Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/20/11 01:02 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 2/18/11 07:05 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Considering that what McCarthy was investigating was an executable offense, and many of the people he caught were guilty, and that the worst anyone faced was a pink slip....I fail to see the horror?

Wow...that is an amazing amount of oversimplification and lack of understanding of the long range damage McCarthy's witch hunt actually did.

No, that's an accurate description of Joe McCarthy's trials.

Not a single person who he went after wasn't a government employee. None. 0%.

Not a single person who he went after suffered a more severe penalty than being fired. Again. Not one. 0%.

Many of the people he went after were actually guilty.

The punishment in 100% of cases that he went after was execution. Working for a foreign government to the detriment of your own government is treason. That is an executable offense. Not a single person was killed under McCarthy despite many of them actively committing treason. In not one case did he go after ANYTHING more than removing them from their position.

So, McCarthy went after people guilty of treason, found many guilty, had none of them tried in a court, and only had them fired.

Everything I said is true. And therefore I see no downside. McCarthy was a pretty good guy.

At 2/19/11 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote: No it's not. Now, you tell me what of the characteristics of life a 1st and 2nd term fetus have.

...
...
...

Other than the basic fact that they are alive?

Is the current strategy to say things so ridiculous that I have an aneurism trying to understand how a thinking human being could make such a dumb argument?

So we have some unique cells. Since when did the mere existence of cells mean life? I can give you numerous examples of cells that we don't consider to be living. Remember that severed hand? It has all the DNA of a human and it has cells to, but NO ONE would claim the severed hand is alive.

But when the hand is severed, the cells start to die. If left removed too long, the hand is dead. The hand is part of an organism. It is not an organism in and of itself. The hand has the same DNA as the arm. And if someone loses a hand, they (99.999999%) of the time would like it reattached.

This is a really bad counter argument.

That was never the question.

Well, it was. The question of whether it was a unique human was asked, and I answered it. You're now going into even more scientifically illiterate questions to justify the earlier silliness.

That is NOT the definition of life.

It actually is.

You don't have to because you CAN'T. You can keep on fudging the question and acting like this ultra-scientific question is basic gemnoerty, but you will still never prove anything. Find me sources.

Again, no. It's not an ultra-scientific question. It's a basic question of basic science that any 8 year old can understand. The question of "when does life begin" on a scientific level is very simple, and very unambiguous. No one claims an amoeba isn't alive. It clearly is. No one claims bacteria isn't alive, it clearly is. The question of "when does something become human" is as un-scientific as it gets. A new human being is created at the point of conception. When it can breathe, when it can feel, when it can think, when it can speak are all questions with answers...but none of them change the original question of "When is a new human created."

Either your above questions show a profoundly sad misunderstanding of 3rd grade science...or they're insanely dishonest. Asking when something "becomes life" is a dumb question. Things that are living die...but things that aren't living never start living. Asking "when it becomes human" implies that it was ever NOT human. It doesn't start as a fish, turn into a lizard, then progress to an ape, and finally become a human being. It was always human, and developed as it grew.

If I hurt your feelings with the mockery about having to prove obvious non-disputed facts...then perhaps you need to open a book, and not ask people to prove things that everyone who ever took a science class knows?

At 2/19/11 02:21 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: I found this funny. How about we remove the heomoglobin from your red blood cells and let you breathe away? You'll find you're taking air in and out but your body is still not actualy respiring. Or how about we remove all your glucose so your body can't actualy engage the Oxygen in a reaction?

I guess I fail to see the humor. You asked that I prove that oxygen is necessary to breathe. I provided a mocking response that did just what you asked. Your new response actually confirms oxygen is necessary. So, you're being a dishonest tit.

Again, that never proved gravity. You're an over simplifying child. If Newton actualy went into a hall full of Academics and told this falling apple story they'd have laughed and slapped his shit with a wooden panel. All that proves is stones fall when you throw them.

I find simple works when dealing with stupid people.

For example, almost nothing that Newton proposed was anything new, and he was accused of plagiarism. Most of what we know about gravity today was NOT proposed by Newton, and was added long after he was dead. So had Newton walked into a hall of people and said "Dude, an apple hit me in the head! I think there's this magical force I want to call Newtonicity! that attracts it...." everyone would've looked at him and said "We've known about this magical force for years. And we already have a name for it. It's called gravity!" The only thing Newton proposed that was even mildly interesting was the idea that gravity decreased the farther away you were from the center.

But yeah, keep going with the mockery. You're doing a bang up job so far.

What's the nature of the falling? How does it correspond to the upward movement? It's enviroments, conditions and mass? Do bigger stones fall faster? Do stones fall faster in different mediums?

Yet, Newton addressed NONE of those points. The two stones on a tower thing is usually (and incorrectly) attributed to Gallileo, centuries earlier.

Right, buddy. At least I'm not the one busying himself with conclusion jumping. And your problem with critical thinking is the same problem you're having with this abortion thing - you assume that a clump of cells is alive. Well it's not an instantaneous process and you can't assume what came in is what came out or that it happens straight away! The speculation around late term abortion is justified - we simply can't know. But in early and mid term abortions I don't see the issue. It's not sentient, it's not feeling, it's not as important as the mother. You can't just say a pregnant woman is carrying a baby. It's over simplification to the point where you don't even seem interested in what you're talking about.

The clump of cells IS alive, and they are all human cells. That you think you know about Newton, and that you think you're witty doesn't change this.

And if the babies going to be severely handicapped then I don't see an issue so long as it's done as close to diagnosis as possible.

So, this undermines your entire point. Nothing you've said above has any basis in science, and you're just basing it on what you want. Don't get me wrong, I always knew that. But to hear you mock me on some imaginary scientific basis (when you're buying into the whole apple thing that they tell us didn't happen in 8th grade), then to admit that it's based on some personal standards...it stuns me that your head doesn't explode from the lack of consistency.

At 2/20/11 12:50 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: No...my argument is Christianity is capable of violence and the capacity for it, because it has used violence to achieve it's ends in the past. Demonstrably. What is "wrong and foolish" from demonstrated fact?

And, as demonstrated above, that's wrong. Simply repeating "Christians are violent, therefore Christianity is violent" is stupid. I've went into detail above. You just keep saying "nope", denying you said what I claimed you said...then repeating what I claimed you said. It's kinda boring. Like arguing with a 6 year old.

Really? Then why is it I've seen you use it? Or an ad hominem variation of it whenever you're insulting the intelligence of your opponent?

I've never once used that argument in my life. In fact, I've been rather brutal in discussing WHY you're wrong, and why your argument is foolish. You may not like the fact that I'm calling you stupid, but it's not like I haven't expounded upon WHY I think you're stupid, or wrong, or childish, or logically impared. While I have repeatedly called you names, that's never been the cruz of my argument, or even a part of it. It's simply me getting tired of responding to what you say, then you denying you said it...then saying it again. It's like a game of whack a mole.

Except that's not what's happening here. That's the problem with broad generalizations and trying to sound ever so clever that you've figured out how these things work in EVERY case. There's always going to be that case where you wind up with egg on your face.

Except that's exactly what's happening here. You have claimed Christianity is capable of violence. Why? Because Christians are sometimes violent. I know you love feeling superior and intelligent...but that's it. There is nothing else to your argument. It's even more lame in that the only example you use has been proven wrong. Pardon me if I skim the rest of your argument for something that doesn't constitute the same error I've already corrected you on 70 times...

Um, yeah, he was. I present this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitle r%27s_religious_views#Public_reaction_to _atheism

HOLY CRAP! An argument! I almost had a heart attack.

Of course, the truth is much more obvious:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/misched j/ca_hitler.html

A few neat speeches sound good. Kinda like how Bush and then Obama claimed to care about the defecit..then increased it. But the reality combats the rhetoric.

Pardon me, I see that the next ream of comments seem to expound on the point I'd already hurt before this post, and now have shattered. I'll skip further ahead...

Where's your "mountain of evidence" when it's STILL under some dispute as to what Hitler may or may not have actually believed? I also would like to see some examples where Christians are jailed for merely being Christian, and not some other reason (like being dissenters to the government).

Well, for one, let's use YOUR source:

Hitler for a time advocated for German Christians a Positive Christianity, traditional Christianity purged of everything that he found objectionable and with certain, particularly racist, additions.
(He) viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus, whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.[33] In Mein Kampf Hitler writes that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross."
Hitler reject(ed) some central tenets of traditional Christian beliefs regarding love and compassion and calling on any listeners who might adhere to such beliefs to fully reject them as well.

So Hitler rejected the vast majority of Christian tenets, added his own texts when it suited him, and rewrote Jesus Christ. Didn't I say people who ignored the Bible weren't Christian....I think I did....

Even this "is he or isn't he" potrait has to admit, he really wasn't. And your own source admits that much of his Christian talks were a rouse.

No, I'm saying don't cry "it was done in the name of atheism!" when there's not a shred of goddamn evidence that it was. This argument has been tossed out over and over, yet people like yourself still want to make it.

And yet, it's very very correct. Hitler and his closest followers attacked Christians. Stalin was open in his contempt of ANYONE religious. As was Mao. As was the Khmer Rouge. If only the Viet Cong were anti-religious, that's more deaths that all of Christianity and all of Judaism and all of Buddhism and all of, well, you get the idea. The atheist massacres make all Judeo-Christian wrong doing look like nothing.

Oh, but you have double standards. I keep forgetting.

When ANTI-Christian or anti-religious statements are made, let's ignore them.

Nor can such statements, by themselves, be demonstrative of a strong atheist belief being the motivating factor. Which is what you said. I'm saying there is strong evidence of a much different, and potentially more complex, explanation.

Yet, as you yourself are trying to point out, the anti-Christian bent of Communism was so great that Hitler sought to distance himself from it. He called Communists the enemy of Christianity (ironic, but I'm not above using what my opponents give me). The anti-religious bent of Communists is so undeniable that you yourself used it (or a link to it) to try and prove your point about Hitler.

I've tried to tone down the mockery as, for the first time so far, you've actually tried to debate instead of simply reasserting the original point despite the fact that it's clearly wrong.

You're still wrong...but it's progress.

At 2/18/11 08:33 PM, Imperator wrote: Theist. 50-50 chance of wasting life eating the wrong transubstantiated deity.

On the other hand, there's about a .000000001% chance that I'm going down the wrong path to Hades.

Huh? So making the wrong choice only matters if you believe in the possibility of a wrong choice?

Sorry, this is stupid.

If one is a theist, and there is no God, the risk of being wrong is 0%. There is no penalty for being wrong. If one is a theist and believes in the wrong God, the risks vary from religion to religion. The risk of being the wrong religion is still never lower than the risk of being an atheist.

However, if one is an atheist and is correct, there is no benefit. If one is incorrect, the risks of spitting on God over a lifetime are 100%.

There is simply no rational way to say being a theist is more risky. Sorry.

At 2/19/11 08:29 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Try Again.

Why? I got it right.

I mean, yea, I get it. Put the way I said it, your argument sounds stupid. Which, unfortunately, isn't far off. Your sole example of a guy dying because he sat down has fallen apart on examination. He was apparently very sick for a long time, which means that there was something horribly wrong with him. This also means the act of sitting was, at best, incidental to his death, and possibly had nothing to do with it. People simply don't die from sitting.

On the other hand, you have repeatedly claimed that driving is not a risk if you don't drive. I try to hold out for the possibility that you are just terrible at expressing yourself, but you have repeatedly expounded on the fact that you think that driving is only a risk to drivers. Not their passengers, not any pedestrian they'd hit, not anyone else. Even if I was sloppy in my original wording, I have since clarified my position...and you have yet to change yours. And no matter how sloppy my original wording was, there's still not a single person beyond yourself who'd consider sitting in a chair more dangerous than driving a car. I feel silly repeating this basic fact, but since it doesn't seem to sink in:

Driving fatalities in their most limited form in the past month>people who have died from sitting down over all eternity.

You can argue. You can piss and moan. You can get mad and turn blue, but the fact still remains. There is no way to spin the evidence to pretend that driving is less dangerous than sitting down. If we exclude everyone but drivers, if we exclude everyone who sits and doesn't die from sitting. If we multiply the number of people who died from sitting down by 300...it remains unchained. More people will die from driving tomorrow in Wichita, Kansas tomorrow than have ever, are now, or will ever die from sitting down. Because the number of people who will die in Kansas tomorrow will be greater than 0, and the number of people who will die over recorded history from sitting down will remain zero.

That you refuse to concede this basic, unarguable fact makes you look like a complete imbecile.

At 2/19/11 12:13 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Therefore he was atheist?

Being openly hostile to religion, and actively persecuting most religious people means he certainly wasn't religious. I think we can say he certainly wasn't Jewish. And his treatment of Christians discounts his Christianity. When one tends to not believe in God or religion, and tend to hurt other people who do, that makes me think they're an atheist.

I mean, I guess he could've been Buddhist, or Taoist, but I see no reason to believe that either.

I get your attempt at mockery, but it kinda failed.

So, let's ignore that the wealthy pay most of the taxes, deal with 100% of the regulations,employ EVERYONE in America, etc...

Wait, I can't get past the above.

We're supposed to screw the people who create 100% of the jobs because our moron politicians are spendthrifts?

Pass.

At 2/18/11 11:33 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: Oh and I would like a source that says we need Oxygen to breath, actualy. I'm sure if you look at it you'll find multiple other chemical requirements for us to respire. You'll find it's an over simplification. Pure oxygen is toxic to humans.

So, it's kinda like I said earlier. You're a dishonest tit.

I tell you what. Let's have an experiment. I'll tie a plastic bag around your head so you can't get new oxygen, and we'll see how it works for you! We'll even videotape it, so everyone can see you struggle for lack of oxygen.

Then, when I pull the bag off your head, after you pass out, and you are able to breathe normally, you can shut up eh?

Shall I toss a stone up in the air and watch it fall to prove gravity too?

F-ing imbecile.

At 2/18/11 11:54 AM, Camarohusky wrote: ... I wonder why...

Because the question is literally as stupid as "PROVE TO ME I CAN'T DRINK BLEACH!" or "PROVE THAT IT WILL KILL ME IF I PUT MY HEAD IN A WHEAT THRESHER!"

Why? What's the point? If you're going to ask the question to begin with, you have ALREADY rejected the answer. Every child is taught in high school (private school kids learn in 3rd-5th grade, but whatever) that when a sperm meets an egg, a unique embryo is formed that is not the same DNA as either its mother or its father. If you choose to reject science that we teach to children, then whatever. Pardon me if I refuse to take you seriously.

Yeah, I know that. But that is NOT what you were claiming. When a sperm and an egg meet they implant on the unterine wall... Now source me something that says that THAT is a human being. You can try to dodge the subject by acting like you said something different, but I won't let you. Source it up or shut up.

Do they form a unique human DNA? They do... NO ONE DISAGREES!

So is a unique human DNA a unique human DNA? It is? Well then kids...we have a new life!

I get it, you don't want it to be life. So you set terms. But ALL of the terms would fail on basic mold, so you're wrong. "Prove it can life without whatever conditions!" I don't have to. It's there, it is what it is, and science doesn't support you.

Demanding that I prove that a fetus is human is like demanding that I prove that hitting you in the face with a hammer hurts. No matter how many times I do it, you'll lie and say it felt fantastic, because, otherwise, it proves my point.

You're not open to logic, reason, or science. The very claim of proving that something that is UNDENIABLY human is human proves it.

For the record, I thought I was responding to you in the last post, not Ravariel. My apologies to both!

At 2/19/11 03:16 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Huh? What? Wow, you really missed my point...so how can facts be against me if you don't even understand my argument? Which is "Some Christian Churches, who are an authority within the Christian religion, have condoned and/or directed violent action". That's it, that's all I said.

Which you've then gone on to argue means Christianity is violent. I understand your argument. It's just wrong and foolish.

I dislike the "my argument is just beyond your grasp" tact. Whenever ANYONE uses it, it just means "I said something stupid. I have no desire to retract it. So instead of admitting that I'm wrong, I'll pretend that my argument is so brilliant that no one can understand it!" None of these arguments are EVER brilliant.

Nope, he was Christian, try again. Basic research proves he's no atheist.

Um, no he wasn't. He regarded Christianity as a slave religion. And he jailed and killed Christians like crazy.

As even the straight dope, hardly a Christian fan club admits, most Nazis acknowledged that Nazism and Christianity were polar opposites:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read /1699/was-hitler-a-christian

It's kinda like a politician saying "I love tax cuts!" in public, then memoirs come out and he is against tax cuts in them. And he votes against every tax cut. What should we believe? The few quotes that make them seem in favor of tax cuts? Or the mountain of evidence against them?

So? They're religion or lack there of has never been proven as a force in their policy other then what you have are ego maniacs who probably (and with Stalin I think probably can be replaced with "almost certainly") saw religion as something competitive to the cult of personality they were creating.

Gotcha. So let's look at a very loose affiliation to Christianity when it's convenient. When ANTI-Christian or anti-religious statements are made, let's ignore them. Didn't I mention that's why I thought you were dishonest? Selective evidence reading?

So did a lot of Jews, retarded people, and anyone else Hitler didn't like. That was on Hitler. WHO WAS NOT EVEN AN ATHEIST!!! Argumentative fail all around with this one.

Yes he was. Next?

Body count doesn't matter for this argument. Just the fact that there IS a body count proves what I was saying: religion has been a cause for violence. The end.

Then taxi driver has cause violence. And your point is moot.

The end.

You could, but would it be more moronic then any of the other dumb stuff you've said already? I think that's the better question.

All of the other stuff that has been correct? Man, I'm a moron who's right on everything I've posted?

What does that make you? Being wrong against a moron?

You'd have to prove that. Just like I'd have to prove all religious people are violent. Too bad that's not what I said. Would you like to actually focus on things I'm saying instead of twisting things so you can have your soapbox in public?

If Christianity is violent than Christians are violent. You're either too stupid to understand your own argument, or, well, that's kinda it. If an ideology is violent, then its adherents are violent. Its almost like saying "Newreligionism calls us to run into traffic and die!" If newreligionism does such a thing it is a danger to society. If it doesn't, the claim is bizarre. If it says NOT to run into traffic, then anyone who claims they ran into traffic because it told them to are liars.

Christianity SPECIFICALLY says to not be violent, even when your own life is at stake. The claim that Christianity is violent is at best the stupidest thing ever said, and at worst a horrible lie from a dishonest prick.

Pardon me for thinking you're a prick, k?

At 2/18/11 10:46 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: An infant doesn't drive. Again. You can't divide by zero. You are wrong, I am right. Next.

Right. Because if a pedestrian is killed by a car, they attribute the death to "walking" instead of "hit by a car". If a cancer patiient dies ina hospital bed, they attribute the death to "lying down" instead of "cancer".

Of course you're wrong. Next?At 2/18/11 05:26 PM, Ravariel wrote:

And repeating stories about where he was a swell guy doesn't help you either. Fact of the matter remains that BOTH exist in the scripture. If you can't deal with that, or even acknowledge that they exist, then there's a rather large blind spot in your rhetoric that those on the other side will sit in and make you look foolish from for days. Hell, when he was a child, Jesus was kind of a dick. Granted the church kinda excised that bit for PR purposes, but they exist, and considering the history of how the books in the bible actually got there, they look just as holy as the rest of it to an outside. But therein lies the foundational problem here: that without the whole "religion" thing tainting the image of the scripture, it starts to look a whole lot less wholesome than it seems to those viewing from the inside... and you end up with these arguments where apparent contradictions pop up and all of a sudden believers get their hackles up, and sprain hammys sprinting towards justifications and rationalizations.

Um, what? Jesus told his followers that they'd be committing a sin by fighting to save him. He then went onto a death that was so awful that his penis literally went up inside his body. Crucifixion is one of the worst forms of capital punishment known to man.

So because Jesus gave an allegorical reference to a sword in a single statement in his life, we should ignore that he risked his body to save a whore from stoning, and forbade his followers from injuring people who were there to ive him one of the worst forms of death imaginable?

Um, sorry, fail.

Excuse me!? Over one billion people (and that's only one sect) pretty much believe exactly the opposite. Why should I take your opinion over theirs?

Because not a single person in the world, except for yourself, believes that there is a single Christian church. NOBODY. It's just you. Out of six billion people in the world, you are the only fool who believes that every single Christian believes the same. As demonstrated above, you're either exceptionally dishonesty, or ridiculously stupid.

That's literally one of the most wrong statements I have ever heard in my life. And I argue regularly against antivaxxers, young earth creationists, and moon landing hoaxers.

Well, considering your batting average so far is zero. And considering you have been disproven on everything you've said here, pardon me if this holds no weight.

As discussed above, your case is beyond pathetic.

That's an awfully nice straw man you just knocked down. I'm shocked he didn't put up more of a fight.

Strawmen are only strawmen if they don't address the subject of an argument and instead try to erect and argument that was never made by he person in question. Indeed, while not on gay marriage, you have made this argument a dozen times. Using your own pathetic thought process to show your dishonesty is NOT a strawman, it's an example of why you're wrong.

At 2/16/11 08:22 PM, edgewalker424 wrote: Here, "educate" yourself. He's a GENIUS!

It's ironic, isn't it, that Beck uses the term "propaganda" to end this particularly government rant. Seriously though, this is scary stuff being spewed out by someone who's being watched (rather questioningly) by millions of people!

By the way, don't google Joseph McCarthy--big brother's watching!! *facepalm* >_>

You understand that McCarthy wanted to get foreign agents who worked in our government fired right?

Considering that what McCarthy was investigating was an executable offense, and many of the people he caught were guilty, and that the worst anyone faced was a pink slip....I fail to see the horror?

At 2/16/11 11:01 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Source it up. Really. Source it up or admit failure.

Um, this is the first time I've EVER refused to present a source, but no.

You're literally trying to claim that your scientific illiteracy is a valid counter argument. That every school in the entire country teaches that pregnancy is when an egg and sperm join and then implant in the uterine wall...I'm supposed to source that?

That's like demanding that I source that we need Oxygen to breathe.

Am I really supposed to take someone serious who doesn't appear to have gone through fifth grade?

At 2/17/11 01:28 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: He also said some stuff about taking up swords when need be. He also committed vandalism by going into the temple and turning over the money changing tables. Jesus wasn't just saying peace and love, I think it's obvious the guy wasn't above some violence if he thought the situation called for it. But again, "religion" doesn't only mean "Christianity".

Um, Jesus healed the man his follower struck with a sword and told him to drop his arms. Despite the fact that his followers were willing to kill for him, he willingly went to his death.

Reading a "violent passages in Christianity" website isn't helping you here.

Except when the Christian CHURCH says it's cool. Or if we look at the more inconvenient portions of the Bible that okay it.

Dealt with above repeatedly. There is no Christian Church. Men are not God. And if a Christian does something against the text it is on them not Christ.

Same BS arguments, no matter how many times they are shot down.

Show me atheism, that one I have NEVER seen proven. Show me books other then religious books. Show me in the NAME of movies, and not just blaming a movie or what not after the fact.

Done above. Next? Millions of religious people were slaughtered across Asia by Communists. More than by every religion known to man combined. Even the Aztecs.

No sir, and I'm not preaching for a ban. What I'm saying though is fucking accept the essential truth that all religion has the capacity for (and in many cases directly lead to) violent action and move on. Don't try to deny it, accept it and then debate why in SPITE of these facts it shouldn't be banned. Let's also, again, debate RELIGION, not just CHRISTIANITY.

But that's not reality. That's blatant distortion. Most Buddhists believe that it is a mortal sin that will damn them to step on a bug. While I personally find such a belief stupid...to say that Buddhism has as much of a chance of inspiring violence as, let's say, the KKK is moronic. And anyone who made such an argument should have "imbecile" tattooed on his forehead. Christianity has a ZERO percent chance of inciting violence. Buddhism has a ZERO percent chance of inciting violence.

You don't have a point. And you're demanding I validate your stupidity...despite it being wrong on every conceivable point. It's like whack a mole. No matter how many times your "points" get smashed, you pop up again to remake them.

You're wrong. End of story.

I'm not saying the church is necessarily bad with the point I made. You've lazily decided that my argument is the same as other lazy arguers who say the same. You assumed, instead of truly read. ALL that I was saying is don't make this disingenuous argument that says text is all that matters and a church or other religious institution holds no sway or power. It's a falsehood that undermines your credibility and the idea that anyone should take you seriously.

No, it's not laziness on my part. It's the correct reading of dozens of your comments. Even this foolish comment demands that I ignore what Christ taught (which is the ONLY thing that matters), and look at what Christians have done in the past. This is your ONLY argument. And, to be frank, it's really F***ING stupid. I'm tired of pretending your argument has anymore merit than a little kid screaming "nu huh!"

The bible says different. "NU UH!" Christ taught different. "NU UH!" Christians suffered and died without protest for their beliefs for centuries. "NU UH!"

At the end of the day, you're arguing EXACLTY what I claim you're arguing. But, when bluntly put your foolishness on display as what it is, you get mad. Because accurately describing your argument makes you look like an idiot.

Why does religion have to be one or the other? Why can't religion, or a particular sect of it, be dictated by both? Why do we have differing churchs for a single umbrella faith? Oh right, because people can't all agree on the damn text or the ideals of it. Churches then act as symbols of that disagreement and places to spread the individual messages. You can't seperate a church from a faith that holds they are needed. Just like you can't take their text away if they hold specific text to be sacred. To try and say it has to be one or the other is assinine.

Dear God, you are stupid. Nothing you wrote above is correct.

All Churches represent God? This is moronic.

Let's ignore divine sanction. Let's cast Jesus as a politician. Pretend Jesus gave a speech, and gave a position on marriage...

Group A says that any marriage is ok. Group B says any marriage is OK as long as it's between only 2 people. Group C says it's only ok between a man and a woman. And group D says that he claimed marriage was an abomination. All 4 points conflict. By your logic expressed above, because all of the followers said he expressed the following points, they're all right.

Yet, that's obviously ridiculous. Obviously he didn't say that all marriage was lovely AND that all marriage was an abomination. He obviously didn't say both that marriage has to be limited to one man and one woman and that it can be open to 50 people at once.

I mean, you should just admit that you hate religion and that youll make any argument whatsoever to hurt religion, even if it makes absolutely no sense. You've been doing it for pages now afterall....

At 2/16/11 11:28 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: I had a full fucking post. Lost.
Risk is subjective, if only to the age of the subject.
Infants do not drive, yet fall off chairs most of the time.
I think God is fucking with me.

Maybe it's because the underlying point made is invalid?

I mean, if you really WANT to split hairs, if an infant dies in a drunk driving accident, obviously the infant didn't die because it was drinking. Or being it was driving. But it's beyond all logical thought processes to claim that the infant's death wasn't connected to drunk driving.

And on this point, no matter how you want to frame the debate, more people die because of automobile accidents than because of sitting down. Taking you at your word, the total death count of all time of sitting down is 1, and the total death count at a single intersection yesterday was 6.

There's just no real way to argue what you're trying to argue and not come across like you're either being a troll, or that you are not in touch with reality.

At 2/17/11 01:21 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Facts are pesky things.

They really are. And, well, they're not even remotely in your favor. Even if every single thing you've said so far was true (and much of it wasn't), your case is nothing more than "Some Christians did bad stuff, therefore Christianity is bad". I get it, you want to think you're deeper than that, more intelligent than that, more analytical than that...but your argument has absolutely no weight.

Let's flip this. Adolph Hitler was a religion hating atheist. As was Stalin. As was Marx. As was Mao. More Christians died under a decade of Hitler than all Christians throughout history are ever accused of killing.

I could be moronic and claim that I should be terrified of athiesm. That all athiests are obviously violent and that athiesm is a terrible thing. But that would be silly. Yet it's no different than what you're doing.

So why should I pretend your argument means anything more than it means? Which is absolutely nothing.

No, I'm specifically talking about instances where people commit violence because they were DIRECTED to do so by a religious authority (hence why The Crusades was an example), also shame on us both for allowing a debate about the violence of "religion" to be narrowed into simply a debate about violence in "Christianity". Religion is not always represented by Christianity. It is a term to encompass ALL such systems of belief. Why don't we try to back up and widen that net a little?

Wait. Why is this shame on both of us? I addressed the specifics of the Crusades above and showed why you were wrong...

No, it isn't. Because the parameters I CLEARLY set up that I wanted to discuss show it's not the same thing. Because instances where an institution that was clearly held as an authority directs someone to do something. Or religions in which human sacrifice was/is encouraged or required is a lot different then some crazy asshole's claim that a movie sparked him to kill. It's a WORLD of difference...if you can't see that, we should just stop right here.

EXACTLY! You set up parameters to exclude this. In this case, the guy was directly affected by the subject matter. In NONE of your instances was anyone affected by subject matter. Someone simply told them to do what they said. In my instance, it has some bearings on the subject matter...in your's it doesn't.

If you really don't get why this matters, you're either being dishonest, or the subject matter is beyond you.

Because anyone who can understand plain English and isn't biased about the subject would say so. Did the ten year old who killed the 5 year old girl and blamed it on wrestling actually do it because of wrestling? Even though there was zero evidence he used any wrestling holds in the commission of the crime.

This doesn't help your cause. If I blame something on wrestling, and all sources say it wasn't related to wrestling, then it wasn't related to wrestling. Likewize, if I read Jesus's teachings and kill my neighbor for being a moron, it's not Jesus's fault.

I don't think you understand the basic argument...

Essential point: Just because somebody claims something, is not evidence or proof for something. Actual evidence and proof for a claim makes it so. If you don't understand THAT we need to stop debating.

Um, that's what I have been debating all along. Sorry, buddy, but the texts of Christianity have never once, in the history of man, caused violence. That you refuse to acknowledge the very clear truth, and that you make the very case for taxi driver (incorrectly I might add) that decimates your case on Christianity, is no one's fault but yours.

At 2/15/11 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Source it to me, and from multiple sources. Any course that has ANY religious affiliation is automatically invalid. Give me real science, not faux-science.

Um, real science says that human life begins at conception. Biblical science says life being when "the blood flows through it".

I'm sorry, but this simply isn't arguable. A unique human embryo with unique DNA is created when the sperm and the egg join. It then implants and begins to grow. Birth science 101. If you have a legitimate source that says otherwize, GREAT! If not, we'll go with what every scientist on the face of the planet agrees to.

It's human the same way a severed hand is. Just because its components are the same and makeup similar does not make it human.

A human hand is part of a human. It will never turn into another human if severed.

You clearly have no idea about anything biology related....

We have had abortion legal for 39 years now, and I have yet to see ANY effort to push for the elimination of these groups. Massive political movements have formed and dissolved, yet the slippery slope you speak of has yet to release us from the friction of reality.

The slippery slope I speak of was present in America from the time of FDR onwards. Forced Sterilizations were present. The killing of Baby Doe backs me up.

I mean, if you don't understand the difference between a hand and a fetus, you're not really gonna go far in this debate.

At 2/15/11 09:16 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: I didn't mention how he died because it was irrelevant at the time. WolvenBear, this is for you.

I'm sorry someone you loved died. That sucks. I feel for you. It doesn't mean you get to make any wild ridiculous claim you want and expect to be given a pass on it. this is a frame of bad debate where a person brings an uncomfortable personal experience into the debate and expects a wide berth because they have gone through personal trauma. Everyone who disagrees with them is expected to feel awful for their disagreement because their "someone" died. While I have sympathy...your claims are still complete and utter nonsense. As you're now admitting, whatever caused this death was a long running debilitating disease or injury. Under what you're now telling us, framing his death as related to "sitting down" is as deliberately dishonest as me attributing my mother's recent death to "bad air" instead of lung cancer. I mean, I could claim that one day, my mother couldn't breathe anymore and had to be put on a vent, and soon after died...but that would ignore a lot of facts that dramatically change the story.

While I feel pain at your loss, having recently lost many loved ones myself, I don't abide the tactic used above. As I wouldn't expect anyone to abide it if I was to use it.

During the service...

I don't doubt any of that. I have personally seen it. And, even as a Christian, have been subjected to it. It sucks, and some people suck, but it means nothing to what Christianity is or means.

But it is inexcusable that it happened at a funeral. Shame on that priest.

Whether or not you agree with my lesser point that risk is subjective and relative, that you continue to ignore the greater point in risk vs. reward, especially as it pertains to the religious/non-religious, speaks volumes of both your intellectual capabilities and yes, even your faith.

But there is simply no reason to buy into your argument. Driving a car is much more risky than sitting in a chair. Hang gliding is more risky than reading a book. Driving drunk is more dangerous than driving sober. Drinking bleach is more dangerous than drinking water.

Risk can be obviously evaluated. Other than providing me a single (now clearly false) example to the contrary, you've done nothing to attack this proposition. Some things are more risky than others. This is simply life. There is simply nothing that changes this obvous lesson of life.

At 2/15/11 06:51 PM, Imperator wrote: The difference is Christians who commit violence claim they're being instructed to do so by some aspect of their beliefs.

And the dude who tried to kill Reagan said he got the idea from Taxi Driver.

Of course, no one except for anti-abortionists EVER tries to make a biblical claim for what they did. But what does that matter?

Either something in the OT about putting someone to death, Jesus' "I came with a sword" one-liner, an angel, God, etc instructing them.

With the exception of anti-abortionists, no one ever quotes the bible when they do anything bad. Using the "God told me to" defense is no more intelligent or accurate than the son of Sam who claimed his dog told him to. That's not a valid critique.

A guy who was inspired by a movie to kill may see some aspect of the movie that drives him, but the movie itself isn't commanding or demanding he commit the act.

In the case of violent Christians, it may be that there are many who don't want to commit the acts they do, but feel obligated because God told them to do it.

This is intellectually dishonest. Christianity tells people to not even defend themselves. Turn the other cheek. So if someone reads that and kills people for the sake of killing people, they're not inspired by Christianity.

Likewise, I can watch Boondock Saints and go murder some pimp, claiming the movie inspired me to do it, but it's quite a bit different if the movie ordered me to do it.

But Christianity doesn't order people to kill. So your counter example is invalid.

It's classic "Nuremburg defense" in some respects, but there is a difference.
The reverse can also be true. The good deeds of some individual may inspire me to donate to charity more often, which is quite a bit different from somebody ordering me, "Donate to charity more often".

It's like a retarded Nuremberg defense. "My superior told me not to kill the people I killed...so I killed them." Wait...huh? On the converse, Christians are told to donate to charity. So the charity thing actually reflects on Christians, while the reverse Nazi thing doesn't.

Logical fallacies like crazy...

At 2/14/11 02:22 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Catholicism is still a sect of Christianity. You cannot separate a Catholic from a Christian. It still fits under the umbrella. It's a dishonest distinction. You're basically arguing a "No True Scotsman" right there.

Yet, you'd find very few Catholics who would call any other Christian sect "true Christians". The dishonesty comes in saying that all Christians are identical. Let's change Christian to American for the sake of argument. If someone looked at America and generalized us all by Gacy and Bundy and Dahmer and Manson, would that be an accurate or fair comparison? I mean, they all ARE American. So, why would it be unfair? No True American and all...

Because most Americans aren't serial killers, and we have laws against that. So, if we hold that calling all Americans Bundy or Dahmer or Gacy is dishonest or unfair, how much moreso is it to paint all Christians with the brush of Catholicism to associate them with the mistakes of the Church's past.

If you don't see the problem with this...perhaps it's you who aren't ready for these kinds of discussions.

Bully for them. It doesn't change the fact that church doctrine of ALL faiths, and religious persuasions has had massive power, and continues to have massive power (The Vatican is a an independent state remember) in the world today. I'm talking about demonstrable reality here. Stop ignoring it, or being ignorant of it, or worse, being fucking deceptive about it. Remember that commandment that prohibits that? Just saying.

Um, but the Vatican doesn't control all Christians. It doesn't even control all Catholics. This is like saying that since the US has an extreme amount of power, all white people are complicit in what the US does...even if they are from France, or Spain or Germany. It doesn't make ANY Sense.

No, I'm really not. The Catholic Church is a CHRISTIAN organization. It uses the same damn Bible as most other Christian sects. Just because there are a whole range of sects that disagree with much of their doctrine, just because many Catholics don't agree with their church does not change the fact that Catholics are Christians, you can't separate them. Or maybe we should start talking about other hateful organizations too? How about the West Boro Baptists? Which really brings me to the other thing that's pissing me off about this current line of conversation. We're only talking about violence. Violence is not the only thing religion can be a culprit for, or the only harm it does. How about the hate and ignorance a lot of it spreads, promotes, or just tacitly accepts? Would anyone like to talk about that too?

Sigh, there's no arguing with someone who refuses to see distinctions when they are there and makes distinctions when there are none.

At 2/13/11 12:27 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: My friends grandpa DIED sitting down TWO WEEKS ago. He broke his fucking back.

Pardon me if I say Bullshit. Sorry, that reeks of youjustmadethatupism.

Even if that was true, there's something massive about this story that you're holding out on.

It reeks of lies.

Next you're going to claim quadruple amputees are more likely to crash a school bus full of children than fall off a fucking chair once in awhile.

Of course, that TOTALLY sounds like my arguments above. Eye roll.

Wait, you can't extricate circumstances from reality.

Have I tried to? I'm sorry, you're the one claiming that sitting in a chair is more dangerous than driving.

I knew you'd miss it, and get destroyed by the common posters here, that's okay though, i'll stick around and lead you through it.

Scratches head. At best, you're using a single (most likely fictitious) scenerio to destroy common sense. At worst, you're living in a fantasy world so divorced from reality as to be not arguable.

But it does disprove your idea that it's risky business.

Um, not really?

lol, realistically. Are you like, 13?

I've got to ask. Are you mentally retarded? I've never had someone (presumably with a straight face) claim that sitting in chairs was riskier than driving. I don't really know how to respond to you because virtually everything you say is either irrelevant or insane. I see little point in further responding to someone who simply says "OOOOOO, I gotcha there" and has no factual basis behind thinking they got me. I get that you're trying to insult me, but you don't really have a backing to do so. You've made wild claims, put words in my mouth, made up a story about a dude breaking his back and dying because of a chair (ranking up there with "Tomatoes killed my father and raped my mother!" in terms of ridiculousness), and have yet to make a single point.

So, I guess enjoy your perceived victory.

At 2/14/11 01:45 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: It's not at all. I'm saying you're comparing apples to oranges and trying to say your comparing apples to apples.

Well, I guess if that's how you want to look at it, go for it. You're looking at people who call themselves Christians and commit violence and blame Christianity. I point out that a dude watched Taxi Driver and tried to commit murder. It's the same thing. Both things "caused" violence. Ironically, when it comes to Taxi Driver, and the dude who says "I tried to kill because of the movie" you cry "Wait a minute!" It's the same. You just create a distinction because you want there to be one.

Did it really though? If we say it did, it DID NOT incite violence in the same way, by the same methodology that religion has and does. This is demonstrable. So again, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Because you say so?

Again, there's nothing to this claim other than you saying "THERE'S A DIFFERENCE!" In Taxi Driver, the main character tried to kill a politician. The dude who followed it tried to kill Ronald Reagan. Personally, I don't think the movie made him do it...but the connection is inescapable. Jesus said "love your neighbor" and at some point in history, people have killed in the name of Christ...

Oh wait. I AM comparing apples to oranges. Christianity has to be IGNORED to commit violence in it's name while Taxi Driver doesn't. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, not anything can incite violence. Does sitting in a chair incite violence? Does walking down the street minding your own business incite violence?

Oh goodness. Now you're just being dense for the point of being dense. People have killed in the name of religion, athiesm, politics, movies, books, songs, change, race, color, geography, etc.

Should we ban everything that has the potential (regardless of it's intent) to incite violence? Granted, a lot of people say yes. So, I don't know where you stand on this, but Christianity doesn't preach violence, directly counters the idea, even saying that one should let someone attack them. Christianity itself doesn't teach violence. Some Christians have been violent. But that doesn't speak to Christianity itself.

I absolutely made a counter point, you just refuse to see it because again, it points out how incredibly flawed your premise was, and continues to be.

So the counter point is what exactly? I'm wrong because you say so? Because that was basically all you've written above. Taxi Driver and Christianity are different! Why? Because...because THEY ARE DAMNIT! Oh, ok. I got it now. Any other rules I need to follow?

But it's not just the text. You people seriously need to stop acting like we're all retarded and ignorant of the fact that religion is also THE CHURCH who have INTERPRETED the text for their own ends forever. Even after people gained the ability to read the Church was still telling people "what the text really means" for their own ends. I'm not talking text now so much(though the text is certainly violent and has passages that compel people to violence) but I'm mostly talking about things like The Crusades were you have the representatives of a religion specifically TELLING people to go kill and be violent. There is a world of difference between that and some crazy person who took a movie too seriously and in his twisted mind saw it as a reason to assassinate the president. If you can't see that, you aren't really ready to have these sorts of conversations.

No, no, no. This is a flawed premise that bad debaters CONSTANTLY use when the central point of their argument fails. If the church is bad, the religion BEHIND the Church must be bad too. It's lazy thinking, and lazy arguing. It's no different than if Barack Obama did something that liberals hated, and someone said "This is why liberalism sucks!"

Today we have hundreds of thousands of churches. They disagree on everything. Some churches believe homosexual marriage is ok, others don't. Which is right? Using the logic displayed here, God is of split mind on the issue because the Chruch doesn't all agree. Westbourough Baptist Church protests funeral because "God hates fags". Other churches find this abhorrant and have spoken out against it. Which is right? If religion is the church, both are right. If religion is based on the Bible, one is right and one is wrong.

To take your best example, the Crusades, most Churches now teach that the Crusades were wrong. So, were the Crusaders abondoning their Christianity and going against the word of God? Or is the church today wrong? You can't have it both ways. Even with the idea that it was wrong, look at what happened. And look at the pronouncements of the Pope. Paraphrased: "Muslims are killing our Christian bretheren and our Jewish forebearers. We need to sacrifice our lives and our fortunes to go and help our bretheren against the Muslim hordes. For those who go in God's way and help their brothers, God will forgive their sins!"

Unlike what we are taught today, this was a rather humanitarian plea. And, while horrible things were done by some Crusaders, the ultimate goal in the first Crusade was quite noble. Saving others from outside attackers is hardly a savage or evil thing.

We can continue to disagree and that's fine. But your attacks on Christianity are rather shallow, and consist of nothing more than "XYZ Christians did bad things in the past!"

At 2/15/11 01:03 AM, The-General-Public wrote: Right, much like 99 percent of the fetuses that are aborted, a baby isn't able to feel, sense pain or pleasure, or able to exist outside of its mother. Oh wait

Let's assume the 99% thing is true, for the sheer sake of argument.

What difference does that make?

The argument is "is this human or not?" As a human being does it have rights?

Realistically, most of these questions are as applicable after birth. While a baby can feel pain and pleasure, the centers of the brain that retain that information aren't formed, so it doesn't remember. It cannot survive without someone taking care of it. While it can technically survive on it's own, it will quickly die without someone taking care of it. So what does that matter?

The question for me is: Is it a human being with God granted rights?. Science says yes. So, we can split hairs about when it feels or thinks or spits or speaks or remembers or forgets or anything else, but the driving issue remains the same. It's human. And the instant we use flawed logic to take away its right to life, we will use other flawed logic to get rid of the infirm and the elderly and the sick and the stupid and the "unfit" and all other manner of "worthless" people who we can define their rights away.

At 2/13/11 08:22 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: Determining what they do with their own bodies and doing whatever you feel like are two different things. Government law should protect its living citizens from each other. However for the first months a pregnant women isn't really holding anything more than a cluster of cells. So her action cause no suffering. And since this general period of time can be handled by chemical abortion it's generaly not too traumatic for the woman, either.

That wasn't what you said. And even abortion, which deals with another human being, sidesteps this.

But hey, you know, live and let live man.

Yes, rather than responding to my answer you gave me an anecdote that didn't really make any sense. You don't seem to have any actual understanding that an undeveloped foetus and a baby are two different things.

No, they actually aren't. Much as a 10 year old and a 15 year old aren't really different.

Just claiming that things are different doesn't make them so.

And apparantly this should make me look or feel stupid, thus making you right.

Well, no. It's an example of what you have demanded. Realistically, you have no real way to differenciate between the two other than simply saying "they're different!".

Again, more nonsense. But I'm glad you weren't too lazy to even wiki it. Not like it'd just be easier to not make any sense.

No, that's not how this works. You made a moronic claim that babies are born without brains, a claim that anyone who has ever taken a basic class on science knows is impossible. While some babies have been born with only brain stems, and usually die immediately, they still have something there. Even if you had been right, it's on you to make the case, i.e. to provide links. It's not on your opponents to do the research for you.

Analogy, analogy, analogy. Contraception isn't that cheap everywhere or even that readily availible. Yes, some colleges and schools distribute them, but generaly these are stored for long periods and condoms deteriorate over time. Simple things like static build up or exposure to heat can ruin condoms. Or how about in Africa where they're being told condoms make you MORE likely to get HIV by the church? Oh I guess I'm just being silly!

Contraception is available EVERYWHERE. It costs less than a dollar to buy.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/prevent ingpregnancy/malecondom.html

According to that link, the most expensive condom is 50 cents. I've seen higher, but still, condoms are affordable.

And Africa is irrelevant. Things are different there.

It is in my country, actualy. You're allowed leave the country to have an abortion but you can never a legal abortion in Ireland.

Interesting. Factually incorrect, but interesting.

http://www.ifpa.ie/eng/Hot-Topics/Aborti on/Abortion-in-Ireland-Legal-Timeline
http://safeandlegal.blogspot.com/2009/01 /northern-irelands-record-abortion.html

If having the baby will kill her, Ireland permits an abortion. Hmmm....

The irony is incredible. I talk about the nature of outlawing anything merely just deregulating it and rather than actualy discuss the issue you just sidestep it. I'm seeing a pattern here.

There's no sidestepping. I addressed and dismissed you. You may dislike how curt I am, but it's not like I'm dancing around the issue. Or, like above, it's not like I'm saying that abortion is always illegal in Ireland when it isn't. Hmmm...

Abortion = murder. God = real. America = greatest country in the world. Why are you entering a debate in which you don't feel there are ANY variables or any issues you'd want to actualy discuss? You're not looking to get informed, clearly. There is a difference between abortion and murder. There is a difference between a woman enslaved by the sex industry dying during a back alley abortion and a robber getting shot with his own gun. Learn to learn.

Your argument is just "there's a difference because I say so!" Well, no there isn't. Abortion is the killing of a human being. As such, it is NOT different than murdering a baby. It's the same. Unfortunately, for medical reasons, abortion is rarely necessary to preserve the mother's health. But it's rare. And that's called triage. Simply demanding that I agree with you is silly.

Yes they have!

Where? When? Who?

Even in Ireland there isn't a blanket ban. NO ONE has ever proposed a ban on medically necessary abortions. Which is why, even in Ireland, medical abortions take place.

You're wrong. End of story.

Again! You're assuming we all live in America. Put the law aside for a second and look at it properly: what SHOULD the legislation on abortion be? Anywhere! Not relative to current law, not held down by constitution of your country (which isn't everyone's country). What should it be?

The abortion laws should be like Ireland. You are ONLY allowed an abortion if having the baby will kill or harm you.

Examples, please? Disprove some of it, plox? The only things you had a counterarguement for where saying "IN AMERICA". You are still being a moralist and you're inability to deal with the points I made sort of just diminishes your arguement. All you have are anecdotes, ad absurdums and little to no insight into what the actual issues are.

You didn't make a point. Hell, even your tirade about Ireland proved to be false as EVERY link I came across said that abortion is legal in Ireland for health of the mother. Hell, if you can't even get that right, why should I take you seriously on ANYTHING?

At 2/13/11 03:17 AM, zephiran wrote: And "No True Scotsman" would ever, EVER stoop so low as to NOT continuously wear his kilt, right?

People can still believe in Christ while simultaneously being dicks - it's all a matter of "All men are equal, but some men are more equal than others".

Okay, so in a "Perfect" kind of Christianity, you're not supposed to go around dicking about with anybody. Yet there are still some old integral parts of the religion that can be used as Christian rhetoric for excusing just about anything if you really want to, and this seems to be what you are simply not understanding!

So because some people ignore the tenets of Christianity, that means Christianity is violent?

You know youre just getting more ridiculous as this goes on right?

This discussion is useless to continue. People get violent over everything. So everything is violent. What a worthless argument.

At 2/13/11 02:49 AM, zephiran wrote: Read again. There's more where those verses came from, you know. There are explicit Biblical passages instructing people to be dicks in certain situations - or more like, taking the subjective nature of determining what a "Wizard" is into account, whenever they would actually feel like it.

There's also the authoritative biblical passage of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Or "The measure by which you judge others is the measure by which you will be measured".

Sorry, bud. You have a passing glance at what you're talking about, and I have a lifetime of experience. The bible does not sanction violence against unbelievers. Hell, you can't even take passages out of context to pretend it does.

Oops, missed this:

"Up to half of the population is believed to practice the voodoo religion in some form, though many hold other religious beliefs at the same time.

Voodoo is deeply rooted in Haitian culture and sorcery and spiritual magic have been incorporated into some of the beliefs. Its priests are especially influential in rural areas. "

So, most people believe in voodoo, and AT LEAST half the population actively practice it. If one believes in voodoo, which teaches that people can actively put plagues on others, the reaction makes complete sense.

Of course, it also exonerates Christianity, but whatever.

Facts suck and all. It's all those cross followers fault.

So people were running around crying "you're a wizard", when macheting people?

No?

So stupid people do stupid stuff and you STILL have no link to Christianity as I said earlier?

Stop embarassing yourself.

At 2/13/11 01:28 AM, zephiran wrote: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars - their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur." (Revelation 21:8 NIV)

That's right. The Bible tells people like me to go die in a fire. Not hostile at all.

Of course, nothing you quoted tells Christians to do bad things to "the cowardly, the vile, the unbelieving, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, idolaters, and all liars". It just says their place is hell.

But whatever, let's ignore all those passages that says judgement is for God and God alone, and use this one passage to pretend that Christianity is violent.

Epic fail.

Try again?

At 2/13/11 12:31 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: It's actually not. Because we can explain why Taxi Driver can be a "trigger" for a psychopath, a "trigger" independent of the film itself having culpability. But we can point to specific examples where representatives of a religion have committed, or ordered, the murder of others. This is why it is not the same question at all and to say it is either ignorant, or a poor attempt at deception.

That's...well I don't know what that is.It seems like dancing around a point...

So if Taxi Driver (one of the most boring and pointless movies ever made), can incite violence, anything can. I don't really know where you're going with this, because you didn't make a counter point, but yea. Anything can incite violence.

Did you just word your rebuttal poorly or what?

Again, what you don't understand is the difference between where we can explain why something can trigger the wrong person, without it intending to, and the difference between something that specifically TOLD people in no uncertain terms to commit an action. That is why you're example is crap.

Except that's EXACTLY why my example isn't crap. As I explained above, if you read "God tells you to turn the other cheek when someone slaps you", and think "I need to murder 50 people", then the text wasn't the key. You were just a psycho who wanted to kill people. Christianity specifically tells people NOT to do bad things.

You haven't really presented a counter argument beyond "Christians have done bad things!"

I get the whole "religion is evil" thing...but it's really childish. It's no different than saying "Mommy spanked me during Barney, so Barney is the reason I got spanked"...without acknowledging that you threw 18 things at Mommy and Barney was incidental.

Wow, this post was a big bowl of fail. But I'll try to respond intelligently to...this.

At 2/12/11 03:00 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Hmm, doubting your ability to understand another's perspective already! It evidently was!

Just because I understand, doesn't mean I agree. I can get your point completely and still think you're wrong. I mean, most of your dreck below is unintelligible, but I get some of it. Bad arguments are bad arguments, whether people get them or not. I've heard people defend raping their girlfriend, putting their kid in an oven, running over their neighbor in a car...etc. I fully understand all their arguments. But it doesn't make their sickness ok. Moving on...

Whoah! When did I ever say rape is o.k? You need to learn to read!

You said more than once to let people live their lives as they see fit. That includes rape. Next?

No, actualy, they do change. You see the whole range of adoptions is kill it, keep it and give it away. But if the childbirth and 9 months of pregnancy is the issue then your little black and white moralist vision of the universe suddenly collapses because all of a sudden it's the pregnancy that's the issue, not the life of the would-be child. It's a pretty psychologicaly intense experience, sometimes the woman can't bear it. Women have been raped or had some huge event happen and kept the child only to become so depressed that they drown themselves and the infant, pregnant women have been known to do the same. Some women can be so physically weak that child birth would kill them.

Not that any of that matters, but what the hell, let's address it. A guy loses his job. He feels sad that he can't provide for his family. So he goes home and kills them. So, what do we do? He was under stress! He couldn't take care of the family that depended on him! So he just did a really late abortion.

See how that works?

So what if the child is doomed to still birth? What if the child is going to be born with no brain? This does happen, by the way, genetic defects can be crazy.

What if it's born as a never ending buffet that will end world hunger? What if it will be a martian than will enslave mankind?!?

I mean, both of those are more likely than a baby being born without a brain. But whatever.

"NUH UH I DURNT LIEK AB0RSHINS U CNT DO DAT!!!111"

Holy crap, I almost responded. I mean, it was almost as intelligent as your other arguments, so I got confused for a second. Whew. Please forgive my understandable mistake.

Allowance is not a government allocated fund. I knew kids who went to 3 big concerts a year, I knew kids who went hungry for lunch at school. Not everyone can afford your fucking PS3, not everyone is given money for contraception. Not every country gives people access to contraception!

Comparing something that costs less than a dollar to something that is over 300 dollars is moronic on it's face. I can't even pretend this argument wasn't idiotic. That's like saying that, because I can't afford the most expensive car on the market, I can't buy ramen to feed myself. Nonsense.

Also? Condoms are great - they do help prevent STI's and pregnancy. But that doesn't change the fact that a woman whose health is at risk from a birth can't be risked so you can fucking snuggle your bible at night and dream of unicorns and rainbows.

What? You just get stupider as this goes on. Abortion has never been illegal for medical necessity. What a fool.

Is this the classical "It's a law so it's a moral/it can never happen" rhetoric? People get back alley abortions - they're actualy very common in countries where abortion is illegal. And guess what? The mother often dies too! And these abortions can be very late into a pregnancy - sometimes it is just killing a baby. With legal abortions it can be done early and cleanly. No one has to suffer more than they have to. Anything you make illegal is simply just driven underground and that's been shown with the sex industry, drugs, prohibition etc. Your moral rhetoric is simply rendered as "Out of sight, out of mind".

Gotcha. So, you make a dumb comment that is completely at odds with reality, then someone points out the facts, and you go off on a rant?

Ignoring that EVERY part of the above is wrong, should I feel bad that someone died trying to kill someone else? I mean, really. If someone tried to murder you and died in the process, cause you killed them, should I feel bad for them? Sorry, I don't.

Incidentaly, don't assume that because I'm pro-choice that I'd be comfortable with my girlfreind getting an abortion 6 months in. But for medical reasons it can be neccesary but largely it shouldn't be allowed. We can't be so polar in our options as you seem to think. It should be regulated, but this blanket ban stuff is absolutely ridiculous!

No one has ever proposed a blanket ban. And there has never been a time in US history that a woman couldn't get an abortion if the pregnancy threatened her life.

"Moronic on it's face" is possibly the best insult I've ever gotten. It also doesn't substantiate your little good vs. evil tirade.

So where am I lacking in points again? Or is it just points you don't like hearing?

Um, everywhere. Simply writing something off as a "good vs evil tirade" doesn't make it incorrect. There's not a single thing you were correct on factually. And that doesn't even touch the moral issues.

At 2/12/11 11:54 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Yet the chair is still dangerous. Some would find them more dangerous than driving, due simply to the fact not everyone drives, yet everyone sits.

Um, NO ONE wuld find sitting more dangerous than driving. Mainly because the number of sitting fatalities is zero while the number of driving fatalities is numerous.

What a ridiculous retort.

See what I mean, dick head?

That you're stupid? Yea, I guess.

THIS IS MY POINT. ACCEPT IT.

No? It's not a point?

It's riskier to label someone dishonest, even in a backhanded manner, than giving praise where none is due.

Um, no, it isn't. I can call you a moron, or Jesus Christ, or Mohammad, or Einstein, or pond scum, or not comment at all. None of the following actions has any risk to me. I mean, I guess you could possibly hurt my feelings if I had thin skin...but I don't. Realistically, the only risk to me here is reading more of your insane comments and risking a headache....

You've done well in exposing the superiority and assuredness of your well-rationed thoughts.

I didn't read the rest, because I'm above it.

Shrug. If that's how you feel, go with it. I mean, you were wrong on everything, and borderline retarded...but if that makes you feel better about yourself, go with it.

No one with an IQ above 2 would assert that sitting in a chair is more risky than driving...but you did. Bravo.

At 2/10/11 12:17 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Risk management is relative, subjective.

There are entire fields of business that deal with risk. None of them find risk subjective. Driving 100 mph on city streets in undeniably more dangerous than sitting in a chair. Hang gliding is undeniably more dangerous than walking.

This is disingenuous. Risk is pretty obvious. While some things are close to each other in risk, most are not. Dishonesty is not a positive trait.

By the criteria atheist-minded arguers set forth for proof, or lack thereof, theists could and would disregard risks an atheist wouldn't.

That's silly. Criteria for belief is not the same as criteria for risk. Believing in the Easter bunny or the pencil God will make me no more or less safe. But not double checking my carabiner before I repel off a cliff will. Looking both ways before I cross the street will. I may believe my girl loves me, but it won't stop me from wearing a helmet during football or wearing a seatbelt.

At 2/10/11 12:21 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: I think bac is saying here that although religion is not the engine for war, it is a volatile fuel for conflict. Contradictions concerning righteous murder, justified impropriety and roots in barbaric times all act against religion in this sense.

Volatile people search for reasons to combat. Anyone who believes that, if Christians hadn't had a religion that ESCUED violence...that they'd be MORE violent...is lying to themselves.

At 2/7/11 06:53 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Also Cache, I'd just like to ask about something that seems a contradiction in terms (if I may). You say people blame religion for murder, but then there are things more responsible for murder. Ok...but does that somehow make religion not responsible for murder? I mean, if someone simply says "religion causes murder" and ends it there...why do you think it's then even relevant to talk about "well not as much as X is responsible for!". They don't seem to really have much to do with each other unless the argument is "religion is the primary cause of murder" or "religion is the leading cause of murder".

A guy once tried to kill Reagan because of the movie Taxi Driver. Of course, he was the only psychopath we know of who tried to kill someone because of this movie...so the question of whether the movie causes violence is silly.

But ironically, it's the same question.

Should we dismiss the danger to society because Taxi Driver only made one guy crazy? By your logic, it seems you think the answer is no. Should we blame McDonald's tasty burgers for the murder a couple years back of a man by a 15 year old for his hamburger? Or should we acknowledge that people will kill for anything? Moreover, if someone claims to have killed for something, should we not look at the basis of their claim and judge it? If someone listened to a man say "I tell you, he who gives his time to the poor is blessed", and murdered 15 people, should we take his claim as seriously that the speech affected him as the guy who listened to someone say "kill 15 people and be blessed?"

Simply saying "people died on both" may seem sophisticated to some...but it's rather shallow. We do medical trials. Some people get better with placebos. Should we determine all medicine is useless because people get better without it? Obviously not.

At 2/9/11 04:03 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: ...What?

It wasn't hard to understand.

The point is that not everyone can afford the scale of contraception being mentioned here and that, like it or not, some women work in the sex industry. Not neccesarily by choice, either. Some women are raped and sexualy abused and you expect them to not only have this happen to them but to have to carry the burden of a child they never wanted's life around with them?

That wasn't the point at all. You said "Let me make choices I think are moral."

No.

You may not have liked the counter, but both are morally repugnant. Raping a girl who said no, and killing a child because it isn't cheap to raise are both morally wrong. Ignoring the whole range of options to mothers who get pregnant (many of which would leave her in a better financial situation than before), the moral issue remains unchanged.

Contraception is so cheap that anyone can afford it. Kids in my grade school bought it on their allowance. Condoms are so cheap that the homeless could buy them if they wanted.

Fuck that, like it or not it's not anyone's decision but theirs. We haven't experienced what they have, they get to chose. Actualy, they get to chose anyway because it's their body and you don't get a say in it!

Um, you must be stupid if you believe that society doesn't get to have a say in what you do with your body. Tens of thousands of people get arrested every day for doing things the government doesn't approve of with their body. Even if you had a point, and you obviously don't, your assertion that no one but her gets to choose is moronic on it's face. And it can only be said by someone with no grasp of what the real world is like.

At 2/6/11 01:31 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: What about the right to determine my own future based on my own morality rather than someone else's imposed ethics and, in many cases, about decisisions and sitatuions they never had to make?

Gotcha. So if you want sex with someone who doesn't want it, that's cool.

At 2/7/11 12:16 PM, Saen wrote: Now if the pill is only effective ~72 after intercourse was first taken place, and it takes ~7 days for the sperm to reach and fertilize the egg, how is the morning after pill preventing the egg from implanting into the uterus? Like I said, the morning after pill prevents the egg from becoming fertilized. End of discussion.

Except that's NOT how the pill works. As I showed above with sources. Just stupidly claiming the pill works differently than the people who made it claim it works makes you an imbecile. I mean, your own source takes "responses" on how long it takes to reach the egg, which range from 30 minutes to 8 days.

NO ONE claims that the morning after pill can stop fertilization, cause it can't. It can prevent release or implantation, but not fertilization. You're simply wrong, and you have nothing to back you up.