Evidence for God from Science

Note definitions from any online dictionary:

PERSECUTE

transitive verb
1 to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2 to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester


per·se·cu·tion
ˌ
pərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/

1-hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.

2-persistent annoyance or harassment.

There are 2 main definitions and notice that number 2 always comes before number 1.

Now read Mr' Ed's comments, what do the readers see?

Please note the following from: Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.


11 more rules Alinsky - “the ethics of means and ends”:

1. “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue … Accompanying this rule is the parallel one that one’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s distance from the scene of conflict.”

2. “[T]he judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”

3. “n war the end justifies almost any means.”

4. “[J]udgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”

5. “[C]oncern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.”

6. “[T]he less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.”

7. “[G]enerally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.”

8. “[T]he morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”

9. “[A]ny effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.”

10. “[Y]ou do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”

11. “[G]oals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ ‘Of the Common Welfare,’ ‘Pursuit of Happiness,’ or ‘Bread and Peace.’”

This is the playbook of the progressive atheist.

Persecutions has its beginnings is mocking and belittling and always beginning with annoying along with persistent harassment and painting the oppressed as less than be respected members of civilization - a demonetization of them begins first and Ed's words are filled will this sort of delusional thinking toward Christians. So sad...

Some folks like Mr Ed simply gets his news to support his irrational delusion against Christians from blogs of questionable repute. What I cited can be found and fast tracked from factual news reporting. Take your pick.

My apologies to Ed in advance. You were set up to expose atheist delusional thinking about Christians being Neanderthalic bigots who conspire to take over the government to impose a form of christian shria law. This is a lie. Christians do not toss gay people off of buildings nor condone the ill treatment of women and children. Mr Ed's crux of his faith is in delusional thinking.

It is this irrationality that is on display in the video and in Ed's own words...

Not much reason to comment on Ed's words or response to me. So please take note of the rules radicals and note these will be used against Christian by the modern militant atheist in discussion and any debates.

Have nice day
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Persecutions has its beginnings is mocking and belittling and always beginning with annoying along with persistent harassment and painting the oppressed as less than be respected members of civilization - a demonetization of them begins first and Ed's words are filled will this sort of delusional thinking toward Christians. So sad...

Delusional thinking? Let me briefly recap this conversation:

- You made the argument that American Christians were being persecuted.
- I asked you to defend your position.
- You posted bunch of links and then told me that there was more to be found if I bothered to do the research.
- I researched the "evidence" that you provided, and determined that it was a giant, stinking pile of manure. I supported my position with facts.
- You blithely ignored the fact that I was able to refute your entire, ridiculous argument, and shifted to name calling and spouting non sequiturs.

Yep, this is sad, all right...

B. W. wrote:Some folks like Mr Ed simply gets his news to support his irrational delusion against Christians from blogs of questionable repute. What I cited can be found and fast tracked from factual news reporting. Take your pick.

Actually, your links all came from blogs that I'd never heard of, although now that I've researched their claims I agree that they are of questionable repute. I dismissed your claim of persecution because you couldn't provide a shred of credible evidence that it was true.

B. W. wrote:My apologies to Ed in advance. You were set up to expose atheist delusional thinking about Christians being Neanderthalic bigots who conspire to take over the government to impose a form of christian shria law. This is a lie. Christians do not toss gay people off of buildings nor condone the ill treatment of women and children. Mr Ed's crux of his faith is in delusional thinking.

What on earth are you talking about? Who called anyone a bigot? Who said anything about Christian sharia law? What's this about buildings and ill treatment of women and children? This entire paragraph is a non sequitur.

B. W. wrote:It is this irrationality that is on display in the video and in Ed's own words...

Not much reason to comment on Ed's words or response to me. So please take note of the rules radicals and note these will be used against Christian by the modern militant atheist in discussion and any debates.

I'm a bit embarrassed that I took you seriously for so long. I've learned my lesson. It won't happen again.

Ed, please forgive B.W. His bark is worse than his bite. I do think that he's jumping the gun by a large margin, though his heart's in the right place.

Overall, yes, I do agree that some of my fellow Christians are prone to overreacting and tend to jump to conclusions a bit too soon.

That said, however, I disagree with your stance on a number of issues, and have a plethora of reasons to do so. Regarding your desire for Christianity to have less influence on matters of government and the like: Generally speaking, I disagree. A Christian has every right to push for laws regarding his or her concerns just as much as any other citizen of the United States. Regarding laws that make the Christian faith mandatory for taking up a political position: I do not believe that such laws should be in place, as I agree that this is unconstitutional. That said, however, I also believe that there should be no laws prohibiting Christians from lobbying for political goals, nor from participating in politics. I personally believe that Christianity's moral foundation is a very solid model and that reducing its impact on law and on culture is a bad idea.

Regarding the woman's "reproductive rights": Women have already /have/ reproductive rights even when abortion is excluded. Women have the right to choose whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse, whether or not they want to use condoms or birth control pills amd contraceptives, and if they wish to get pregnant without the sexual intercourse side of things, there is nothing prohibiting a woman from purchasing a frozen vial of sperm to reproduce. These are all options, but some options are more effective than others. For one, condoms can break, and can also be sabotaged. For another, birth control pills can sometimes cause health problems in some people, and have other complications. (My sister was once on Birth Control pills. She wasn't sexually active, no, but when she was on birth control pills, she was having stomach problems all the time. She could barely eat! So she stopped taking them, and her stomach condition has improved significantly. It took a bit of time, but her condition still improved much.) That's not even considering that birth control can still fail!

I'm firmly pro-life as I believe that the unborn in the womb are human beings, and by virtue of this, should be protected under the law just like anyone else. Science affirms my belief on this matter by asserting that human life begins at conception. This is so blatantly easy to prove, given that it's the reason that any of us are even alive today at all. It is not a "woman's right to choose" to end her child's life or not. Her rights end where her child's rights begin. (My pro-life stance is informed both by my religious beliefs and by secular, science-rooted arguments.) I believe that people should be responsible for their own damn actions, because life is a serial chain of cause and effect: every action has a permanent consequence; Once something is done, it cannot be undone. One cannot simply go back and change what's already happened. Given that the vast majority of the time a woman chooses to have sex, and given that it's a rule of biology that sex causes pregnancy, well... she made her choice when she had sex. (I do believe that in the consensual instance of a man's participation in the sexual act, that he too should be accountable, for obvious reasons.)

Regarding a pro-LGBT stance: Transgender is irrational no matter how you slice it. The idea of gender as a social construct is absurd, especially considering that one fairly early experiment of this "gender theory" had horrible consequences on someone's life growing up.
(These links can be rather uncomfortable to watch, given the subject matter. It deals with an experiment involving young twin boys and one of them undergoing a sex change operation to see if gender is a social construct. I hope I'm not breaking any rules by sharing these videos.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTcwqR4Q4Y (the official documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpDDvm5t0BE (Commentary from a (presumably secular) youtuber, and a critic of modern-day Radical Feminism.)

Regarding lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: What people do in private is their own damn business. Though as a Christian I do view these sorts of sexual behaviors as immoral, I hold no malice or hostility toward people that view themselves as having their attractions geared in this way. Some of my friends are lesbian and bisexual (both male and female friends on the second one >_>). Some of my friends know of my position on the matter, and though disagree with me, they do not resent me. (The friends that stuck around, anyway.), and I don't think less of them as people. Some even hold a common faith with me. (I've talked to one friend about the matter openly, though I haven't really spoken to the other friend of common faith on that matter. I'm just not quite sure how to bring it up without risking being subject to namecalling.) I like to be understood without being so arbitrarily charged with being a "bigot", especially when I care very strongly about the well-being of my friends.



Well, I've been rambling in this huge brick of text.

Thing is, there genuinely are cases of Christians being persecuted, though oftentimes it's hard to find the actual cases when there's so many that cry "wolf". Also, in 1st World Countries, the persecution experienced is largely mild in contrast to what's experienced in certain parts of the Middle East. It ain't pretty.

Persecution begins with words first... and next small laws... before all other forms are expressed. It does exist and we are trying to quell it before it gets out of hand. The evidence is there to ignore or take note of. Ignorance never saved anyone for very long. Being sued for not making a wedding cake, or forcing nuns to provide abortion care is not persecution then - what is it?

edwardmurphy wrote:Regarding my support for "diminishing Christianity," I'm not sure what you mean.

If you're asking why I'm in favor of Christianity becoming smaller and less influential, I don't recall saying that I was and if it does it won't be because of me, but I won't say that it would bother me any.

Logical contradiction proves your support of diminishing Christianity

edwardmurphy wrote:I'm strongly in favor of keeping an impermeable wall of separation between church and state, and conservative Christians seem intent on tearing it down.

Atheist myth built upon delusional thinking that Christians are seeking to impose a Christianria law on everyone to suppress women, take away voting rights, impose the evil 10 commandants on everyone, force everyone to go to church under penalty of law, force saying the word God, violate human rights, oppress minorities, enact Jim Crow Laws, forbid the selling of fetus body parts of aborted fetus, ban partial birth abortions, force the Moral Majority legalism on every, burn witches at the stake, beat up poor defenses atheist, make all sorts of Puritanical oppressive laws, and a host of other nonsense.

I was once a militant atheist and believed this garbage and you know what – not true all. If Christians were so repressive then what has happened to the country and who is really forbidding whom from a voice in the public square?

Ed’s statement is built upon false premises used to scare and frighten people. It is like atheist are only around to save America and the rest of the world from great oppression of Christianity... Myth...

Reality check – when was the last time a Christian tossed a gay person off a building or burned them alive at the stake?

Next who wants to suppress voting rights? Or oppress women? You know knowing of Christianity or what it teaches. You should become a born agains Christian and find out while you still can

edwardmurphy wrote:Really, there aren't too many places where the religious right and I see eye to eye, so the less influential they are the happier I'll be.

I have no issue with Christians who aren't trying to get their beliefs and prejudices codified into laws.

Beliefs and what in to what? Babies have a right to live? Wow what an evil law! Institution of Marriage between one man and one woman based on nature law principle – evil?

So Ed believes that Natural Law for survival of a species is evil because it does not condone behavior that propagates the spread of sexual transmitted diseases such as AIDs to the rest of humanity? That, according to Darwin’s survival of the fittest principle, the way to get rid of the weaker elements of society is accept gay life style and abortion as birth control as normal ... what do you support is death...

edwardmurphy wrote:I'm also in favor of women's reproductive rights, complete equality for all Americans, including those in the LGBT community, mandating age appropriate sex education in our schools, and putting Federal resources into stem cell research.

Equality for all Americans except Christian who live their faith… hypocritical statements of high noble morality, yet, true Militant Atheist (MA) do not believe in moral objectivity and yet make objective moral judgments. Amazing isn't t?

What is defined as age appropriate sex education and taught by whom is all subjective. Woman’s reproductive rights exploited by men, LGBT community used as useful idots for projecting discrimination against evil bible believing bigot Neanderthal racist swine. Approval of selling fetal baby parts… death supported. So it is no wonder that thou shall not murder is so repugnant

edwardmurphy wrote:If you're asking why I'm making light of Christianity, I haven't. I'm not going to sugar coat the fact that I'm an atheist, but I haven't gone out of my way to trivialize religion in general or Christianity in particular.

Own words recorded here suggest otherwise…

edwardmurphy wrote:I have definitely been scoffing at the idea that Christians in America are the being persecuted, but that's not an attempt to diminish Christianity, it's an attempt to refute a patently silly claim.

If conservative Christians really want to see the church remain influential they'd be wise quit it with all of the histrionics, manufactured outrage, and misrepresentations of unremarkable events.

http://www.citizenlink.com/?skip_splash=1

Blindness to facts and verifiable records with an agenda to destroy and steal to promote death is a bad thing…

Listen to what Mr Ed stated – if Christians want to be influential – then they must just shut up… and agree with having their rights as human beings with any value or worth slowly stripped away. In other words be christian in home alone and never outside in public...

edwardmurphy wrote:I'm pretty sure the answer to WWJD isn't "throw a fit because the kid at the Kroger said 'Happy holidays' rather than 'Merry Christmas'" or "try to spin the routine enforcement of a zoning regulation into an example of anti-Christian persecution." If it was then we'd never have heard of him.

There are no laws saying that it was every mandatory to say Merry Christmas - wow talk about ignorance along with the histrionics, manufactured outrage, and misrepresentations of unremarkable once a year event! and then defend laws that do not outlaw a neighborhood pig roast or large groups of folks gathered to watch football in a privet home but only prayer and bible study groups wow what true histrionics, manufactured outrage, and misrepresentations of facts...

edwardmurphy wrote:Horse feathers. Calling a decision "judicial activism" is just a way of saying "I lost the case and now I'm mad!" without sounding quite as much like a petulant child.

Also, do you know who else besides atheists tries to get the courts to strike down laws that they don't like and uphold laws they support? Conservative Christians!* If you've been reading the stuff that you keep linking then you'll have seen plenty of examples. If you haven't then allow me to remind you of the Hobby Lobby ACA case and the Families First buffer zone case. You guys won both of those, so congratulations on using the judicial system to get your way. Just like the atheists that you're complaining about...

Well here are some US Supreme Court quotes that support what I say as well as the factual records on this matter. Militant Atheist (MA’s) histrionics, manufactured outrage, and misrepresentations are truly remarkable!

The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ia-roberts

Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thoughtful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ia-roberts

It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit¬tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ia-roberts

Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. . . . The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ia-roberts

Justice Scalia on Obama Care…

"It is bad enough for a court to cross out "by the State" once. But seven times?"

"The Court's decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people's decision to give Congress "[a]ll legislative Powers" enumerated in the Constitution."

-
-
-

FlawedIntellect wrote:Ed, please forgive B.W. His bark is worse than his bite. I do think that he's jumping the gun by a large margin, though his heart's in the right place.

Overall, yes, I do agree that some of my fellow Christians are prone to overreacting and tend to jump to conclusions a bit too soon.

That's putting it rather mildly.

FlawedIntellect wrote:That said, however, I disagree with your stance on a number of issues, and have a plethora of reasons to do so. Regarding your desire for Christianity to have less influence on matters of government and the like: Generally speaking, I disagree. A Christian has every right to push for laws regarding his or her concerns just as much as any other citizen of the United States. Regarding laws that make the Christian faith mandatory for taking up a political position: I do not believe that such laws should be in place, as I agree that this is unconstitutional. That said, however, I also believe that there should be no laws prohibiting Christians from lobbying for political goals, nor from participating in politics. I personally believe that Christianity's moral foundation is a very solid model and that reducing its impact on law and on culture is a bad idea.

So far we mostly agree. I have no issues with American Christians advocating for themselves, but being that I disagree with many of their positions I'd prefer that they not get their way. But that means that I actively support American Atheists and the FFRF in their efforts to neutralize the conservative Christian lobby, not that I want to see Christians stripped of their voting rights.

Beyond that, I think that conservative Christians are a minority, both within the Christian community and within the nation as a whole, but that their influence has been magnified by their willingness to manufacture controversy and outrage whenever it suits their purposes. The links that B.W. posted are excellent examples; they were full of righteous anger and shocked outrage but they didn't stand up to even a cursory investigation.

It reminds me of the ID movement a few years back, when a bunch of conservative Christians tried to slip Christian Creationism into public school curriculum by arguing that there must be a designer, but that they certainly had no idea who that could possibly be, wink-wink, nudge-nudge. They seem to feel that the ends justify the means and have no qualms about trying to lie their way to the moral high ground. I find that both repugnant and alarming.

It also seems completely at odds with what they claim about themselves and their god. If their god is the omnipotent creator of the universe and he has a spot waiting for them in Heaven then why are they so concerned with everybody else? I would expect that they would radiate a serene confidence, but instead I'm seeing frantic histrionics. What's that about?

FlawedIntellect wrote:Regarding the woman's "reproductive rights": Women have already /have/ reproductive rights even when abortion is excluded. Women have the right to choose whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse, whether or not they want to use condoms or birth control pills amd contraceptives, and if they wish to get pregnant without the sexual intercourse side of things, there is nothing prohibiting a woman from purchasing a frozen vial of sperm to reproduce. These are all options, but some options are more effective than others. For one, condoms can break, and can also be sabotaged. For another, birth control pills can sometimes cause health problems in some people, and have other complications. (My sister was once on Birth Control pills. She wasn't sexually active, no, but when she was on birth control pills, she was having stomach problems all the time. She could barely eat! So she stopped taking them, and her stomach condition has improved significantly. It took a bit of time, but her condition still improved much.) That's not even considering that birth control can still fail!

Exactly, some options are better than others and birth control can cause unwanted complications or even fail. If you take abortion off the table then suddenly a woman no longer has a choice, or at least she no longer has a safe one. I don't think that's acceptable.

FlawedIntellect wrote:I'm firmly pro-life as I believe that the unborn in the womb are human beings, and by virtue of this, should be protected under the law just like anyone else. Science affirms my belief on this matter by asserting that human life begins at conception. This is so blatantly easy to prove, given that it's the reason that any of us are even alive today at all. It is not a "woman's right to choose" to end her child's life or not. Her rights end where her child's rights begin. (My pro-life stance is informed both by my religious beliefs and by secular, science-rooted arguments.) I believe that people should be responsible for their own damn actions, because life is a serial chain of cause and effect: every action has a permanent consequence; Once something is done, it cannot be undone. One cannot simply go back and change what's already happened. Given that the vast majority of the time a woman chooses to have sex, and given that it's a rule of biology that sex causes pregnancy, well... she made her choice when she had sex. (I do believe that in the consensual instance of a man's participation in the sexual act, that he too should be accountable, for obvious reasons.)

I don't recall science coming to any kind of consensus on when life begins. Here's a link with some of the various arguments made by scientists in different fields.

As far as dealing with the consequences of one's actions, I think that having an abortion is one way of doing just that. And frankly, some people aren't cut out to raise kids, regardless of how readily they can produce them. If the anti-abortion crowd was pursuing policies to provide free day care, or more support for from kids from broken homes, or better schools*, or free secondary education, or a living wage for any job, or mandatory, effective** sex education, more equitable economic policies, or protection from predatory lenders, or any of a host of other social programs to make life safer and more stable for women dealing with unplanned pregnancies then maybe I'd be slightly more flexible on the matter, but the reality is that conservative Christians tend to vote Republican, and Republicans reliably try to kill programs like those.

* by which I mean safer, better funded, not more Christian
** abstinence-only has repeatedly been shown to be completely ineffective

FlawedIntellect wrote:Regarding a pro-LGBT stance: Transgender is irrational no matter how you slice it. The idea of gender as a social construct is absurd, especially considering that one fairly early experiment of this "gender theory" had horrible consequences on someone's life growing up.
(These links can be rather uncomfortable to watch, given the subject matter. It deals with an experiment involving young twin boys and one of them undergoing a sex change operation to see if gender is a social construct. I hope I'm not breaking any rules by sharing these videos.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTcwqR4Q4Y (the official documentary)

Transgender people say that they feel uncomfortable in their own bodies and believe that they were born the wrong gender. The impetus comes from within themselves, not from the fact that some doctor sneezed during their circumcision and sliced off their penis. That experiment actually supports their point. That boy wasn't transgendered. If he had been then the doctor's error wouldn't have been a problem because he'd have felt comfortable as a girl.

Anyway, I'm not going to claim that I understand what it's like to be transgendered. Frankly the whole thing feels weird to me, but if a guy tells me that he's so much happier living as a woman that he's willing to endure all of the abuse and stigma and prejudice that society has to offer just to feel comfortable in his own skin then I figure the decent thing to do is take his word for it.

FlawedIntellect wrote:Regarding lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: What people do in private is their own damn business. Though as a Christian I do view these sorts of sexual behaviors as immoral, I hold no malice or hostility toward people that view themselves as having their attractions geared in this way. Some of my friends are lesbian and bisexual (both male and female friends on the second one >_>). Some of my friends know of my position on the matter, and though disagree with me, they do not resent me. (The friends that stuck around, anyway.), and I don't think less of them as people. Some even hold a common faith with me. (I've talked to one friend about the matter openly, though I haven't really spoken to the other friend of common faith on that matter. I'm just not quite sure how to bring it up without risking being subject to namecalling.) I like to be understood without being so arbitrarily charged with being a "bigot", especially when I care very strongly about the well-being of my friends.

I agree, apart from the immoral part. And I'll go a bit further and say that I think they deserve to have precisely the same rights that everyone else does. And that includes the right to marry a partner of their choice, have or adopt kids, and so forth.

FlawedIntellect wrote:Thing is, there genuinely are cases of Christians being persecuted, though oftentimes it's hard to find the actual cases when there's so many that cry "wolf".

I'm not sure that "persecuted" is the right word. That implies that there's some sort of broad-based intent to pick on them, rather than a few scattered and isolated incidents. Sure, sometimes Christians catch some flack, but so do Muslims, and Jews. So do atheists. So do African-Americans, and women, and immigrants, and obese people, and poor people, and homosexuals, and so on and so forth, until eventually we've made a list of pretty much everybody. That's the part that B.W. seems to be missing. Or one of the parts.

Ed: So far we mostly agree. I have no issues with American Christians advocating for themselves, but being that I disagree with many of their positions I'd prefer that they not get their way. But that means that I actively support American Atheists and the FFRF in their efforts to neutralize the conservative Christian lobby, not that I want to see Christians stripped of their voting rights.

This has to be one of the most schizophrenic, disingenuous statements ever!

Take a look at the goals of AA (http://atheists.org/about-us/aims-and-purposes). Clearly, they are OBSESSED WITH religious belief and influence. They continuously want to "neutralize" everyone whose public policy and legal beliefs are in any way influenced by their spiritual beliefs. If ANYONE is so delusional to think that Christians and their view will get a fair opportunity at the table or fair treatment by this group (if they gain enough influence or control), they are beyond delusional! And what is their ultimate goal? It's POWER - enough power to triumph over anyone who doesn't buy into or threatens their Godless ideology. An entire litany of things that true Christians find dangerous and upsetting are argued to be just fine, just another choice, by such agenda-driven groups - and they'll use the courts to enforce that. But let someone at a public meeting utter a prayer in "Jesus Name," or express a Biblically influenced view, and they just go ballistic. A simple prayer, voluntarily said in any school or on any public property, they find exceptionally dangerous and evil.

Want to see something virtually NO atheist group ever focuses on - going after ISLAM. Wonder why???!!! Why is it always Christians that they mostly focus on? Very curious, indeed!

Oh, and such atheist groups are so widely known for their humanitarian and charitable efforts!

Ed, regarding the, you're ultimately missing the point. Abortion is NOT "reproductive rights" or "reproductive choice." Abortion as a procedure is entirely irrelevant to the question of reproductive rights, and quite frankly there is no reason to include abortion as a "reproductive right."

Furthermore, the scientific viewpoint in terms of evidence is that human life begins at conception. It's what is said in any textbook regarding human biological development. For a series of quotes, perhaps you should check the link in Kurieuo's profile to the abort73 website. Or, if you're too lazy to look, here's a link for you. http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

There's also another major problem with your pro-abortion stance: Abortion clearly causes harm to the women that undergo the procedure. So abortion should be a non-option simply due to the fact that, even in sterile situations, women still undergo health complications, such as infertility, uncontrollable bleeding, and death. http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_risks/
>_> Abortion is also an attempt to avoid personal responsibility for one's own sexual choices. Responsibility must be enforced, because it is a law of reality. A woman who undergoes an abortion procedure becomes a conspirator and an accomplice to murder. Plain and simple. Abortion should be outlawed in the States, since it violates the most foundational right a human being has: the right to LIFE! Without the right to LIFE, all other freedoms and liberties are rendered completely meaningless.

So, given that abortion is NOT a safe procedure for women... >_>

On the matter of transgender: On the contrary, the documentary only serves to demonstrate that the notion of transgender is wishful thinking. Also, it's clear you didn't watch the documentary all the way through, because the issue wasn't a doctor sneezing, but rather an electrical malfunction that burnt the entire thing off. >_> You're not even being honest. You're resorting to circular reasoning, /assuming/ transgender to be correct when it is not. Those that claim to be the gender opposite of their bodies are either building their assumptions of gender on faulty logic, or they're mentally disturbed. Either they're ignorant and misguided, or they're crazy. These are the only two options that reason allows. Because gender is a biological construct.


Regarding persecution... What makes you think that persecution is not an adequate word? In 1st World countries, people are having their businesses being forcibly shut down due to lawsuits over mere petty ideological disagreements with the store owners. This has already happened in the UK, and now it's starting to happen here in the States. This is infringing on the personal liberty of religious minds. >_> In certain parts of the Middle East, things are much worse, with Christians being beheaded, chopped in half, or disemboweled, without any regard to the Christian's age or sex. Granted, that's just in the Middle East and it's been going on for centuries, but it's still clearly an example of persecution. And mind you, though what's being experienced in the 1st World isn't anywhere near that extreme, it's still pretty terrible and does deserve to be called persecution. >_>

The secular pro-life crowd are obviously Christian conservatives or fundamentalists, however you want to define them.

As for me, I could never consider dismemberment of another life as being ever a valid moral choice.

No. People with dehumanizing beliefs (rather than stupid beliefs) should be mocked and ridiculed. #latetothread ##hashtagsrdumb #flamewars #prov26-4 [/trendy social iSnob]

Philip wrote:

Ed: So far we mostly agree. I have no issues with American Christians advocating for themselves, but being that I disagree with many of their positions I'd prefer that they not get their way. But that means that I actively support American Atheists and the FFRF in their efforts to neutralize the conservative Christian lobby, not that I want to see Christians stripped of their voting rights.

This has to be one of the most schizophrenic, disingenuous statements ever!

Take a look at the goals of AA (http://atheists.org/about-us/aims-and-purposes). Clearly, they are OBSESSED WITH religious belief and influence. They continuously want to "neutralize" everyone whose public policy and legal beliefs are in any way influenced by their spiritual beliefs. If ANYONE is so delusional to think that Christians and their view will get a fair opportunity at the table or fair treatment by this group (if they gain enough influence or control), they are beyond delusional!

I've read it. I have no idea why you find it alarming. They want to keep the government secular. Whoop-dee-doo. As far as AA gaining power and control, I wasn't aware that they were even trying. If they have plans to take over the world they failed to mention it in their mission statement.

Philip wrote:But let someone at a public meeting utter a prayer in "Jesus Name," or express a Biblically influenced view, and they just go ballistic. A simple prayer, voluntarily said in any school or on any public property, they find exceptionally dangerous and evil.

That's about 1/4 true. Let the mayor open the town council meeting with a prayer and AA will GO BALLISTIC, by which I mean write him a polite letter asking him to keep government meetings secular. Let that same mayor, or anyone else, say a prayer on their own time and AA will GO BALLISTIC, by which I mean they won't do or say a thing. Grrrahh! American Atheists smash!

Philip wrote:Want to see something virtually NO atheist group ever focuses on - going after ISLAM. Wonder why???!!! Why is it always Christians that they mostly focus on? Very curious, indeed!

Bill Maher rips on Islam all the time. So do Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. It's rather ironic that Christians get all bent out of shape about how confrontational the New Atheists are, while simultaneously moaning that they're not confrontational enough with Muslims. There's that double standard popping up again...

Also, why is it necessary for everyone to spend all of their time attacking Muslims? Most of them are as harmless as you and me. Although that might be a poor example, since some here consider me a dangerous radical.

Philip wrote:Oh, and such atheist groups are so widely known for their humanitarian and charitable efforts!

I volunteer, and other atheists I know do so as well. Plenty of atheists do plenty of good. Besides, comparing atheist humanitarian and charitable efforts to those of Christians is like apples and oranges. If I remember right, AA is the largest of the formal atheist groups with 2,500 members. There are individual churches with more members than that all over the place. Atheism isn't a dogma, we're not a unified group, and there aren't all that many of us to begin with.

FlawedIntellect wrote:Ed, regarding the, you're ultimately missing the point. Abortion is NOT "reproductive rights" or "reproductive choice." Abortion as a procedure is entirely irrelevant to the question of reproductive rights, and quite frankly there is no reason to include abortion as a "reproductive right."

Having reproductive choice is a reproductive right.

FlawedIntellect wrote:Furthermore, the scientific viewpoint in terms of evidence is that human life begins at conception. It's what is said in any textbook regarding human biological development. For a series of quotes, perhaps you should check the link in Kurieuo's profile to the abort73 website. Or, if you're too lazy to look, here's a link for you. http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

Too lazy to look? What's with the attitude?

Anyway, I skimmed the article. I get it. Abortion ends either a potential life or it ends a life. Where ever you come down on the matter, it's not something take lightly. Personally, I come down in favor of leaving the choice up to the woman - and I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, and calling me that is obnoxious. My wife and I have discussed this issue, and neither of us feels that we, personally, would be able to terminate a pregnancy, but that doesn't matter. It's not a question of what I'd do in that situation, it's a question of whether or not a woman gets to make choices about her own body.

By the way, you never addressed my point about the social safety net. It seems to me that any group that lobbies to force women to have children that they didn't plan for, don't want, and might not be able to care for should be lobbying just as hard to ensure that those same women have guaranteed access to quality prenatal care, affordable childcare, job training, health care, nutritious food, clean and secure housing, parenting classes, substance abuse programs, and anything else that they might need to ensure that that child will grow up to be a productive member of society. Why aren't they doing that?

FlawedIntellect wrote:There's also another major problem with your pro-abortion stance: Abortion clearly causes harm to the women that undergo the procedure. So abortion should be a non-option simply due to the fact that, even in sterile situations, women still undergo health complications, such as infertility, uncontrollable bleeding, and death. http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_risks/
>_> Abortion is also an attempt to avoid personal responsibility for one's own sexual choices. Responsibility must be enforced, because it is a law of reality. A woman who undergoes an abortion procedure becomes a conspirator and an accomplice to murder. Plain and simple. Abortion should be outlawed in the States, since it violates the most foundational right a human being has: the right to LIFE! Without the right to LIFE, all other freedoms and liberties are rendered completely meaningless.

So you want laws in place to prevent people from undergoing voluntary procedures if they happen to be risky? I don't buy it. As far as the murder charge, that's a matter for the courts to decide, and so far they seem to disagree with you.

FlawedIntellect wrote:On the matter of transgender: On the contrary, the documentary only serves to demonstrate that the notion of transgender is wishful thinking. Also, it's clear you didn't watch the documentary all the way through, because the issue wasn't a doctor sneezing, but rather an electrical malfunction that burnt the entire thing off. >_> You're not even being honest. You're resorting to circular reasoning, /assuming/ transgender to be correct when it is not. Those that claim to be the gender opposite of their bodies are either building their assumptions of gender on faulty logic, or they're mentally disturbed. Either they're ignorant and misguided, or they're crazy. These are the only two options that reason allows. Because gender is a biological construct.

You're right. I read the description, and based on that I concluded that you're wrong. There's also no circular reasoning happening here. I assume that transgender is correct because a small number of people are going through an unbelievable amount of expense, pain, stigmatization, and persecution in order to change their gender identities. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, kind of like how the people in the Roman Empire started giving Christians the benefit of the doubt after watching them endure persecution without giving up.

FlawedIntellect wrote:Regarding persecution... What makes you think that persecution is not an adequate word? In 1st World countries, people are having their businesses being forcibly shut down due to lawsuits over mere petty ideological disagreements with the store owners. This has already happened in the UK, and now it's starting to happen here in the States. This is infringing on the personal liberty of religious minds.

Mere petty ideological disagreements like whether or not you can refuse to do business with someone because you disapprove of his/her personal life aren't all that petty. How about if an atheist-owned business declined to hire a qualified Christian due to his religious affiliation? Would that be a mere ideological disagreement? I think not. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination, the laws apply to everyone, and losing the right to discriminate against others is not persecution.

FlawedIntellect wrote: >_> In certain parts of the Middle East, things are much worse, with Christians being beheaded, chopped in half, or disemboweled, without any regard to the Christian's age or sex. Granted, that's just in the Middle East and it's been going on for centuries, but it's still clearly an example of persecution. And mind you, though what's being experienced in the 1st World isn't anywhere near that extreme, it's still pretty terrible and does deserve to be called persecution. >_>

I'm aware that horrible things are being done to Middle Eastern Christians (AND TO MUSLIMS - you guys NEVER acknowledge that) by crazy extremists looking to destabilize the region, but the topic is persecution of American Christians in contemporary America.

Thank you for proving my points Mr Ed...Appreciate that.

As folks can see for themselves the vitriol of your atheism as well as its delusional points of view are obvious and very Alsinsky like too.

Now you state you do good deeds. So what? You die and poof you are gone - so what?

Anyways, good deeds - which ones? Support of murder of a human fetus with beating hearts and little fingers and toes?

Reproductive rights to support sexual immorality and the spread of STD's as well as the damaging psychological effects of this lifestyle and then this, according to the federal government’s latest data 2014: Black women have nearly 32 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44, at a ratio of 483 abortions per 1,000 live births. White women rate is about 8.6 abortions per 1,000 women at a ratio of 141 abortions per 1,000 live births. Hispanic women had a rate of 18.6 abortions per 1,000 women a a ratio of 218 abortions per 1,000 live births.

Interesting stats and this is called good deeds?

What good deeds do you do?

I hope it is charity of some sort like feed the poor, stop the poor from being exploited for votes, or support cancer cures. If so, why do you or would you? After all, poof, you are gone and dead you are merely just one dead hunk of decaying meat.

It is amazing that human beings can measure the laws of nature thru physics and these laws are laws. Even biology support natural laws acknowledging that male and female species reproduce ensuring survival of that species. There are also natural laws in the universe that human beings can measure. Yet, all is simply accidental, everything then is subjective and morality is simply relative does not fit the scheme of natural law.

Next, tell us why the the below quotes are such evil to you?

Col 3:19, Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Col 3:21 Fathers, do not exasperate (provoke) your children, so that they will not lose heart.

How can you say true biblical Christianity supports the oppression of women...and to be thugs in the home?

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,

Eph 5:28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes...

How could any woman not respect her husband after being treated so well? Ed are you that way to your wife - I hope so.

Why do you desire to silence Christians, Ed, is that a good work for you to steal their identity justifying such theft due to delusions that Christians are bad people who beat their wives and burn people at the stake and put people under penalty of death if they don't go to church or say merry Christmas?

What is it that you find so repugnant about Col 3:19, Col 3:21, Eph 5:25, Eph 5:28, Micah 6:8? You may contend that one doesn't need a bible to tell you theses things - yet you support murder and the extinction of the human species, demand obeisance, harass, ridicule, mock Christians with a persecutory tone as well as support groups that seek to silence Christian by painting them as mind numbed zombie robots out to do harm is over the top and emotional too way beyond my anything my mere barking can do to stop crazy delusional prejudice against Christianity from metastasizing. You need to seek help and counseling for your anger. You no nothing of real Christianity, nor can you, at this moment.

I pray that you will become born again by God's Spirit so you may find rest for your soul. There are consequences of violating natural law - sleep around and putting it where it was not designed to anyone leads to serious health and mental issues. Look at Miley Cyrus' as an example of this. Then again, you stated that there only 2500 atheist is the USA. Well there are more than a mere 2500 atheist in the USA. There are more than 300 professors in CSU alone and that is but one University in Colorado! What of all the universities professors and staff all over the USA -how many are there that don't believe in God?

Lastly,

I do admire you support of minority rights yet you do not support Christians - wow - hypocritical isn't it?

So you support and condone death, ill health, theft, and are a hypocrite - well no wonder you wish that after death one becomes non-existing decaying heap of vanishment... Good works don't cut it if all is vanity... and even the ones you do simply vanish. Who cares... unless the natural law giver judges but your pride doesn't care right now, but wait...
-
-
-

EdMurph said

Atheism isn't a dogma.

The reality is Ed, by defination no, but definitions are not what constitute a dogmatic approach, but the actions and responses of an individual and/or group. The religious, the non-religious, feminism, politics. Sometimes the best of intentions can turn sour due to dogmatism. I don't have much to say in regards to 'conservative christians' and their political influence in the States. I am Australian and our political left and right are very closely aligned in policies, there just isn't an influential religious political backdrop here therefore no influential push against. Both sides exist but neither overwhelmingly influential. Which I think is a good thing on both sides of the coin. We will visit our shopping centres and see nativity scenes at Christmas, Carols by Candlelight is a huge Christimas celebration over here, both secular and 'religious' carols are sung.
The non religious are not offended, in as much that religious are not offended by Rudoplh the Red Nosed reindeer being sung. Cultural and historical benefit plays a major role. Most of my friends are athiests, not that they bang on much about it, they just get about their business, but there has been whispers here due to political correctness and not wanting to offend other religious groups to bring about a change that would stop certain traditions like 'Merry Christmas', the nativity scene in public places and certain Carols being sung at public Christmas gatherings. Interestingly my non-religious family and friends are steadfast against it. They do not like the idea of a small minority changing what is Australian custom and tradition, based upon nothing more than a dogmatic idea. Whilst not being religious themselves, they appreciate and respect the cultural and historical significance that is part of the Australian identity. I understand that cultural and historical grounds don't substitute much of an argument to you, but it is a very significant factor. It can be brought to the argument that cultural and historical ideals have been fundamentally flawed and a change was needed, but we are not talking about slavery or women's rights, but a perhaps a very disturbing, offensive scene of Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus in a manger. Really?
You quoted, though wrong, but I will stick with it for the sake of argument , that 80% of Americans are Christians. Right there is your answer. Why christianity has a stronghold on politics, because a democracy should reflect the voice of the people. Absolutely without question there should be seperation of church and state in my opinion. No government should endorse or enforce laws based solely upon religious dogma or ideology, I have stated previously that I believe that is a recipe for disaster. History has clearly shown that communism or theocracy do not work. Democracy although flawed is the best system we have to govern. If you live in a country as stated that 80% of citizens uphold to christianity then the laws will reflect that. Christian political representation will be majority, as the majority voters will be, so therefore your laws will reflect that. Seperate state and church all you like, in this system of government there will be an overlap, and if the majority see to that, then so be it.
Now to reality as I see it.
Keeping in mind that I live in Australia, two democracies but vastly different. Just quietly thank goodness
I respect the majority opinion of my nation. I do believe that certain laws should be put to referendum like gay marraige and abortion but I am under no illusion what the outcome would be. I have an eclectic group of friends and majority are not religious. They are conscientious, law abiding, decent people and I believe from being an active observer of public and political opinion,they are a good cross section of the Australian sentimenat and although I do not personally agree I do agree that majority, societal opinion is what governs our laws and I believe it should be.

Now onto abortion, and I tread lightly, Rick . My feelings are the same. Majority opinion in this nation is pro choice. I respect that and to be honest I agree. For several reasons. Going right back to what I stated previously, a fair democracy represents the people. Laws should govern appropriately. A small minority should not hold a monopoly on legislation. That is not the democratic ideal. I can be personally against abortion, choose to never go down that road on a personal basis, advocate otherwise but uphold what is democratically legislated.
On a very personal note. Ed I am not conservative. Politically or religiously. The road to disable abortion and I think no matter where we sit on the debate, it's an ugly, emotional, upsetting issue. Nobody likes the idea of innocents being killed. Like you I would never personally go down that road, but I also understand I am making that assumption from a middle class, white, older , married situation. Making criminals of women who choose to abort is not the answer. History and facts show that. Subsidised contraception, sex education in schools, making it more viable for mothers to financially support children with schemes such as paid maternal leave, affordable childcare and medical insurance is a much better solution to halter abortions. But the same right wing groups that oppose abortion oppose in my opinion the very solution to help significantly lower abortion statistics.

Now going right back to my initial quote 'atheism isn't a dogma'
I will post a link
https://atheists.org/activism/school-literature-request
Not illegal to distribute bibles.
They can choose whether they take one or not.
In the midst of so much relevant political and social issues, the pressing issue is bible distribution in schools. Keeping in mind apparently 80 % are christian anyway. Yet the AA is spending so much time effort and money distributing literature, againt Christianity. So much so that they have a website asking teachers, students and otherwise to 'report' such actions so they can counterfeit with their May I say 'dogma' in direct opposition to christianity. These are not the actions of a group just trying to counterbalance religious legislation, but the pot calling the kettle black.
I don't like BS.
I call a spade a spade, I don't care much for political or religious correctness. An argument should be consistent and honest and yours is not.
What I mean by that is, personal, dogmatic and tainted rhoetoric should be called out.
I have just as much inclination to go to an atheists forum and sprout political, religious and/or intellectual supremacy as I have to jump outta my shower and stick my finger in a power point.
I actually mean that. I do not go to atheists forums because I am not supporting an agenda. I do not badger my atheists friends because I do not support a religious supremacy, I do not don't taint my political views with an outside religious rhetoric because I don't think its honest or beneficial and I don't lie in wait for Christians to distribute bibles so they can be reported online and countered with bullsh*t literature as to why an atheist agenda that claims to be just a political backlash against a religious right when their actions clearly show otherwise.
It is an agenda.
It is not fractured but intentional.
It is just as dogmatic and disturbing as the other side of the coin.
It is unified.
And just as firmly planted in prejudice that will only ultimately result in personal agenda over the greater good.

Mel,

You edited out my main disagreement that I had with your post. So I can't respond to that anymore.

I'm actually glad you deleted it, because I think it was a faulty argument anyways.

RickD wrote:Mel,

You edited out my main disagreement that I had with your post. So I can't respond to that anymore.

I'm actually glad you deleted it, because I think it was a faulty argument anyways.

I think your misunderstanding stands with what you think I said, compared to what I said. Which I think still upholds in this post.