst part that will be when they say

"Oh praise god for these wonderful miracles he has provided us"and "only in his name can such works be performed"

You may not feel as strongly as I do, but i hope your not one of the anti stem cell research guys either.

If you are one of those nuts then I can only say that I hope there comes a day that really puts your faith to the test..

Now I'm not saying I wish death on you. Just something that could be easily cured by stem cell research

jimmy, you and your wife do nothing more than argue from emotion.  You simply play the disabled child card with theists in hopes of giving them a guilt trip, but that's not going to work with me.  The ethics of stem cell research is an empirical question; if this is a human life, then it is wrong to murder it even if doing so will help others.  Other than that, I really leave it others to debate political issues.  I'm not a political activist, I'm a philosopher.  If you'd like to continue talking philosophy with me, then be my guest.  Otherwise, I'm not interested in your guilt trips or you blaiming religion for your son's condition, as if that is somehow helping him.  I'd say that there are more fruitful things you could be doing for him rather than going online with your wife and whining about religion.

The pro-life issue has nothing to do with religion.  Atheists can be pro-life as well.  Why not get upset with them?  The largest pro-life organization in the US is a secular organization.  In some cases, secular and non-secular organizations band together for a common cause, even though they disagree on the justification for their beliefs. 

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
You are a turd

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

MOL I have been out of pocket for a while, I see that others have kept you busy.

Now when I left you last you had just said that Christan didn't block stem cell research facility's.

Oh if that were only true then we would have cures now for so much more.

Let me explain why the right wing dumb asses get me so pissed off.

The religious freaks that set up there protest will be the same one getting treatments for themselves or family that use this research. That's not even the worst part that will be when they say

"Oh praise god for these wonderful miracles he has provided us"and "only in his name can such works be performed"

You may not feel as strongly as I do, but i hope your not one of the anti stem cell research guys either.

If you are one of those nuts then I can only say that I hope there comes a day that really puts your faith to the test..

Now I'm not saying I wish death on you. Just something that could be easily cured by stem cell research

jimmy, you and your wife do nothing more than argue from emotion.  You simply play the disabled child card with theists in hopes of giving them a guilt trip, but that's not going to work with me.  The ethics of stem cell research is an empirical question; if this is a human life, then it is wrong to murder it even if doing so will help others.  Other than that, I really leave it others to debate political issues.  I'm not a political activist, I'm a philosopher.  If you'd like to continue talking philosophy with me, then be my guest.  Otherwise, I'm not interested in your guilt trips or you blaiming religion for your son's condition, as if that is somehow helping him.  I'd say that there are more fruitful things you could be doing for him rather than going online with your wife and whining about religion.

 

 Why do you always have to include me in your posts on this thread. I'm not blaming god for anything that happened to my son. You should understand by now that I don't believe in god. So why would I blame something I don't believe in? What happened to him just happened. Don't act like you know everything about me and furthermore you just look like an ass for the way you come after me when I'm not even talking to you but you feel the need to bash me for everything I say . You simply like to mock people and that is very clear. You do it to lots of people on here and from what I've seen they call you out on it too. You take most of what people say the wrong way and you in turn ridicule them for their beliefs, age, disadvantages and so on.

 

As far as stem cell research goes, many people have different outlooks on it. I happen to be one of many who thinks it would be beneficial for the already living who need it. But just because I do doesn't mean I'm playing the "disabled child card". Just so you know, I don't sit around every day asking why this happened to him. I deal with it and I take care of him. Furthermore, who the hell are you to tell me what I need to do with my time? If I want to get on my computer throughout the day I'm surely entitled to. I bought the damn thing. Take your own advise that if you can't take the heat then get the hell out of the kitchen. And if you want to continue the aggravation you have done on this particular thread then I can certainly make sure I do the same to you.  The thing about it is I'm more mature than you and I don't have to mock and critique everything someone that I don't like says. You are an [email protected] and you need to grow up.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

MOL I have been out of pocket for a while, I see that others have kept you busy.

Now when I left you last you had just said that Christan didn't block stem cell research facility's.

Oh if that were only true then we would have cures now for so much more.

Let me explain why the right wing dumb asses get me so pissed off.

The religious freaks that set up there protest will be the same one getting treatments for themselves or family that use this research. That's not even the worst part that will be when they say

"Oh praise god for these wonderful miracles he has provided us"and "only in his name can such works be performed"

You may not feel as strongly as I do, but i hope your not one of the anti stem cell research guys either.

If you are one of those nuts then I can only say that I hope there comes a day that really puts your faith to the test..

Now I'm not saying I wish death on you. Just something that could be easily cured by stem cell research

jimmy, you and your wife do nothing more than argue from emotion.  You simply play the disabled child card with theists in hopes of giving them a guilt trip, but that's not going to work with me.  The ethics of stem cell research is an empirical question; if this is a human life, then it is wrong to murder it even if doing so will help others.  Other than that, I really leave it others to debate political issues.  I'm not a political activist, I'm a philosopher.  If you'd like to continue talking philosophy with me, then be my guest.  Otherwise, I'm not interested in your guilt trips or you blaiming religion for your son's condition, as if that is somehow helping him.  I'd say that there are more fruitful things you could be doing for him rather than going online with your wife and whining about religion.

The pro-life issue has nothing to do with religion.  Atheists can be pro-life as well.  Why not get upset with them?  The largest pro-life organization in the US is a secular organization.  In some cases, secular and non-secular organizations band together for a common cause, even though they disagree on the justification for their beliefs. 

Well let us get a few things strait..

First of all my sons condition doesn't hold many areas where stem cell research would benefit. And yes he will be our last.

Stem cell research could have helped with some other issues earlier in his, however he made it any way.

See I'm not so emotional because of my son, no its because of the issue. The fact that christian need to keep their fucking noises out of these issues.

Stem cell technology has made great advancement in the field of diabetes. (my son doesn't have diabetes)

You may know a diabetic... That is what I am referring to, if that person that you know that has diabetic happens to be someone very close. Well It think you can figure that part out.

Fact is when advancement are made they put in to use in the medical community right away. With no label to its origin. So you and all of your fellow Christians  will surely use them. (praise god for this cure for cancer, jesus christ our lord and savior has blessed us with a cure...etc.)

Now if you can't see where I get my emotions from.. And its not just my son

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
That's not a lawsuit to block funding for stem cell research.  That's a lawsuit against the federal government for taxing us on what could amount to a violation of federal law.

Call it what you like, as will the people on the other side of that lawsuit. If they get what they want, the funding will be blocked.

Uh, no.  If they get what they want, then they will not be taxed on things that they have no business being taxed on.  Funding for stem cell research goes on all over the place in the private sector.  Some states are absolutely fine with that.  The problem is that when you do it at the public sector, you are using people's tax dollars.  I can understand if this does not concern you, since I'm guessing that you are a little kid who is living off of his parents, but for adults who actually work, this is a problem if it violates regulations that have been in place since the Clinton administration.  If organizations (both secular and non-secular) knew that these practices were legal, then there would be no lawsuit.  Much like they've consistently done with previous issues, they would threaten boycotts, petition, campaign, or put out ads asking people to vote a certain way or make their voices heard on issues which are not subject to vote.

Quote:
I guess we'll find out if the administration was within it's rights or not.

"Which they know to be legal" ? They know best, do they ?

I don't know the particulars of this case because I'm not a political activist.  According to the article, there was a provision signed during the Clinton administration which prohibited funding for stem cell research at the private sector.  If this is true, then I totally support them filing a lawsuit, whether or not stem cell research can be considered ethical, which, as I continually try pointing out to you (but you will not listen), is not an issue of atheism vs. theism. 

Quote:
Actually, it includes the founder of AVM biotech. Neither of us can really know if she or James Sherley have any religious motives here.

If you want to go the nihilistic rout, then we also can't know the motives of the Christian organizations.  In that case, you can't argue that Christianity is responsible for blocking advancements in the field of medicine because although these are Christian organizations, we cannot possibly get inside their head and measure their motivations for doing things.  Likewise, since you want to play the skeptic machine here, we also can't know the motives of the federal government.  Maybe the Obama administration are sadistic murders who want to do stem cell research because they believe that they are dealing with human lives and have a desire to kill. 

Obviously, this is a load of nonsense.

AVM Biotechnology was an organization founded in order to develop alternatives to medical practices that they consider unethical.  If the founder of this organization is a plaintiff, then it is safe to say that she is speaking on behalf of the entire organization.  Truth be told, she probably does adhere to the Christian perspective on this.  My point is, this has nothing to do with the fact that people are against stem cell research.  I've already cited several sources showing pro-life atheists.  You've already agreed that there isn't a one to one correspondence between pro-life/pro-choice and theism/atheism, so what is the point of you trying to hijack the discussion between me and jimmy?  Is this your vain attempt at convincing other members of this that you actually know something, or do you have something useful to add to the discussion?

Quote:
Ok, I'll do that, cause I've looked for a while now and haven't found any yet.

This is known as "quote-mining". You can tell someone is doing this when they cite an article but only highlight certain parts.  You were dishonest when you cited the article but didn't even mention that some of the plaintiffs were not from religious organizations. 

Quote:
That we can't find any.

I did find it.  The founder of a secular organization is a plaintiff in the case.  So, you can either admit that you are wrong or I can ignore your posts and continue my discussion with the adults.  I have no desire to go around in circles with you.

Quote:
When exactly did I disagree with any of that ?

All I did was point out that there are christian organisations trying to block funding for stem cell research.

Your point was to show that religion is the reason that we can't do stem cell research and that we can blame religion for the fact that many people are dying.  You wanted to prove that religion is evil.  In order to do this, you had to ignore the fact that we have many secular pro-life organizations and focus on the spurious idea that it only matters when organizations file lawsuits.  Since you are now arguing that you don't disagree with what I'm saying, then we can stop and I can continue my discussion with jimmy and his wife. 

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
....

Hope you don't mind, but I thought I'd ignore all the adhoms, assumptions, and the paragraphs where you seem to be arguing with the imaginary atheist who lives inside your head.

Should save some time.

Yes, it's about federal funding. I never said it wasn't. Any further assumptions you jump to from just the two questions I asked you are irrelevant.

The article speaks for itself, as does any other article about this lawsuit that can be found online.

(also not sure how posting a link to a entire article, and assuming that people can read, can be explained as "quote-mining" )

 

I think that following this case closely might be more informative for people interested in this topic than listening to you.

On that, we probably agree as well.

(For anyone interested, this blog has a link to the pdf of the full ruling for the first time they tried this. Again, a full list of the plaintiffs is included. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/11/court_dismisses_challenge_to_e.php )

 

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
That's not a lawsuit to block funding for stem cell research.  That's a lawsuit against the federal government for taxing us on what could amount to a violation of federal law.

Call it what you like, as will the people on the other side of that lawsuit. If they get what they want, the funding will be blocked.

Uh, no.  If they get what they want, then they will not be taxed on things that they have no business being taxed on.  Funding for stem cell research goes on all over the place in the private sector.  Some states are absolutely fine with that.  The problem is that when you do it at the public sector, you are using people's tax dollars.  I can understand if this does not concern you, since I'm guessing that you are a little kid who is living off of his parents, but for adults who actually work, this is a problem if it violates regulations that have been in place since the Clinton administration.  If organizations (both secular and non-secular) knew that these practices were legal, then there would be no lawsuit.  Much like they've consistently done with previous issues, they would threaten boycotts, petition, campaign, or put out ads asking people to vote a certain way or make their voices heard on issues which are not subject to vote.

Quote:
I guess we'll find out if the administration was within it's rights or not.

"Which they know to be legal" ? They know best, do they ?

I don't know the particulars of this case because I'm not a political activist.  According to the article, there was a provision signed during the Clinton administration which prohibited funding for stem cell research at the private sector.  If this is true, then I totally support them filing a lawsuit, whether or not stem cell research can be considered ethical, which, as I continually try pointing out to you (but you will not listen), is not an issue of atheism vs. theism. 

Quote:
Actually, it includes the founder of AVM biotech. Neither of us can really know if she or James Sherley have any religious motives here.

If you want to go the nihilistic rout, then we also can't know the motives of the Christian organizations.  In that case, you can't argue that Christianity is responsible for blocking advancements in the field of medicine because although these are Christian organizations, we cannot possibly get inside their head and measure their motivations for doing things.  Likewise, since you want to play the skeptic machine here, we also can't know the motives of the federal government.  Maybe the Obama administration are sadistic murders who want to do stem cell research because they believe that they are dealing with human lives and have a desire to kill. 

Obviously, this is a load of nonsense.

AVM Biotechnology was an organization founded in order to develop alternatives to medical practices that they consider unethical.  If the founder of this organization is a plaintiff, then it is safe to say that she is speaking on behalf of the entire organization.  Truth be told, she probably does adhere to the Christian perspective on this.  My point is, this has nothing to do with the fact that people are against stem cell research.  I've already cited several sources showing pro-life atheists.  You've already agreed that there isn't a one to one correspondence between pro-life/pro-choice and theism/atheism, so what is the point of you trying to hijack the discussion between me and jimmy?  Is this your vain attempt at convincing other members of this that you actually know something, or do you have something useful to add to the discussion?

Quote:
Ok, I'll do that, cause I've looked for a while now and haven't found any yet.

This is known as "quote-mining". You can tell someone is doing this when they cite an article but only highlight certain parts.  You were dishonest when you cited the article but didn't even mention that some of the plaintiffs were not from religious organizations. 

Quote:
That we can't find any.

I did find it.  The founder of a secular organization is a plaintiff in the case.  So, you can either admit that you are wrong or I can ignore your posts and continue my discussion with the adults.  I have no desire to go around in circles with you.

Quote:
When exactly did I disagree with any of that ?

All I did was point out that there are christian organisations trying to block funding for stem cell research.

Your point was to show that religion is the reason that we can't do stem cell research and that we can blame religion for the fact that many people are dying.  You wanted to prove that religion is evil.  In order to do this, you had to ignore the fact that we have many secular pro-life organizations and focus on the spurious idea that it only matters when organizations file lawsuits.  Since you are now arguing that you don't disagree with what I'm saying, then we can stop and I can continue my discussion with jimmy and his wife. 

So, because you found a secular organization in the list of plaintiffs, the suit is devoid of religious motive? Also, the fact that there are secular anti-women's privacy rights organizations ( I don't know anyone who is "anti-life&quotEye-wink is not really a good thing.  See, I'm not a fan of forced pregnancy. Are you arguing that a woman has the right to choose positively when a man's penis enters her vagina but loses all rights if she doesn't want to carry his spawn?

If you want a case of religion killing people, you need look no further than Pope Benedict's "Condom use spreads AIDS" campaign to kill Africans.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
That's not a lawsuit to block funding for stem cell research.  That's a lawsuit against the federal government for taxing us on what could amount to a violation of federal law.

Call it what you like, as will the people on the other side of that lawsuit. If they get what they want, the funding will be blocked.

Uh, no.  If they get what they want, then they will not be taxed on things that they have no business being taxed on.  Funding for stem cell research goes on all over the place in the private sector.  Some states are absolutely fine with that.  The problem is that when you do it at the public sector, you are using people's tax dollars.  I can understand if this does not concern you, since I'm guessing that you are a little kid who is living off of his parents, but for adults who actually work, this is a problem if it violates regulations that have been in place since the Clinton administration.  If organizations (both secular and non-secular) knew that these practices were legal, then there would be no lawsuit.  Much like they've consistently done with previous issues, they would threaten boycotts, petition, campaign, or put out ads asking people to vote a certain way or make their voices heard on issues which are not subject to vote.

Quote:
I guess we'll find out if the administration was within it's rights or not.

"Which they know to be legal" ? They know best, do they ?

I don't know the particulars of this case because I'm not a political activist.  According to the article, there was a provision signed during the Clinton administration which prohibited funding for stem cell research at the private sector.  If this is true, then I totally support them filing a lawsuit, whether or not stem cell research can be considered ethical, which, as I continually try pointing out to you (but you will not listen), is not an issue of atheism vs. theism. 

Quote:
Actually, it includes the founder of AVM biotech. Neither of us can really know if she or James Sherley have any religious motives here.

If you want to go the nihilistic rout, then we also can't know the motives of the Christian organizations.  In that case, you can't argue that Christianity is responsible for blocking advancements in the field of medicine because although these are Christian organizations, we cannot possibly get inside their head and measure their motivations for doing things.  Likewise, since you want to play the skeptic machine here, we also can't know the motives of the federal government.  Maybe the Obama administration are sadistic murders who want to do stem cell research because they believe that they are dealing with human lives and have a desire to kill. 

Obviously, this is a load of nonsense.

AVM Biotechnology was an organization founded in order to develop alternatives to medical practices that they consider unethical.  If the founder of this organization is a plaintiff, then it is safe to say that she is speaking on behalf of the entire organization.  Truth be told, she probably does adhere to the Christian perspective on this.  My point is, this has nothing to do with the fact that people are against stem cell research.  I've already cited several sources showing pro-life atheists.  You've already agreed that there isn't a one to one correspondence between pro-life/pro-choice and theism/atheism, so what is the point of you trying to hijack the discussion between me and jimmy?  Is this your vain attempt at convincing other members of this that you actually know something, or do you have something useful to add to the discussion?

Quote:
Ok, I'll do that, cause I've looked for a while now and haven't found any yet.

This is known as "quote-mining". You can tell someone is doing this when they cite an article but only highlight certain parts.  You were dishonest when you cited the article but didn't even mention that some of the plaintiffs were not from religious organizations. 

Quote:
That we can't find any.

I did find it.  The founder of a secular organization is a plaintiff in the case.  So, you can either admit that you are wrong or I can ignore your posts and continue my discussion with the adults.  I have no desire to go around in circles with you.

Quote:
When exactly did I disagree with any of that ?

All I did was point out that there are christian organisations trying to block funding for stem cell research.

Your point was to show that religion is the reason that we can't do stem cell research and that we can blame religion for the fact that many people are dying.  You wanted to prove that religion is evil.  In order to do this, you had to ignore the fact that we have many secular pro-life organizations and focus on the spurious idea that it only matters when organizations file lawsuits.  Since you are now arguing that you don't disagree with what I'm saying, then we can stop and I can continue my discussion with jimmy and his wife. 

 

 Thank you jcgadfly, my poiint exactly. Mol, in case you didn't realize, I have no desire to discuss anything with a person such as yourself. I'm not saying at the age of 32 I have everything in life figured out but I do know that a 28 year old doesn't either. Especially on the topic of pregnancy if you are male. I have looked at the conversations more so arguments that you have had on here with other people and pretty much everyone has the same take on things you say. You talk a lot of nonsense and you talk in circles.It's really not a matter of education. It's more like ones ability to carry a conversation and understand that just because you have a thought pattern of an idea doesn't mean its right or even wrong. You seem to have a lot of trouble just letting opinions be opinions. Morals are not an argumentative thing, every ones are different. Yet you seem to like dismissing and even arguing about peoples morals.

I don't mind talking to you as long as you can understand that I'm probably not going to agree with you all the time.I can tell you that my son does have a lot to do with my outlook on medical debates as far as stem cell research but this is not to be confused with the disable child card. I don't desire any pitty from anyone as far as that little boy goes nor do I want it. You probably understand by now that I am the type that would argue with a brick wall if it had something smart ass to say. Same goes for people. So if you can carry yourself in a mature manner, fine i could stand to conversate with you . Other than that you are wasting your time and I will send you logging off with a sting to your self confidence that you know all every time.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
That's not a lawsuit to block funding for stem cell research.  That's a lawsuit against the federal government for taxing us on what could amount to a violation of federal law.

Call it what you like, as will the people on the other side of that lawsuit. If they get what they want, the funding will be blocked.

Uh, no.  If they get what they want, then they will not be taxed on things that they have no business being taxed on.  Funding for stem cell research goes on all over the place in the private sector.  Some states are absolutely fine with that.  The problem is that when you do it at the public sector, you are using people's tax dollars.  I can understand if this does not concern you, since I'm guessing that you are a little kid who is living off of his parents, but for adults who actually work, this is a problem if it violates regulations that have been in place since the Clinton administration.  If organizations (both secular and non-secular) knew that these practices were legal, then there would be no lawsuit.  Much like they've consistently done with previous issues, they would threaten boycotts, petition, campaign, or put out ads asking people to vote a certain way or make their voices heard on issues which are not subject to vote.

Quote:
I guess we'll find out if the administration was within it's rights or not.

"Which they know to be legal" ? They know best, do they ?

I don't know the particulars of this case because I'm not a political activist.  According to the article, there was a provision signed during the Clinton administration which prohibited funding for stem cell research at the private sector.  If this is true, then I totally support them filing a lawsuit, whether or not stem cell research can be considered ethical, which, as I continually try pointing out to you (but you will not listen), is not an issue of atheism vs. theism. 

Quote:
Actually, it includes the founder of AVM biotech. Neither of us can really know if she or James Sherley have any religious motives here.

If you want to go the nihilistic rout, then we also can't know the motives of the Christian organizations.  In that case, you can't argue that Christianity is responsible for blocking advancements in the field of medicine because although these are Christian organizations, we cannot possibly get inside their head and measure their motivations for doing things.  Likewise, since you want to play the skeptic machine here, we also can't know the motives of the federal government.  Maybe the Obama administration are sadistic murders who want to do stem cell research because they believe that they are dealing with human lives and have a desire to kill. 

Obviously, this is a load of nonsense.

AVM Biotechnology was an organization founded in order to develop alternatives to medical practices that they consider unethical.  If the founder of this organization is a plaintiff, then it is safe to say that she is speaking on behalf of the entire organization.  Truth be told, she probably does adhere to the Christian perspective on this.  My point is, this has nothing to do with the fact that people are against stem cell research.  I've already cited several sources showing pro-life atheists.  You've already agreed that there isn't a one to one correspondence between pro-life/pro-choice and theism/atheism, so what is the point of you trying to hijack the discussion between me and jimmy?  Is this your vain attempt at convincing other members of this that you actually know something, or do you have something useful to add to the discussion?

Quote:
Ok, I'll do that, cause I've looked for a while now and haven't found any yet.

This is known as "quote-mining". You can tell someone is doing this when they cite an article but only highlight certain parts.  You were dishonest when you cited the article but didn't even mention that some of the plaintiffs were not from religious organizations. 

Quote:
That we can't find any.

I did find it.  The founder of a secular organization is a plaintiff in the case.  So, you can either admit that you are wrong or I can ignore your posts and continue my discussion with the adults.  I have no desire to go around in circles with you.

Quote:
When exactly did I disagree with any of that ?

All I did was point out that there are christian organisations trying to block funding for stem cell research.

Your point was to show that religion is the reason that we can't do stem cell research and that we can blame religion for the fact that many people are dying.  You wanted to prove that religion is evil.  In order to do this, you had to ignore the fact that we have many secular pro-life organizations and focus on the spurious idea that it only matters when organizations file lawsuits.  Since you are now arguing that you don't disagree with what I'm saying, then we can stop and I can continue my discussion with jimmy and his wife. 

So, because you found a secular organization in the list of plaintiffs, the suit is devoid of religious motive? Also, the fact that there are secular anti-women's privacy rights organizations ( I don't know anyone who is "anti-life&quotEye-wink is not really a good thing.  See, I'm not a fan of forced pregnancy. Are you arguing that a woman has the right to choose positively when a man's penis enters her vagina but loses all rights if she doesn't want to carry his spawn?

If you want a case of religion killing people, you need look no further than Pope Benedict's "Condom use spreads AIDS" campaign to kill Africans.

MOL he is right you may have found one person in a string of them. That does not justify the argument. Religion stopped stem cell research in the past and they have not stopped trying.

The truth is the only way those back woods country abortion boomers can find those clinics, but not the stem cell clinic is simple. They have to take there sisters to those clinics once a month to kick start there periods..

That's right now the challenge is on again MOL. Argue that your abortion clinic boomers want try the same thing on the stem cell centers. Why when they lash out like that don't we put down the whole bunch of them?

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So, because

jcgadfly wrote:

So, because you found a secular organization in the list of plaintiffs,

Well, the secular organisation she founded isn't one of the plaintiffs.

And anyone can make of that what they want.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
MOL

Hey MOL sorry my last post was kinda of ramble. I am taking some really good pain medication. Sometimes it makes you ramble incoherent statement.

What I was trying to say was that there is little that differs between the abortion boomers, and the anti stem cell research activist.

So little in fact that they are in often times the same people..

Religious people that oppose things seem to take it to the extreme. We all know that. What I'm curious to know is will they start booming research hospitals?

The back woods comment was a little harsh. "You know that people in rural Mississippi believe that they have at least one prayer a month answered. That must be when their sister has her period." Bill Maher

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyHhAoxTXKI

 

Why don't you defend your point of this not by showing my one obscured Atheist that opposes stem cell research but rather one church group that supports it.

I do feel that the use of any treatments derived from stem cell research should be kept from the Christians for about 30 years or so..

That way you could see the wonderful medical advances on us first, and instead of saying oh praise god for this cure. You could just thank your neighborhood Atheist.

 

 

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So, because

jcgadfly wrote:

So, because you found a secular organization in the list of plaintiffs, the suit is devoid of religious motive?

The motive may be religious.  It also may be based on their belief that if they participate in the lawsuit, then Jimmy Hoffa will come back from the dead and talk to them.  Whatever.

My only point was that pro-life vs. pro-choice has nothing to do with atheism vs. theism.  I've already cited several secular pro-life organizations, as well as various sources where pro-lifers admit to being atheists. 

So I'd be interested to know why you would default to the assumption that anyone who advocates life over choice somehow has a religious motive.

Actually, I'm not interested.  I'm sure you'll respond, as you continue following me around this forum like a little puppy dog... but seriously, I really don't care what you think.

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Atheist do come in all shapes an sizes. They do at least have one thing in common: they don't believe in a god. Atheists will disbelieve for various reasons, of course. RRS is, as the subtitle says, a place for the activist variety that seeks to do away with "Irrational Precepts--ideas and things so ludicrous that they should be eradicated from the face of the earth...peacefully, of course." So think think you can expect some provocation on this board concerning theistic beliefs.

I've met Christians who can't tell me the difference between Protestants and Catholics...even some that had been to seminary. Scary, I know.

I'm do not think that "there is a larger number of intelligent atheists on Christian discussion boards than here" is well substantiated. Where's the statistical study to did to make this assertion? This is, of course, rhetorical. What Christian forums are you posting in so we can go there and drag down the average IQ of the atheist.

There is no formal study.  I can only go by my own experience and if you go to the discussion boards at www.carm.org or www.reasonablefaith.org, you'll find that the majority of atheists there are much more articulate and well informed. 

Again, I don't mind people disagreeing with me.  You happen to be an intelligent atheist.  But the fact is, you are not in good company at this particular forum, which has become a stomping ground of the aforementioned kiddie atheists.

 

10:21pm  So I went to this carm.org and I didn't find the other atheists there to be more articulate or more informed. What I did find though was a bunch of southern baptist morons griping and moaning because they don't like that Obama chose a female and people in Louisianna still haven't gotten money from BP. I also found another moron who is a male who says there is no excuse for abortion whatsoever. I took it upon myself to correct his dumb ass. Chances are I'll probably get kick off of there but I don't care. I did this just a few minutes ago but Jimmy did it yesterday and he already has a point system going so some of your fellow christians happen to agree with the way we think.

 

11:30 pm edit; Oh and need I mention a lot of the "christian" men on there think that now should be like the biblical times. You know where we get raped and killed and the only good we serve is a sex objects. It was absolutely appaling to me. I hate that site and I hope they do kick my ass off there. Those "christians"are worse than the ones here.I haven't seen near as bad here and I don't know what ya'll talk about away from this site and I don't think I want to know.

 

12:12 am UGGGHHH!!! I feel like I've entered an online cult. Ima say something ugly so they kick me off there. Scaaaaaarrrrryyy

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
My only point was that

My only point was that pro-life vs. pro-choice has nothing to do with atheism vs. theism.   

 

 

In this thread it does.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


PimpingWolfwood
atheist
PimpingWolfwood's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2010-08-24
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So, because you found a secular organization in the list of plaintiffs, the suit is devoid of religious motive?

The motive may be religious.  It also may be based on their belief that if they participate in the lawsuit, then Jimmy Hoffa will come back from the dead and talk to them.  Whatever.

My only point was that pro-life vs. pro-choice has nothing to do with atheism vs. theism.  I've already cited several secular pro-life organizations, as well as various sources where pro-lifers admit to being atheists. 

So I'd be interested to know why you would default to the assumption that anyone who advocates life over choice somehow has a religious motive.

Actually, I'm not interested.  I'm sure you'll respond, as you continue following me around this forum like a little puppy dog... but seriously, I really don't care what you think.

Pro-choicers are overwhelmingly Christian. Anecdotes are logical fallacies. Don't play that game.

Bridge breeding proves evolution false.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
Actually, I'm not interested.  I'm sure you'll respond, as you continue following me around this forum like a little puppy dog... but seriously, I really don't care what you think.

Well, if you don't want people to talk to you, you can always get yourself a blog and disable comments, I guess.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So, because you found a secular organization in the list of plaintiffs, the suit is devoid of religious motive?

The motive may be religious.  It also may be based on their belief that if they participate in the lawsuit, then Jimmy Hoffa will come back from the dead and talk to them.  Whatever.

My only point was that pro-life vs. pro-choice has nothing to do with atheism vs. theism.  I've already cited several secular pro-life organizations, as well as various sources where pro-lifers admit to being atheists. 

So I'd be interested to know why you would default to the assumption that anyone who advocates life over choice somehow has a religious motive.

Actually, I'm not interested.  I'm sure you'll respond, as you continue following me around this forum like a little puppy dog... but seriously, I really don't care what you think.

I didn't say that anyone did - I said that there was a religious motive. I wasn't concerned with who had it.

Actually, you're more like the puppy dog - you get proven wrong and kicked around but keep coming back with the same tired stuff.  I'm surprised Animal Control hasn't been called the way your arguments have been kicked around.

Why are you so against women having privacy rights over their bodies? Are you trying to get the laws changed because you can't get laid the old-fashioned way?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I didn't say

jcgadfly wrote:

I didn't say that anyone did - I said that there was a religious motive. I wasn't concerned with who had it.

There is a religious motive, yet nobody has a religious motive?  Eh, what?

Quote:
Actually, you're more like the puppy dog - you get proven wrong and kicked around but keep coming back with the same tired stuff.  I'm surprised Animal Control hasn't been called the way your arguments have been kicked around.

Here's some advice for you:  An analogy is clever only if it actually makes sense.  What does someone coming back with the same stuff have to do with puppy dogs?  The Animal Control part did nothing to add to the comedy.  Sorry, you'll have to work on it.  You are neither clever nor funny.  The only thing humorous is the fact that you believe that you are, in which case, I would applaud you if that was your sole intention. 

You are also factually incorrect.  I've never left.  It's just that I actually have a life and there are more important things to me than this forum.

As far as being proven wrong, mind getting into specifics?  What am I wrong about and what proof has been offered in support of that? 

Quote:
Why are you so against women having privacy rights over their bodies? Are you trying to get the laws changed because you can't get laid the old-fashioned way?


Why do you ask loaded questions and project things upon other people whom you know nothing about? 

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
MOL I have tried to come

MOL I have tried to come back to point that we were debating in the first place. I see that you would rather spend your time debating pointless arguments.

You not yet justified your position that children are born with "sinful natures". You just insist that they are. I have asked you what sinful nature you refer too? and again I get the I'm right your wrong LA,LA,LA,LA, Bullshit!

Give it a chance to sink in. Children are not born sinful. They are taught to be good or bad. I use the word sinful because it refers to the biblical position on good and bad.

We differ on our takes of good and bad. I want you to state you point that children are born with bad, evil, sinful, ETC....thoughts.

Where is your proof? What sinful natures?

Humans are born with the same natures of an animal. You view these natures as evil. Why?

You are not a rational minded person, rather a closed minded droid of Christianity. THINK FOR YOUR SELF! Not for your church, not for your religious reputation. Stop being so closed minded that everything else in the world is wrong. Give it thought that maybe your wrong!

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Atheist do come in all shapes an sizes. They do at least have one thing in common: they don't believe in a god. Atheists will disbelieve for various reasons, of course. RRS is, as the subtitle says, a place for the activist variety that seeks to do away with "Irrational Precepts--ideas and things so ludicrous that they should be eradicated from the face of the earth...peacefully, of course." So think think you can expect some provocation on this board concerning theistic beliefs.

I've met Christians who can't tell me the difference between Protestants and Catholics...even some that had been to seminary. Scary, I know.

I'm do not think that "there is a larger number of intelligent atheists on Christian discussion boards than here" is well substantiated. Where's the statistical study to did to make this assertion? This is, of course, rhetorical. What Christian forums are you posting in so we can go there and drag down the average IQ of the atheist.

There is no formal study.  I can only go by my own experience and if you go to the discussion boards at www.carm.org or www.reasonablefaith.org, you'll find that the majority of atheists there are much more articulate and well informed. 

Again, I don't mind people disagreeing with me.  You happen to be an intelligent atheist.  But the fact is, you are not in good company at this particular forum, which has become a stomping ground of the aforementioned kiddie atheists.

 

I'm not going to get into this thread because, well, it sucks.  But I was poking around these sites a bit and it makes me realize that theist sites would have more atheist presence if they didn't have the crazy ham fisted rules.  http://www.carm.org/forum-rules  Yikes.  It must be refreshing that you can come to this board and be as rude as you want!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I didn't say that anyone did - I said that there was a religious motive. I wasn't concerned with who had it.

There is a religious motive, yet nobody has a religious motive?  Eh, what?

Quote:
Actually, you're more like the puppy dog - you get proven wrong and kicked around but keep coming back with the same tired stuff.  I'm surprised Animal Control hasn't been called the way your arguments have been kicked around.

Here's some advice for you:  An analogy is clever only if it actually makes sense.  What does someone coming back with the same stuff have to do with puppy dogs?  The Animal Control part did nothing to add to the comedy.  Sorry, you'll have to work on it.  You are neither clever nor funny.  The only thing humorous is the fact that you believe that you are, in which case, I would applaud you if that was your sole intention. 

You are also factually incorrect.  I've never left.  It's just that I actually have a life and there are more important things to me than this forum.

As far as being proven wrong, mind getting into specifics?  What am I wrong about and what proof has been offered in support of that? 

Quote:
Why are you so against women having privacy rights over their bodies? Are you trying to get the laws changed because you can't get laid the old-fashioned way?


Why do you ask loaded questions and project things upon other people whom you know nothing about? 

You don't read anything do you?

Let me break it down again. There are people who have religious motives in this suit. There are people who have non-religious motives in this suit. Why do you deny the religious motive as soon as you see someone who heads a secular organization (the organization was not a party to the suit) on the list of plaintiffs.

The religious motive stems from the attitude popular among evangelicals of only caring about the pre-born. The secular motive has to do with people who don't believe that a woman should have control over what enters or leaves her body.

You bring up something - you are told where you are mistaken. You repeat the same information, oblivious to any of the new information presented to you. You're like a dog who gets beaten by its owner by keeps coming back because it's loyal. a human analog would be battered spouse syndrome. The way your arguments are getting slapped around here would be animal abuse except that you keep provoking it.

Where have you been shown to be wrong? You claim babies are born with sinful thoughts even when shown that they aren't able to process moral thoughts until later. You claim that the Bible is full of true life events (including the Jesus magic that was not recorded by anyone else until the Gospels were written 40 years after and with Paul's epistles in front of them). Need more?

You touted the secular pro-life (anti women's privacy) groups. I figures you espoused their positions. Taken to the logical conclusion they lead to forced pregnancy and the stripping of other civil rights.  So are you against a woman's right to privacy?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Let me break it down

Quote:
Let me break it down again. There are people who have religious motives in this suit. There are people who have non-religious motives in this suit. Why do you deny the religious motive as soon as you see someone who heads a secular organization (the organization was not a party to the suit) on the list of plaintiffs.

Obviously, you are the one who is not reading. 

I neither denied nor affirmed a religious motive.  In fact, I specifically stated a few replies down that the motive could be religious.  It could be anything.

My only point was that being pro-life has nothing to do with being religious.  Many religious and non-religious people can be pro-life.  But obviously, you chose to ignore that part of my statement.  Let me repeat it for you:

"The motive may be religious.  It also may be based on their belief that if they participate in the lawsuit, then Jimmy Hoffa will come back from the dead and talk to them.  Whatever."

In fact, let me repeat several things I've already said but which you have chosen to ignore because you've decided that you need to argue with a theist for the sake of arguing with a theist:

"If this is true, then I totally support them filing a lawsuit, whether or not stem cell research can be considered ethical, which, as I continually try pointing out to you (but you will not listen), is not an issue of atheism vs. theism."

"Truth be told, she probably does adhere to the Christian perspective on this.  My point is, this has nothing to do with the fact that people are against stem cell research.  I've already cited several sources showing pro-life atheists.  You've already agreed that there isn't a one to one correspondence between pro-life/pro-choice and theism/atheism, so what is the point of you trying to hijack the discussion between me and jimmy?"

"The pro-life issue has nothing to do with religion.  Atheists can be pro-life as well.  Why not get upset with them?  The largest pro-life organization in the US is a secular organization.  In some cases, secular and non-secular organizations band together for a common cause, even though they disagree on the justification for their beliefs."

Quote:
The religious motive stems from the attitude popular among evangelicals of only caring about the pre-born.  The secular motive has to do with people who don't believe that a woman should have control over what enters or leaves her body.

Actually, both motives are the same:  Both secular and religious people believe that inside of a woman's body, there is a living human being.  Abortion is therefore the killing of a human being.  The only difference is the justification for their belief.  Religious believe this violates the law of God, secular people believe that this violate's some sort of morality invented or discovered by mankind.

Your mischaracterization of the position is highly juvenile and it makes me believe that you have never read any of the arguments against your position, which is a common thread among atheists here (and also why I would recommend carm.org and reasonablefaith.org over this site anyday).

Quote:
You bring up something - you are told where you are mistaken. You repeat the same information, oblivious to any of the new information presented to you.

I want examples.  Citations please.

Quote:
You're like a dog who gets beaten by its owner by keeps coming back because it's loyal. a human analog would be battered spouse syndrome. The way your arguments are getting slapped around here would be animal abuse except that you keep provoking it.

Sorry, you only get one shot a making a clever analogy.  If you have to qualify it to people, then there is no way that it can be funny.  It would be like if a comedian told a joke, the audience didn't laugh, and then the comedian had to explain why they should be laughing.  Your analogy was an epic fail.  Better luck next time.

Quote:
Where have you been shown to be wrong? You claim babies are born with sinful thoughts even when shown that they aren't able to process moral thoughts until later.

LOL

Let's see:  jimmy asked if babies were born with sinful thoughts and I said "yes".  Jimmy's response was that he does not personally remember producing a sinful thought until he was 10 months.

That's what you call being shown something?  Someone simply asserting, "Well I can't remember having a sinful thought until I was at least 10 months old"???

Is that what suffices as evidence for you?

Quote:
You claim that the Bible is full of true life events (including the Jesus magic that was not recorded by anyone else until the Gospels were written 40 years after and with Paul's epistles in front of them). Need more?

Where did I claim that and where was I disproven? 

Quote:
You touted the secular pro-life (anti women's privacy) groups. I figures you espoused their positions. Taken to the logical conclusion they lead to forced pregnancy and the stripping of other civil rights.  So are you against a woman's right to privacy?

I am pro-life, but your inferences are invalid.

I mentioned the secular pro-life groups in order to make a point about the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.  Where in that does it follow that I must necessarily adhere to the pro-life position?  You are so illogical.

As it happens, I'm totally for a woman's right to privacy, but a right to privacy is not a right to murder someone. 

 

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote:MOL I

jimmy.williamson wrote:

MOL I have tried to come back to point that we were debating in the first place. I see that you would rather spend your time debating pointless arguments.

You not yet justified your position that children are born with "sinful natures". You just insist that they are. I have asked you what sinful nature you refer too? and again I get the I'm right your wrong LA,LA,LA,LA, Bullshit!

Show me that you understand the doctrine of Original Sin and maybe I'll address your question.

Quote:
Give it a chance to sink in. Children are not born sinful. They are taught to be good or bad. I use the word sinful because it refers to the biblical position on good and bad.

Is that what you consider a justification?

Quote:
We differ on our takes of good and bad. I want you to state you point that children are born with bad, evil, sinful, ETC....thoughts.

Where is your proof? What sinful natures?

Humans are born with the same natures of an animal. You view these natures as evil. Why?

Show me that you understand the doctrine of Original Sin and maybe I'll address your question.

Quote:
You are not a rational minded person, rather a closed minded droid of Christianity. THINK FOR YOUR SELF! Not for your church, not for your religious reputation. Stop being so closed minded that everything else in the world is wrong. Give it thought that maybe your wrong!

LOL.  I have a degree in philosophy and studied the subject of God extensively.  How much research have you done?

I've been a skeptic before.  You are not trying anything on me that I have not heard before.  You seriously think you have one-upped me on the subject of God by simply asking me to think for myself?   LOLOLOL

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Nobody cares what degrees

Nobody cares what degrees you have in anything here. You are just another smart ass christian who is very immature and all you want to do is argue and mock atheists for their non belief in god. You have no point on this thread and you have gotten way off subject with your stupid arguments. You claim you don't have time for all the bullshit here yet you are the one coming up with all the bullshit. Go study god some more and quit making suck an ass of yourself! Your only aim here is to combat us and you look like a moron when you do it. You nauseate me with your stupidity.Get a life.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson

rebecca.williamson wrote:

Nobody cares what degrees you have in anything here. You are just another smart ass christian who is very immature and all you want to do is argue and mock atheists for their non belief in god. You have no point on this thread and you have gotten way off subject with your stupid arguments. You claim you don't have time for all the bullshit here yet you are the one coming up with all the bullshit. Go study god some more and quit making suck an ass of yourself! Your only aim here is to combat us and you look like a moron when you do it. You nauseate me with your stupidity.Get a life.

Stop being an atheist and I will not mock you.

Deal?

 

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

rebecca.williamson wrote:

Nobody cares what degrees you have in anything here. You are just another smart ass christian who is very immature and all you want to do is argue and mock atheists for their non belief in god. You have no point on this thread and you have gotten way off subject with your stupid arguments. You claim you don't have time for all the bullshit here yet you are the one coming up with all the bullshit. Go study god some more and quit making suck an ass of yourself! Your only aim here is to combat us and you look like a moron when you do it. You nauseate me with your stupidity.Get a life.

Stop being an atheist and I will not mock you.

Deal?

 

Absofuckinglutely not. However you did just show my point. This is a lot of the reason I will never fall into the mocking christian category. You're going to hell if I am so we will forever more get on each others nerves. You better watch your tongue and go pray for forgivness so you don't have to deal with me there too lol.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

MOL I have tried to come back to point that we were debating in the first place. I see that you would rather spend your time debating pointless arguments.

You not yet justified your position that children are born with "sinful natures". You just insist that they are. I have asked you what sinful nature you refer too? and again I get the I'm right your wrong LA,LA,LA,LA, Bullshit!

Show me that you understand the doctrine of Original Sin and maybe I'll address your question.

Quote:
Give it a chance to sink in. Children are not born sinful. They are taught to be good or bad. I use the word sinful because it refers to the biblical position on good and bad.

Is that what you consider a justification?

Quote:
We differ on our takes of good and bad. I want you to state you point that children are born with bad, evil, sinful, ETC....thoughts.

Where is your proof? What sinful natures?

Humans are born with the same natures of an animal. You view these natures as evil. Why?

Show me that you understand the doctrine of Original Sin and maybe I'll address your question.

Quote:
You are not a rational minded person, rather a closed minded droid of Christianity. THINK FOR YOUR SELF! Not for your church, not for your religious reputation. Stop being so closed minded that everything else in the world is wrong. Give it thought that maybe your wrong!

LOL.  I have a degree in philosophy and studied the subject of God extensively.  How much research have you done?

I've been a skeptic before.  You are not trying anything on me that I have not heard before.  You seriously think you have one-upped me on the subject of God by simply asking me to think for myself?   LOLOLOL

As stated in the bible the original sin was to disobey gods will. Adam and Eve were to live a sinless life until they met the snake. so on and so on.... This is a biblical tale that is just that a fiery tale. However I do understand the original sin portion. As long as you understand that I don't believe a thing that comes out of the bible.

Now having said that what is the disobeying of gods will does an infant have without having outside forces.

Really the metaphors in the bible for the apple in the tree. Some say it was sex for pleasure, other say the fruit was a drug ect...

now answer my damn question once and for all. Stick with that answer and explain how you come to believe it!!!

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote:As

jimmy.williamson wrote:

As stated in the bible the original sin was to disobey gods will. Adam and Eve were to live a sinless life until they met the snake. so on and so on....

*sigh*

You don't understand the doctrine.  Sorry, I can't have this discussion with you if you cannot get the basics down.

The doctrine of Original Sin addresses the effects of Adam's sin upon the generations that would follow him.  It's not just a story about some guy who ate an apple, it is an account for the fact that people make evil choices.

 

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

As stated in the bible the original sin was to disobey gods will. Adam and Eve were to live a sinless life until they met the snake. so on and so on....

*sigh*

You don't understand the doctrine.  Sorry, I can't have this discussion with you if you cannot get the basics down.

The doctrine of Original Sin addresses the effects of Adam's sin upon the generations that would follow him.  It's not just a story about some guy who ate an apple, it is an account for the fact that people make evil choices.

 

Again you have not answered a damn thing and now your refusing to. That is what I expected. Now I am done with you and the nice game I have had to keep up tring not offend you. You are the dumbest person I have ever met, now just continue commenting with bullshit answers, and never make a point. Only point you have made here is that you are an idiot. I'm done with you!

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

As stated in the bible the original sin was to disobey gods will. Adam and Eve were to live a sinless life until they met the snake. so on and so on....

*sigh*

You don't understand the doctrine.  Sorry, I can't have this discussion with you if you cannot get the basics down.

The doctrine of Original Sin addresses the effects of Adam's sin upon the generations that would follow him.  It's not just a story about some guy who ate an apple, it is an account for the fact that people make evil choices.

 

Ah, Original Sin. God needed it so bad that (if you believe the story) he rigged his first test for man to fail.

Tell me, how did Adam and Eve know the difference between good and evil before they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? God didn't tell them.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life wrote: The

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

The doctrine of Original Sin addresses the effects of Adam's sin upon the generations that would follow him.  It's not just a story about some guy who ate an apple, it is an account for the fact that people make evil choices.

 

Let's pretend.  You have a 2 year old who takes candy from the display in the store and you don't notice it, so you leave the store without paying.  You get home and find the wrapper.  You have choices.

1. Ignore it, the store won't miss the pennies the candy cost them.  And a lot of other children steal so what is the big deal.

2. You take the wrapper back to the store, talk to the manager, and pay for the candy.

3. You punish the 2 year old for the rest of his life, and his children and his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren, and so on for uncounted generations - a very long time.  You do not specify when the punishment will end, but instead offer the now adult person the option of spending eternity in heaven with you after they die.  You tell them maybe one day, you will forgive the entire human race and stop punishing them.

I chose #2.  god/s/dess chose #3.

Yes, I believe this is an exact analogy as Adam and Eve were innocent and without sin - just like that 2 year old who does not understand the consequences of his actions.  Adam and Eve had no concept of the consequences of their actions, either.  Is the 2 year old evil?  Nah, the kid has no knowledge of right or wrong at that age, his parents are teaching him, but his brain is not developed enough to fully grasp the concepts.  I don't believe Adam and Eve were evil but just not fully developed.  And for growing up a little, god/s/dess has to punish them.  Always seemed like over reacting to me.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

As stated in the bible the original sin was to disobey gods will. Adam and Eve were to live a sinless life until they met the snake. so on and so on....

*sigh*

You don't understand the doctrine.  Sorry, I can't have this discussion with you if you cannot get the basics down.

The doctrine of Original Sin addresses the effects of Adam's sin upon the generations that would follow him.  It's not just a story about some guy who ate an apple, it is an account for the fact that people make evil choices.

 

Ah, Original Sin. God needed it so bad that (if you believe the story) he rigged his first test for man to fail.

Tell me, how did Adam and Eve know the difference between good and evil before they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? God didn't tell them.

Hahaha, could not you respond to my other post?  I'm still waiting for you to point out where I've been proven wrong.  Are you willing to admit that you caricature of pro-life advocates was false?  Are you admitting that you have not been making logical inferences?

 

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

According to Nazi Germany's standards, it was not cruel and unusual to commit mass genocide.  Therefore, by your logic, the Nazis were not wrong.

I don't understand why we should care what the Nazi Germany's moral standard were in judging weather what they did was wrong or not.  This would be the same as saying that someone today killed someone, but by their personal morel standards they weren't doing anything wrong therefore what they did was fine.

 

I think that you are under the impression that everyone who is an atheist believe in morel relativism, and that all people who believe in morel relativism feel that they need to consider other people's point of view.

  

I don't really see why people necessarily need to consider other people's morel views when judging them.  I believe this to be the case weather or not morels are relative.  Why do you feel that people who believe morels are relative need to consider other people morality when casting judgment?

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

As stated in the bible the original sin was to disobey gods will. Adam and Eve were to live a sinless life until they met the snake. so on and so on....

*sigh*

You don't understand the doctrine.  Sorry, I can't have this discussion with you if you cannot get the basics down.

The doctrine of Original Sin addresses the effects of Adam's sin upon the generations that would follow him.  It's not just a story about some guy who ate an apple, it is an account for the fact that people make evil choices.

 

Ah, Original Sin. God needed it so bad that (if you believe the story) he rigged his first test for man to fail.

Tell me, how did Adam and Eve know the difference between good and evil before they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? God didn't tell them.

Hahaha, could not you respond to my other post?  I'm still waiting for you to point out where I've been proven wrong.  Are you willing to admit that you caricature of pro-life advocates was false?  Are you admitting that you have not been making logical inferences?

 

You mean I really have to prove to you that babies have no moral thought processes? What, have you never seen one? You haven't noticed that they don't understand the difference between good and evil? You know, like Adam and Eve before God rigged the test? For someone who depends on personal experience for his proof of God, you've had surprisingly few of them.

The Bible is full of true facts? Really? Whip out them miracles then. Jesus claimed that those who believed could do greater things than He did. What do you have to show?

Can you show me where I've mis-characterized pro-life advocates? I never said they were all religious. I did say they were against a woman having privacy rights to her own body. That I stand by - Roe v. Wade was a privacy case. Advocating its repeal is a stand against privacy

Are you ever going to read posts instead of harping on crap that's been explained to you? You are making this too easy.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You mean I

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean I really have to prove to you that babies have no moral thought processes?

See, now you are changing your original assertion.  First, you said that someone proved to me that this was false.  I pointed out that jimmy simply asserted that he has no recollection of sinful thoughts before the age of 10 months.  I asked you if that sufficed as evidence, you did not respond. 

Now you are asking me if you have you to answer a question that I did not even ask to begin with.  I never asked you to prove that babies have no moral thought processes (whatever "moral thought processes" means). 

I'm asking you to show me where I was proven wrong.  Did Jimmy prove me wrong or didn't he?  Is simply stating that you have no recollection of sinful thoughts before the age of 10 months sufficient as proof or isn't it?

Quote:
What, have you never seen one? You haven't noticed that they don't understand the difference between good and evil? You know, like Adam and Eve before God rigged the test? For someone who depends on personal experience for his proof of God, you've had surprisingly few of them.

Show me where I've stated that I depend on personal experience as proof of the existence of God.

Quote:
The Bible is full of true facts? Really? Whip out them miracles then. Jesus claimed that those who believed could do greater things than He did. What do you have to show?

Again, you said that I was previously proven wrong.  Can you cite a specific post or can't you?  If you cannot, then let me know and I'll allow you to change the subject.

Quote:
Can you show me where I've mis-characterized pro-life advocates?

"The religious motive stems from the attitude popular among evangelicals of only caring about the pre-born.  The secular motive has to do with people who don't believe that a woman should have control over what enters or leaves her body."

Please quote me one pro-life advocate who has stated that they only care about the prenatal or that a woman ought not have control over her body.

If you cannot, then please admit that you are wrong.  Then I'll allow you to change the subject.

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean I really have to prove to you that babies have no moral thought processes?

See, now you are changing your original assertion.  First, you said that someone proved to me that this was false.  I pointed out that jimmy simply asserted that he has no recollection of sinful thoughts before the age of 10 months.  I asked you if that sufficed as evidence, you did not respond. 

Now you are asking me if you have you to answer a question that I did not even ask to begin with.  I never asked you to prove that babies have no moral thought processes (whatever "moral thought processes" means). 

I'm asking you to show me where I was proven wrong.  Did Jimmy prove me wrong or didn't he?  Is simply stating that you have no recollection of sinful thoughts before the age of 10 months sufficient as proof or isn't it?

Quote:
What, have you never seen one? You haven't noticed that they don't understand the difference between good and evil? You know, like Adam and Eve before God rigged the test? For someone who depends on personal experience for his proof of God, you've had surprisingly few of them.

Show me where I've stated that I depend on personal experience as proof of the existence of God.

Quote:
The Bible is full of true facts? Really? Whip out them miracles then. Jesus claimed that those who believed could do greater things than He did. What do you have to show?

Again, you said that I was previously proven wrong.  Can you cite a specific post or can't you?  If you cannot, then let me know and I'll allow you to change the subject.

Quote:
Can you show me where I've mis-characterized pro-life advocates?

"The religious motive stems from the attitude popular among evangelicals of only caring about the pre-born.  The secular motive has to do with people who don't believe that a woman should have control over what enters or leaves her body."

Please quote me one pro-life advocate who has stated that they only care about the prenatal or that a woman ought not have control over her body.

If you cannot, then please admit that you are wrong.  Then I'll allow you to change the subject.

Why, yes, someone did prove it false. Many someones - they're called babies. You claim that you got someone to admit to having a moral thought at 10 months. Hate to wreck your victory party but punishment and reward as a moral system is only suitable for theists - I guess their gods never let them grow up.

I just proved you wrong on the Bible in this post. Where were you?

Oh and here's your quote:

Link:http://www.orthodoxnet.com/articles/guests_01/Carellas_Defense-Pre-Born-Child_2008-08-12.php

"My brothers and sisters in Christ, this election has only one issue that is of paramount importance: the life of the child in the womb. How can we worry about the condition of our –sometimes up, sometimes down – economy, while we ignore the fact that over one million of our pre-born babies are slaughtered for profit every year within our hospitals and abortion chambers? How can we justify spending billions of dollars protecting the environment, and various endangered species of creatures; and sit by passively, while billions of dollars are being made creating a new “endangered species”: the child in the womb? Of what importance can we place upon various multi-billion dollar heath care proposals, when NONE of them protect the pre-born child from being slaughtered? Why are many people so quick to condemn the war in Iraq, and the loss of nearly 4000 lives there in four years of battle, while – at the same time – adamantly remaining “pro-choice,” when it comes to showing concern for the more than 4,000 of God’s most innocent ones who are being killed everyday in our Nation?"

Doesn't sound like he gives a rat's ass about anyone unless they're in the womb.

Do I need to do more?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

Why, yes, someone did prove it false. Many someones - they're called babies. You claim that you got someone to admit to having a moral thought at 10 months. Hate to wreck your victory party but punishment and reward as a moral system is only suitable for theists - I guess their gods never let them grow up.

One more time.

You said that people on this discussion board have proven me wrong.  Can you please cite the exact post where I was proven wrong on this issue

Some anonymous person on a forum claiming that he does not remember having an immoral thought until the age of 10 months is not proof of anything.  It's just some poster making an assertion about something that cannot be verified.

Are there any other posts on this discussion board where someone has proven me wrong on this issue?  If you cannot cite any, then please state that you are wrong and nobody has proven me wrong on this issue.

Quote:
I just proved you wrong on the Bible in this post. Where were you?

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Where did I even mention the Bible?  What does the Bible have to do with anything?  What did I say about the Bible that someone has disproven?

Quote:
Oh and here's your quote:

Link:http://www.orthodoxnet.com/articles/guests_01/Carellas_Defense-Pre-Born-Child_2008-08-12.php

"My brothers and sisters in Christ, this election has only one issue that is of paramount importance: the life of the child in the womb. How can we worry about the condition of our –sometimes up, sometimes down – economy, while we ignore the fact that over one million of our pre-born babies are slaughtered for profit every year within our hospitals and abortion chambers? How can we justify spending billions of dollars protecting the environment, and various endangered species of creatures; and sit by passively, while billions of dollars are being made creating a new “endangered species”: the child in the womb? Of what importance can we place upon various multi-billion dollar heath care proposals, when NONE of them protect the pre-born child from being slaughtered? Why are many people so quick to condemn the war in Iraq, and the loss of nearly 4000 lives there in four years of battle, while – at the same time – adamantly remaining “pro-choice,” when it comes to showing concern for the more than 4,000 of God’s most innocent ones who are being killed everyday in our Nation?"

Doesn't sound like he gives a rat's ass about anyone unless they're in the womb.

Where in that quote is it argued that the prenatal life is important and born life is not or that women have no right to privacy (or whatever you said)? 

So not only are you illogical, but you also lack reading comprehension.  Please tell me that you are at least able to do basic mathematics (quickly, what's 2 + 3?)

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
I'll quote you on a few

I'll quote you on a few hundred of pro-pife and in fact christian advocates who don't believe women have rights of their own bodies. Your carm.org that you talked so highly of (and obviously you have a profile on there)do just that. There moron, happy? As far as the sinful nature of babies goes well I guess all dogs don't go to heaven. They are born with this sinful nature that apparently you think is sinful.

As puppies they hump peoples legs and their fifi's. It's not sinful nature. It's just nature. If it's sinful nature then again I say you should ask for forgivness. I know you went through and maybe still are going through puberty and everyone knows what happens then.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Why, yes, someone did prove it false. Many someones - they're called babies. You claim that you got someone to admit to having a moral thought at 10 months. Hate to wreck your victory party but punishment and reward as a moral system is only suitable for theists - I guess their gods never let them grow up.

One more time.

You said that people on this discussion board have proven me wrong.  Can you please cite the exact post where I was proven wrong on this issue

Some anonymous person on a forum claiming that he does not remember having an immoral thought until the age of 10 months is not proof of anything.  It's just some poster making an assertion about something that cannot be verified.

Are there any other posts on this discussion board where someone has proven me wrong on this issue?  If you cannot cite any, then please state that you are wrong and nobody has proven me wrong on this issue.

Quote:
I just proved you wrong on the Bible in this post. Where were you?

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Where did I even mention the Bible?  What does the Bible have to do with anything?  What did I say about the Bible that someone has disproven?

Quote:
Oh and here's your quote:

Link:http://www.orthodoxnet.com/articles/guests_01/Carellas_Defense-Pre-Born-Child_2008-08-12.php

"My brothers and sisters in Christ, this election has only one issue that is of paramount importance: the life of the child in the womb. How can we worry about the condition of our –sometimes up, sometimes down – economy, while we ignore the fact that over one million of our pre-born babies are slaughtered for profit every year within our hospitals and abortion chambers? How can we justify spending billions of dollars protecting the environment, and various endangered species of creatures; and sit by passively, while billions of dollars are being made creating a new “endangered species”: the child in the womb? Of what importance can we place upon various multi-billion dollar heath care proposals, when NONE of them protect the pre-born child from being slaughtered? Why are many people so quick to condemn the war in Iraq, and the loss of nearly 4000 lives there in four years of battle, while – at the same time – adamantly remaining “pro-choice,” when it comes to showing concern for the more than 4,000 of God’s most innocent ones who are being killed everyday in our Nation?"

Doesn't sound like he gives a rat's ass about anyone unless they're in the womb.

Where in that quote is it argued that the prenatal life is important and born life is not or that women have no right to privacy (or whatever you said)? 

So not only are you illogical, but you also lack reading comprehension.  Please tell me that you are at least able to do basic mathematics (quickly, what's 2 + 3?)

I'm glad you have a strong back. Moving those goalposts must take a lot of work.

You must want more "true facts" from the Bible.

According to the Bible:

the earth is flat

the sky is a dome

bats are birds

houses can get leprosy

pi=3

 

Why look, you've been proven wrong about the Bible. Again. By me. In this post.

As for the quote - let me help again. The whole thing is about how we shouldn't be concerned about all the stuff that is actually affecting people who are already born. We need to save the embryos! How would you save the embryos, you ask? By forcing women to keep them in their wombs against their right to privacy.

Do I have to go post by post where people have revealed facts to you about babies not having moral thoughts? Or how babies are beings of instinct? Do you read other people's posts? Do you know where babies come from?

Are you going to accept defeat or will I see a "Thank you sir. May I have another?" post from you?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Why, yes, someone did prove it false. Many someones - they're called babies. You claim that you got someone to admit to having a moral thought at 10 months. Hate to wreck your victory party but punishment and reward as a moral system is only suitable for theists - I guess their gods never let them grow up.

One more time.

You said that people on this discussion board have proven me wrong.  Can you please cite the exact post where I was proven wrong on this issue

Some anonymous person on a forum claiming that he does not remember having an immoral thought until the age of 10 months is not proof of anything.  It's just some poster making an assertion about something that cannot be verified.

Are there any other posts on this discussion board where someone has proven me wrong on this issue?  If you cannot cite any, then please state that you are wrong and nobody has proven me wrong on this issue.

Quote:
I just proved you wrong on the Bible in this post. Where were you?

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Where did I even mention the Bible?  What does the Bible have to do with anything?  What did I say about the Bible that someone has disproven?

Quote:
Oh and here's your quote:

Link:http://www.orthodoxnet.com/articles/guests_01/Carellas_Defense-Pre-Born-Child_2008-08-12.php

"My brothers and sisters in Christ, this election has only one issue that is of paramount importance: the life of the child in the womb. How can we worry about the condition of our –sometimes up, sometimes down – economy, while we ignore the fact that over one million of our pre-born babies are slaughtered for profit every year within our hospitals and abortion chambers? How can we justify spending billions of dollars protecting the environment, and various endangered species of creatures; and sit by passively, while billions of dollars are being made creating a new “endangered species”: the child in the womb? Of what importance can we place upon various multi-billion dollar heath care proposals, when NONE of them protect the pre-born child from being slaughtered? Why are many people so quick to condemn the war in Iraq, and the loss of nearly 4000 lives there in four years of battle, while – at the same time – adamantly remaining “pro-choice,” when it comes to showing concern for the more than 4,000 of God’s most innocent ones who are being killed everyday in our Nation?"

Doesn't sound like he gives a rat's ass about anyone unless they're in the womb.

Where in that quote is it argued that the prenatal life is important and born life is not or that women have no right to privacy (or whatever you said)? 

So not only are you illogical, but you also lack reading comprehension.  Please tell me that you are at least able to do basic mathematics (quickly, what's 2 + 3?)

I'm glad you have a strong back. Moving those goalposts must take a lot of work.

You must want more "true facts" from the Bible.

According to the Bible:

the earth is flat

the sky is a dome

bats are birds

houses can get leprosy

pi=3

 

Why look, you've been proven wrong about the Bible. Again. By me. In this post.

As for the quote - let me help again. The whole thing is about how we shouldn't be concerned about all the stuff that is actually affecting people who are already born. We need to save the embryos! How would you save the embryos, you ask? By forcing women to keep them in their wombs against their right to privacy.

Do I have to go post by post where people have revealed facts to you about babies not having moral thoughts? Or how babies are beings of instinct? Do you read other people's posts? Do you know where babies come from?

Are you going to accept defeat or will I see a "Thank you sir. May I have another?" post from you?

Jeff, you really should consider religion, as I think you could really benefit from religious dietary laws.

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson

rebecca.williamson wrote:
I'll quote you on a few hundred of pro-pife and in fact christian advocates who don't believe women have rights of their own bodies. Your carm.org that you talked so highly of (and obviously you have a profile on there)do just that. There moron, happy? As far as the sinful nature of babies goes well I guess all dogs don't go to heaven. They are born with this sinful nature that apparently you think is sinful. As puppies they hump peoples legs and their fifi's. It's not sinful nature. It's just nature. If it's sinful nature then again I say you should ask for forgivness. I know you went through and maybe still are going through puberty and everyone knows what happens then.

Wow, you are an idiot.  Is it any surprise that your child is retarded?

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

rebecca.williamson wrote:
I'll quote you on a few hundred of pro-pife and in fact christian advocates who don't believe women have rights of their own bodies. Your carm.org that you talked so highly of (and obviously you have a profile on there)do just that. There moron, happy? As far as the sinful nature of babies goes well I guess all dogs don't go to heaven. They are born with this sinful nature that apparently you think is sinful. As puppies they hump peoples legs and their fifi's. It's not sinful nature. It's just nature. If it's sinful nature then again I say you should ask for forgivness. I know you went through and maybe still are going through puberty and everyone knows what happens then.

Wow, you are an idiot.  Is it any surprise that your child is retarded?

Oh Matt, after the way you conceded in public do you think it matters what you say or do?

Poor little frightened Christian boy.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

rebecca.williamson wrote:
I'll quote you on a few hundred of pro-pife and in fact christian advocates who don't believe women have rights of their own bodies. Your carm.org that you talked so highly of (and obviously you have a profile on there)do just that. There moron, happy? As far as the sinful nature of babies goes well I guess all dogs don't go to heaven. They are born with this sinful nature that apparently you think is sinful. As puppies they hump peoples legs and their fifi's. It's not sinful nature. It's just nature. If it's sinful nature then again I say you should ask for forgivness. I know you went through and maybe still are going through puberty and everyone knows what happens then.

Wow, you are an idiot.  Is it any surprise that your child is retarded?

Oh Matt, after the way you conceded in public do you think it matters what you say or do?

Poor little frightened Christian boy.

Jeff, when was the last time you were able to see your own penis without a mirror?

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

rebecca.williamson wrote:
I'll quote you on a few hundred of pro-pife and in fact christian advocates who don't believe women have rights of their own bodies. Your carm.org that you talked so highly of (and obviously you have a profile on there)do just that. There moron, happy? As far as the sinful nature of babies goes well I guess all dogs don't go to heaven. They are born with this sinful nature that apparently you think is sinful. As puppies they hump peoples legs and their fifi's. It's not sinful nature. It's just nature. If it's sinful nature then again I say you should ask for forgivness. I know you went through and maybe still are going through puberty and everyone knows what happens then.

Wow, you are an idiot.  Is it any surprise that your child is retarded?

Oh Matt, after the way you conceded in public do you think it matters what you say or do?

Poor little frightened Christian boy.

Jeff, when was the last time you were able to see your own penis without a mirror?

I always wondered what it would be like to have a nemesis. Now I can...wait, all I have is you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin