Atheists on this board answer this question....

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The irony in this is how it so clearly demonstrates your authoritarian leftism. Authoritarian leftists believe that only that which you want to do should be allowed, everything else should be prohibited. So, if I want drugs to be legal, in your mind, it must be that I want to do drugs. Here's the thing, Skippy. I don't do drugs, I've never hired a prostituted nor considered it, I don't gamble other than one trip to Reno where I gambled for an hour just for the experience and won about $20. I just don't think government should be in the morality business, even though it's mind blowingly incomprehensible I don't do vices other than alcohol and the occasional cigar. WTF? That just blew craters in your world, didn't it?

No, that would assume that I see you Libertarians as being anything other than useful idiots of the rich.

Which you totally are.

So first we were right wing hippies, now we're tools of the rich. First of all, dumb ass, I am rich, how am I a tool for myself? Second of all, I'd like to take as many people into wealth with me as I can, and so I advocate free markets. You want to take as many people into poverty with you as you can, which is why you advocate socialism. We are both at least using an appropriate solution that leads to our goals.

Obviously you're unaware of how ridiculous you and other libertarians are.

Your 'political philosophy' is a childish fantasy – naïve and delusional, the product of fearful reactionaries seeking to return America to an idealized past that never actually existed to begin with.

 

[JoeB131]

So first we were right wing hippies, now we're tools of the rich. First of all, dumb ass, I am rich, how am I a tool for myself? Second of all, I'd like to take as many people into wealth with me as I can, and so I advocate free markets. You want to take as many people into poverty with you as you can, which is why you advocate socialism. We are both at least using an appropriate solution that leads to our goals.

Real rich people don't waste their time on internet bulliten boards.

I'm always amazed we have so many rich people on USMB, and yet the board struggles to raise $100 a month to keep operating.

LOL, you think you're such a loser that no one worth a darn would spend time on you? It's actually a reasonable hypothesis, I see why you think that.

You danced around the issue. I know that you guys can all claim you are rich here, but I've known real rich people, and frankly, you guys aren't it. Rich to you guys means you own a double wide.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Obviously you're unaware of how ridiculous you and other libertarians are.

Your 'political philosophy' is a childish fantasy – naïve and delusional, the product of fearful reactionaries seeking to return America to an idealized past that never actually existed to begin with.

^^^^ THAT!

 

[dblack]

The irony in this is how it so clearly demonstrates your authoritarian leftism. Authoritarian leftists believe that only that which you want to do should be allowed, everything else should be prohibited. So, if I want drugs to be legal, in your mind, it must be that I want to do drugs. Here's the thing, Skippy. I don't do drugs, I've never hired a prostituted nor considered it, I don't gamble other than one trip to Reno where I gambled for an hour just for the experience and won about $20. I just don't think government should be in the morality business, even though it's mind blowingly incomprehensible I don't do vices other than alcohol and the occasional cigar. WTF? That just blew craters in your world, didn't it?

No, that would assume that I see you Libertarians as being anything other than useful idiots of the rich.

Which you totally are.

So first we were right wing hippies, now we're tools of the rich. First of all, dumb ass, I am rich, how am I a tool for myself? Second of all, I'd like to take as many people into wealth with me as I can, and so I advocate free markets. You want to take as many people into poverty with you as you can, which is why you advocate socialism. We are both at least using an appropriate solution that leads to our goals.

Obviously you're unaware of how ridiculous you and other libertarians are.

Your 'political philosophy' is a childish fantasy – naïve and delusional, the product of fearful reactionaries seeking to return America to an idealized past that never actually existed to begin with.

Actually, very few libertarians fit your cartoon conception. The past was a mixed bag, nothing I'd want to 'return' to. We can do better.

 

[kaz]

The irony in this is how it so clearly demonstrates your authoritarian leftism. Authoritarian leftists believe that only that which you want to do should be allowed, everything else should be prohibited. So, if I want drugs to be legal, in your mind, it must be that I want to do drugs. Here's the thing, Skippy. I don't do drugs, I've never hired a prostituted nor considered it, I don't gamble other than one trip to Reno where I gambled for an hour just for the experience and won about $20. I just don't think government should be in the morality business, even though it's mind blowingly incomprehensible I don't do vices other than alcohol and the occasional cigar. WTF? That just blew craters in your world, didn't it?

No, that would assume that I see you Libertarians as being anything other than useful idiots of the rich.

Which you totally are.

So first we were right wing hippies, now we're tools of the rich. First of all, dumb ass, I am rich, how am I a tool for myself? Second of all, I'd like to take as many people into wealth with me as I can, and so I advocate free markets. You want to take as many people into poverty with you as you can, which is why you advocate socialism. We are both at least using an appropriate solution that leads to our goals.

Obviously you're unaware of how ridiculous you and other libertarians are.

Your 'political philosophy' is a childish fantasy – naïve and delusional, the product of fearful reactionaries seeking to return America to an idealized past that never actually existed to begin with.

Got anything other than sweeping generalizations? And it always cracks me up when my views are called "naive and delusional" by a Marxist. Self actualization isn't your strength.

 

[kaz]

So first we were right wing hippies, now we're tools of the rich. First of all, dumb ass, I am rich, how am I a tool for myself? Second of all, I'd like to take as many people into wealth with me as I can, and so I advocate free markets. You want to take as many people into poverty with you as you can, which is why you advocate socialism. We are both at least using an appropriate solution that leads to our goals.

Real rich people don't waste their time on internet bulliten boards.

I'm always amazed we have so many rich people on USMB, and yet the board struggles to raise $100 a month to keep operating.

LOL, you think you're such a loser that no one worth a darn would spend time on you? It's actually a reasonable hypothesis, I see why you think that.

You danced around the issue. I know that you guys can all claim you are rich here, but I've known real rich people, and frankly, you guys aren't it. Rich to you guys means you own a double wide.

I didn't speak for anyone but myself. LOL, you've known rich people. That's adorable.

 

[koshergrl]

How do you rectify these two laws.

1. says if your wife is 1 month pregnant and you hit her and the baby dies, your guilty of murder (the illegal taking of a human life)

2. Your wife can choose to end the same life that is in her body without it being called murder?

Please link to the law. You will find that every single one of them exempts abortion.

It's already been posted

Then you have seen it is not two laws. It is one law. Your belief that "one law says this, and another law says that" is erroneous.

no it isn't

one law defines a fetus as a human being (the felony murder law)
the other defines a fetus as part of a woman's body (abortion law)

No need to be dishonest about it

I see you are choosing to not read the links. Every single fetal murder law contains a provision which says the law does not apply to abortion. Murder is determined by whether or not the mother consented to the death of the fetus.

Read the damn link.

No contradiction in the law. Sorry about that.

Of course it's a contradiction.

It's like saying "It's murder when Dad kills you, but it's not murder when mom kills you".

Ridiculous. And disgusting.

As are the people who go to the mat to defend baby killing. Yuck.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Fetal murder laws all revolve around the consent of the mother.

Correct moron, which means the law is allowing women to consent to murdering their children. How is that even I mean what the fuck?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You will find that every single state that has a fetal murder law exempts abortion..

Yes... of course: The Law regarding the Murder Pre-born Children incontrovertibly severs itself from the essential moral component required for law to be legitimate, in that one Law recognizes the Pre-born child as a human being and that human beings rightful claim to its own life, and the other does not, authorizing the murder of that human being, justifying the murder of that human being at the whim of another human being which the law otherwise recognizes as having EQUAL RIGHTS, thus in no way does one innocent human life stand superior to another.

There is no potential "RIGHT" for one person to take the life of an innocent human being. And that is because ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL BEFORE GOD, thus... before the law.

This of course is rejected by the intellectual perversion known as Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity which is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And it is THERE that it becomes clear WHY the Ideological Left fails to serve justice in every aspect of governance, with the would-be "Right to CHOOSE!" not being the least of that extensive list.

Um. No.

The law says that the mother retains the rights to the life of the fetus, at least up through the second trimester. Therefore, if the life of the fetus is taken without her consent, that is prosecutable. If the life of the fetus is taken with her consent, there is nothing to be prosecuted.

There is no contradiction. It's really that simple.

There can't be murder UNLESS the victim is a human being. Agree or disagree? I mean you can't murder a dog, for example.

 

[Avorysuds]

In general those that have a religion follow it as if they were living under a dictatorship. The rules are passed down but these rules are based on fear and emotion. Mix the following, rules and fear you get what we have seen over and over through history. Church intertwined with politics forcing people to conform to a set of rules that make no sense.


Take gays not being a allowed to marry. First it's a direct break of separating Government and religion, so corruption. From there these rules based on a groups fears now apply to everyone, believes or not. Did it ever occur to these hate filled religious nutters that their influence on suppressing Gay marriage is why gays meet in bathrooms and fuck? These false rules suppress an entire group of peoples ability to build relationships equal to those around them.

So there is the difference to the OP, Religious freaks are not some passive great group of people of whom just believe in a god or gods. They are control hungry haters who use their numbers to control others. Atheists have no history of doing this....

Fact is, the less power a church has the better. Churches are run by men, men who are easily corrupted and flawed by simply being born a human =D.

 

[koshergrl]

What claptrap.

Governments are run by men as well. Let's shut down government. Then you will see the value of religion, as those who believe in God and obey the commandments rise to the top, as they always do.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

In general those that have a religion follow it as if they were living under a dictatorship. The rules are passed down but these rules are based on fear and emotion. Mix the following, rules and fear you get what we have seen over and over through history. Church intertwined with politics forcing people to conform to a set of rules that make no sense.


Take gays not being a allowed to marry. First it's a direct break of separating Government and religion, so corruption. From there these rules based on a groups fears now apply to everyone, believes or not. Did it ever occur to these hate filled religious nutters that their influence on suppressing Gay marriage is why gays meet in bathrooms and fuck? These false rules suppress an entire group of peoples ability to build relationships equal to those around them.

So there is the difference to the OP, Religious freaks are not some passive great group of people of whom just believe in a god or gods. They are control hungry haters who use their numbers to control others. Atheists have no history of doing this....

Fact is, the less power a church has the better. Churches are run by men, men who are easily corrupted and flawed by simply being born a human =D.

And governments are ran by?????

 

[Avorysuds]

In general those that have a religion follow it as if they were living under a dictatorship. The rules are passed down but these rules are based on fear and emotion. Mix the following, rules and fear you get what we have seen over and over through history. Church intertwined with politics forcing people to conform to a set of rules that make no sense.


Take gays not being a allowed to marry. First it's a direct break of separating Government and religion, so corruption. From there these rules based on a groups fears now apply to everyone, believes or not. Did it ever occur to these hate filled religious nutters that their influence on suppressing Gay marriage is why gays meet in bathrooms and fuck? These false rules suppress an entire group of peoples ability to build relationships equal to those around them.

So there is the difference to the OP, Religious freaks are not some passive great group of people of whom just believe in a god or gods. They are control hungry haters who use their numbers to control others. Atheists have no history of doing this....

Fact is, the less power a church has the better. Churches are run by men, men who are easily corrupted and flawed by simply being born a human =D.

And governments are ran by?????

Yes, usually people who claim to be very religious.... The number of politicians claiming to be religious is possibly 95+ % of the time. You might not feel they are "good Christians" (just using Christianity here) but it does not change the fact that what I said holds true. These people use the Church that they are a part of to pass discriminatory laws. They do this by mob rule, more religious nutters will vote to not allow gays to get married even though it's wrong of them to allow rights for one group of people and suppress another, based on fear and dislike. And the churches allow it.

 

[koshergrl]

Nonsense.

 

[koshergrl]

All you're doing is spouting silly, unsubstantiated anti-Christian opinion, and presenting it as if it's indisputable and factual.

 

[Avorysuds]

What claptrap.

Governments are run by men as well. Let's shut down government. Then you will see the value of religion, as those who believe in God and obey the commandments rise to the top, as they always do.

Oh, my bad.... It was God who said humans were flawed for simply being born human. Do I need to get you the direct quote?

 

[Avorysuds]

Nonsense.

How so? I mean, what I said in fact does occur, so what part is nonsense?

Do most politicians claim to be part of a Church = Yes
Do these politicians either idoly watchingly stand by or use their political power in the church to suppress gays ability to get married. = Yes
Is it fair that Government allows only "heterosexuals" to get married = No
Do atheists put up laws to discriminate against groups of people = No
Do Religious people put up laws to discriminate against minority groups = Yes

The reason Churches are losing power is because their average follower is worse than the average non follower.

 

[koshergrl]

What claptrap.

Governments are run by men as well. Let's shut down government. Then you will see the value of religion, as those who believe in God and obey the commandments rise to the top, as they always do.

Oh, my bad.... It was God who said humans were flawed for simply being born human. Do I need to get you the direct quote?

How does that relate to any of the nonsense you're spewing? Did I say men aren't flawed? But the fact of the matter is that men and women who are called to live by a moral code that encourages honesty, integrity, and kindness are less likely to be corrupt and tyrannical than those who aren't.

 

[koshergrl]

"
Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."[1] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under atheistic communist regimes, in which militant atheism served as the official doctrine of the state.[1]
Communist regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century through genocide, according to Le Monde, more than 100 million people[2] according to The Black Book of Communism (Panné, J.L., Paczkowski A. et al, 1999).[3] and according to Cleon Skousen[4] in his best-selling book The Naked Communist.[5]

"It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.[6] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[7]"

Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia

 

[koshergrl]

Nonsense.

How so? I mean, what I said in fact does occur, so what part is nonsense?

Do most politicians claim to be part of a Church = Yes
Do these politicians either idoly watchingly stand by or use their political power in the church to suppress gays ability to get married. = Yes
Is it fair that Government allows only "heterosexuals" to get married = No
Do atheists put up laws to discriminate against groups of people = No
Do Religious people put up laws to discriminate against minority groups = Yes

The reason Churches are losing power is because their average follower is worse than the average non follower.

The church isn't losing power. The church continues to grow. Yet another lie spread by the anti-Christian hate movement.

"Koukl summarized by stating:

“ It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.[1]"

Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia