Why do the God-haters persist?

[sealybobo]

Or when the church tries to ban abortion. I would say abortion is a necessary evil but human life isn't so precious that it's evil to have an abortion. Maybe if there was a god but there isn't. It may be a shame or sad or too bad but some people shouldn't have children and/or some people aren't ready to be parents and besides we already have too many people on this planet. Think about all the women who don't want a child being forced to have them because abortion isn't legal. Just consider all the horrible mothers in Detroit who aren't doing a good job raising their kids. Now add thousands of other unwanted kids to the streets of Detroit, because that is what you are going to get if you ban abortion. Thank GOD some women are smart enough to know they can't raise a human being. So in the future when religious thinking isn't an issue women who don't want to be parents yet but get pregnant won't be made to feel guilty because it was just a seed and life isn't that precious.

Hi sealybobo: When I approach my prolife friends with Constitutional explanations not to impose faith-based beliefs or arguments through govt, this generally is not refuted.
(same with respecting and including views both for or against gay marriage, by treating the BELIEFS as "equally protected by law," or beliefs for or against the death penalty, regardless if we agree or not.)

There is nothing wrong with defending choice, which aligns with religious freedom that conservatives believe in.

The problem they have is with "pushing abortion," so as long as you don't "push abortion," but just defend choice that is neutral as govt and laws ought to be.

I also point out that all the prolife activists, movements and outreach
are all done by FREE CHOICE and not required by law.

So this proves that it does not have to be banned to prevent abortion.
People can CHOOSE to be as educated and proactively against abortion
as prolife people who do so BY CHOICE not by "force of law" --
they serve as proof we can avoid abortion by our own choices without making it illegal.

The key is to have equal respect, defense and protection for prolife views equally
as prochoice views, if you want to enforce Constitutional principles CONSISTENTLY.

When I take this approach, I have no problem working with both prochoice and prolife people.

Only where one side attacks or rejects the other, this starts the whole business of fighting to defend beliefs of one OVER the other or in REACTION. So if we treat them both equally as protected by law, then we don't have this problem!

1. Depends on your interpretation of the constitution. Seems Libertarians, conservatives and liberals don’t agree 100% on even the constitution. Example would be Obama is a constitutional scholar and the cons think everything he does is unconstitutional.
2. It’s ok if gays make you feel icky. Doesn’t mean your state can pass laws that the federal government deems unconstitutional or discriminatory.
3. Government isn’t neutral. Government is the referee. Without government the game is even more rigged than it is now. The rich love Libertarianism or parts of it because it’s every man for himself and zero regulations.
4. Their position is ban abortion. I respect their feelings but sorry no.
5. Us on the left have said many times we want to solve the problems that lead to people needing abortions. No one wants other people to get abortions but we see the necessity for them. You are right. Pay people at Burger King and Walmart a living wage so if they do get pregnant they can afford to have it. This was why people in the old days kept the baby. They could go out and get a job that would support 3 people. Good luck with that today right out of high school.
6. People who are anti abortion are usually also anti sex ed in schools. Sex ed lowers the number of unwanted pregnancies. So do rubbers and birth control but the catholics hate those things too. Hard to negotiate with terrorists.

 

[sealybobo]

It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
But I wish you the best of luck.

Yes and no. Obviously all our paths are different, and as unique as each of us.

What I'm saying is the process we go through to reconcile our differences
is one universal process, all humanity goes through the same basic steps.

It's similar to the grief process.
When we go through a trauma, run into conflict, or face greater change than we
can handle.

We react, and go through stages, of denial/depression, anger/projection of blame,
bargaining and conflict resolution, and some level of acceptance and peace.

All people go through this.
Fowler also wrote out stages of religious or spiritual development
from liberal to fundamentalistic to moderate, so that's another way to define the map.

Recently, I read a book by Russ Whitney that defined the stages in life as the
athlete (self-focused), warrior (fighting battles), statesman (helping others), and spirit (connecting and working on an even higher plane).

Of course NONE of our paths are the same.

But we all want freedom from what we DON'T want,
and we want better things in life that we DO want.
Whatever steps or changes we have to go through to get there
follows basic patterns and is influenced by the same system of
positive loves and fulfillment in solutions that work,
and negative fears and stress from conflicts and problems that don't.

BTW [MENTION=48205]thebrucebeat[/MENTION] I like your attitude
I appreciate and respect the people on here more and more
and can see a lot more good and broader understanding come
from these interactions. thank you and keep it up, don't stop. it helps and is working to bring about constructive change.

So you say.
I see no evidence of this, but if it gives you hope it serves its purpose.

This guy is too deep for me too. One thing I read that made sense was how people go from not believing in god, then they run into a born again or jehova or whatever and they become an extreme christian and they annoy everyone and it is true that I know people who were like this and eventually they chill the fuck out and keep it to themselves, which is what everyone should do.

But of course the cult called christianity said go out and spread the word. I mean god said to go out and spread the word. or

 

[sealybobo]

Why do religion haters persist? First of all, we don't really hate. We are the ones that are hated. So forgive us if we fight back. Want proof?

Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One

I think the division and distrust is pretty mutual.

I think you are good at staying moderate and rational about your objections
compared with some people who go fundamentalistic to extremes and WON'T forgive.

When you and GISMYS both calm down, and come to accept that the world needs both theists and nontheists, traditional Christians and traditional secularists
to cover all the knowledge and realms of understanding truth and working together in life, in order to meet all needs and serve greater purposes,

then maybe I'll believe that humanity is really ready to receive the full coming of Justice to be established by agreement in truth across all systems and groups. We are closer than we think, but still some work to be done to let go of our old ways and accept that the process is bigger than what we imagined.

GISMYS claims to be ready, but if he thinks the right answers leave out atheists and others just because of secular thinking, that is still missing what this process is about. It is about bringing together ALL the knowledge wisdom and understanding combined as one.

If we reject each other, we are like puzzle pieces crammed in wrong ways or mismatched
and not organized to form the whole puzzle. If we accept and receive each other, we can figure out how our ins and outs all fit together perfectly to form the bigger picture.

GISMYS is right that we are closer than ever.
what goes on here, among us, is a microcosm or reflection of the larger collective process of humanity figuring it out simultaneously. So if we can get it, how we can work together and not conflict or divide over our differences, so can the rest of the world figure it out.

We are close, but still fussing because the different pieces are not where they should be, or some pieces are still upside down. All the pieces fit if we coordinate correctly.

Thank you both, and everyone here, for being part of this process. It is very interesting and rewarding to work out all these issues otherwise preventing it from full realization.

I believe GISMYS intuition is right, but the actual process will be more involved than just magically done by God. there is deep internal work to resolve all our judgment issues.

It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
But I wish you the best of luck.

OMG you just summed up my feelings on this person PEFECTLY. Seems like a nice fellow but if he has something he sure aint explaining it well. I think he's a libertarian and he's trying to tie his libertarianism into his spirituality. I mean if it makes sense politically it must be on a higher level a great approach to everything. Maybe Libertarian's will be the next Buddists.

 

[sealybobo]

Or when the church tries to ban abortion. I would say abortion is a necessary evil but human life isn't so precious that it's evil to have an abortion. Maybe if there was a god but there isn't. It may be a shame or sad or too bad but some people shouldn't have children and/or some people aren't ready to be parents and besides we already have too many people on this planet. Think about all the women who don't want a child being forced to have them because abortion isn't legal. Just consider all the horrible mothers in Detroit who aren't doing a good job raising their kids. Now add thousands of other unwanted kids to the streets of Detroit, because that is what you are going to get if you ban abortion. Thank GOD some women are smart enough to know they can't raise a human being. So in the future when religious thinking isn't an issue women who don't want to be parents yet but get pregnant won't be made to feel guilty because it was just a seed and life isn't that precious.

Hi sealybobo: When I approach my prolife friends with Constitutional explanations not to impose faith-based beliefs or arguments through govt, this generally is not refuted.
(same with respecting and including views both for or against gay marriage, by treating the BELIEFS as "equally protected by law," or beliefs for or against the death penalty, regardless if we agree or not.)

There is nothing wrong with defending choice, which aligns with religious freedom that conservatives believe in.

The problem they have is with "pushing abortion," so as long as you don't "push abortion," but just defend choice that is neutral as govt and laws ought to be.

I also point out that all the prolife activists, movements and outreach
are all done by FREE CHOICE and not required by law.

So this proves that it does not have to be banned to prevent abortion.
People can CHOOSE to be as educated and proactively against abortion
as prolife people who do so BY CHOICE not by "force of law" --
they serve as proof we can avoid abortion by our own choices without making it illegal.

The key is to have equal respect, defense and protection for prolife views equally
as prochoice views, if you want to enforce Constitutional principles CONSISTENTLY.

When I take this approach, I have no problem working with both prochoice and prolife people.

Only where one side attacks or rejects the other, this starts the whole business of fighting to defend beliefs of one OVER the other or in REACTION. So if we treat them both equally as protected by law, then we don't have this problem!

While you are kindly debating pro lifers who you think agree with you

House Republicans Pass Sweeping Anti-Abortion Bill

And that's just on the federal level. Check out the anti abortion legislation state governments are passing in any states that have GOP run legislatures.

Why Have So Many States Banned Abortions? - ABC News

I think if you asked most people they would want abortion to remain legal and safe yet here we have republicans passing laws like this country is anti abortion.

 

[hunarcy]

Or when the church tries to ban abortion. I would say abortion is a necessary evil but human life isn't so precious that it's evil to have an abortion. Maybe if there was a god but there isn't. It may be a shame or sad or too bad but some people shouldn't have children and/or some people aren't ready to be parents and besides we already have too many people on this planet. Think about all the women who don't want a child being forced to have them because abortion isn't legal. Just consider all the horrible mothers in Detroit who aren't doing a good job raising their kids. Now add thousands of other unwanted kids to the streets of Detroit, because that is what you are going to get if you ban abortion. Thank GOD some women are smart enough to know they can't raise a human being. So in the future when religious thinking isn't an issue women who don't want to be parents yet but get pregnant won't be made to feel guilty because it was just a seed and life isn't that precious.

Hi sealybobo: When I approach my prolife friends with Constitutional explanations not to impose faith-based beliefs or arguments through govt, this generally is not refuted.
(same with respecting and including views both for or against gay marriage, by treating the BELIEFS as "equally protected by law," or beliefs for or against the death penalty, regardless if we agree or not.)

There is nothing wrong with defending choice, which aligns with religious freedom that conservatives believe in.

The problem they have is with "pushing abortion," so as long as you don't "push abortion," but just defend choice that is neutral as govt and laws ought to be.

I also point out that all the prolife activists, movements and outreach
are all done by FREE CHOICE and not required by law.

So this proves that it does not have to be banned to prevent abortion.
People can CHOOSE to be as educated and proactively against abortion
as prolife people who do so BY CHOICE not by "force of law" --
they serve as proof we can avoid abortion by our own choices without making it illegal.

The key is to have equal respect, defense and protection for prolife views equally
as prochoice views, if you want to enforce Constitutional principles CONSISTENTLY.

When I take this approach, I have no problem working with both prochoice and prolife people.

Only where one side attacks or rejects the other, this starts the whole business of fighting to defend beliefs of one OVER the other or in REACTION. So if we treat them both equally as protected by law, then we don't have this problem!

While you are kindly debating pro lifers who you think agree with you

House Republicans Pass Sweeping Anti-Abortion Bill

And that's just on the federal level. Check out the anti abortion legislation state governments are passing in any states that have GOP run legislatures.

Why Have So Many States Banned Abortions? - ABC News

I think if you asked most people they would want abortion to remain legal and safe yet here we have republicans passing laws like this country is anti abortion.

But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.

 

[sealybobo]

Hi sealybobo: When I approach my prolife friends with Constitutional explanations not to impose faith-based beliefs or arguments through govt, this generally is not refuted.
(same with respecting and including views both for or against gay marriage, by treating the BELIEFS as "equally protected by law," or beliefs for or against the death penalty, regardless if we agree or not.)

There is nothing wrong with defending choice, which aligns with religious freedom that conservatives believe in.

The problem they have is with "pushing abortion," so as long as you don't "push abortion," but just defend choice that is neutral as govt and laws ought to be.

I also point out that all the prolife activists, movements and outreach
are all done by FREE CHOICE and not required by law.

So this proves that it does not have to be banned to prevent abortion.
People can CHOOSE to be as educated and proactively against abortion
as prolife people who do so BY CHOICE not by "force of law" --
they serve as proof we can avoid abortion by our own choices without making it illegal.

The key is to have equal respect, defense and protection for prolife views equally
as prochoice views, if you want to enforce Constitutional principles CONSISTENTLY.

When I take this approach, I have no problem working with both prochoice and prolife people.

Only where one side attacks or rejects the other, this starts the whole business of fighting to defend beliefs of one OVER the other or in REACTION. So if we treat them both equally as protected by law, then we don't have this problem!

While you are kindly debating pro lifers who you think agree with you

House Republicans Pass Sweeping Anti-Abortion Bill

And that's just on the federal level. Check out the anti abortion legislation state governments are passing in any states that have GOP run legislatures.

Why Have So Many States Banned Abortions? - ABC News

I think if you asked most people they would want abortion to remain legal and safe yet here we have republicans passing laws like this country is anti abortion.

But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.

Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no. But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it. If they were being honest that is. Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids. Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own. Survival of the richest I mean fittest.

 

[HUGGY]

The religists want it both or more ways.

As someone pointed out they fight all forms of birth control then scream like banshees when an unwanted pregnancy occurs and the woman/girl has to end it.

THAT is what makes me believe they are lying about abortion. If they truly wanted fewer abortions they would help women/girls from getting pregnant in the first place.

To just tell people to not have sex is a stupid position. It just proves how out of touch with reality these people really are.

THEN they wonder in complete amazement why rational people don't take them seriously.

The truth appears that they don't want to solve conflict. They want to profit from it.

They set people against each other in the most basic human situations as in human sexuality then act like THEY have the ONLY solution for the conflict...which of course is to come to jesus and all problems will be solved or at least forgiven.

I am a simple person. I believe people are either honest or they are not. I don't believe the religists are honest..therefore they are liars. It is THAT simple for me.

If they truly want fewer abortions the obvious simple solution is to work towards fewer pregnancies. Are the religists honestly trying to work towards fewer pregnancies? Clearly not. They know full well human beings are going to have sexual relations and do everything they can to stand in the way of birth control methods.

Sorry religists.. you can't paint people into a corner then accuse them of bad planning.

This is just one more way religion harms society. This is just one more reason responsible citizens must persist in pushing back against religion.

 

[sealybobo]

We as a society would also like to pay for their birth control rather than have them not take birth control because they can't afford it and then they have kids they can't take care of. Everyone with a brain understands the importance and value in this. But notice the GOP are using the Catholic position of anti birth control to divide us? I know not even the majority of catholics are anti birth control but that doesn't matter. It still riles up the base. The extremists. And it's just one of many issues. Next they move on and rile up the people who hate foreigners, muslims, blacks, gays, gun legislation. Just another wedge issue they use to con the stupid poor and middle class into voting republican. This is why I hate religion. It makes people stupid.

 

[sealybobo]

Why do religion haters persist? First of all, we don't really hate. We are the ones that are hated. So forgive us if we fight back. Want proof?

Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One

I think the division and distrust is pretty mutual.

I think you are good at staying moderate and rational about your objections
compared with some people who go fundamentalistic to extremes and WON'T forgive.

When you and GISMYS both calm down, and come to accept that the world needs both theists and nontheists, traditional Christians and traditional secularists
to cover all the knowledge and realms of understanding truth and working together in life, in order to meet all needs and serve greater purposes,

then maybe I'll believe that humanity is really ready to receive the full coming of Justice to be established by agreement in truth across all systems and groups. We are closer than we think, but still some work to be done to let go of our old ways and accept that the process is bigger than what we imagined.

GISMYS claims to be ready, but if he thinks the right answers leave out atheists and others just because of secular thinking, that is still missing what this process is about. It is about bringing together ALL the knowledge wisdom and understanding combined as one.

If we reject each other, we are like puzzle pieces crammed in wrong ways or mismatched
and not organized to form the whole puzzle. If we accept and receive each other, we can figure out how our ins and outs all fit together perfectly to form the bigger picture.

GISMYS is right that we are closer than ever.
what goes on here, among us, is a microcosm or reflection of the larger collective process of humanity figuring it out simultaneously. So if we can get it, how we can work together and not conflict or divide over our differences, so can the rest of the world figure it out.

We are close, but still fussing because the different pieces are not where they should be, or some pieces are still upside down. All the pieces fit if we coordinate correctly.

Thank you both, and everyone here, for being part of this process. It is very interesting and rewarding to work out all these issues otherwise preventing it from full realization.

I believe GISMYS intuition is right, but the actual process will be more involved than just magically done by God. there is deep internal work to resolve all our judgment issues.

It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
But I wish you the best of luck.

When I read this person's posts it reminds me of #16 on whynogod.com

God is the universe/love/laws of physics.

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

“To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

So if god isn't the invisible man who literally created adam, flooded the earth after tipping noah off, went down and impregnated mary all so he could grow up to be crucified, and he isn't the one the mormons or muslim's say he is or the jewish god, then who is he? In some ways people who know organized religions are a scam but still believe in god are even dumber than bible thumpers because at least they have an excuse. They believe a lie. You don't believe the lie so you have even less reason to believe in a god.

If something must have created the universe, something must have created god. Can't have that argument both ways.

 

[GISMYS]

I think the division and distrust is pretty mutual.

I think you are good at staying moderate and rational about your objections
compared with some people who go fundamentalistic to extremes and WON'T forgive.

When you and GISMYS both calm down, and come to accept that the world needs both theists and nontheists, traditional Christians and traditional secularists
to cover all the knowledge and realms of understanding truth and working together in life, in order to meet all needs and serve greater purposes,

then maybe I'll believe that humanity is really ready to receive the full coming of Justice to be established by agreement in truth across all systems and groups. We are closer than we think, but still some work to be done to let go of our old ways and accept that the process is bigger than what we imagined.

GISMYS claims to be ready, but if he thinks the right answers leave out atheists and others just because of secular thinking, that is still missing what this process is about. It is about bringing together ALL the knowledge wisdom and understanding combined as one.

If we reject each other, we are like puzzle pieces crammed in wrong ways or mismatched
and not organized to form the whole puzzle. If we accept and receive each other, we can figure out how our ins and outs all fit together perfectly to form the bigger picture.

GISMYS is right that we are closer than ever.
what goes on here, among us, is a microcosm or reflection of the larger collective process of humanity figuring it out simultaneously. So if we can get it, how we can work together and not conflict or divide over our differences, so can the rest of the world figure it out.

We are close, but still fussing because the different pieces are not where they should be, or some pieces are still upside down. All the pieces fit if we coordinate correctly.

Thank you both, and everyone here, for being part of this process. It is very interesting and rewarding to work out all these issues otherwise preventing it from full realization.

I believe GISMYS intuition is right, but the actual process will be more involved than just magically done by God. there is deep internal work to resolve all our judgment issues.

It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
But I wish you the best of luck.

When I read this person's posts it reminds me of #16 on whynogod.com

God is the universe/love/laws of physics.

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

“To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

So if god isn't the invisible man who literally created adam, flooded the earth after tipping noah off, went down and impregnated mary all so he could grow up to be crucified, and he isn't the one the mormons or muslim's say he is or the jewish god, then who is he? In some ways people who know organized religions are a scam but still believe in god are even dumber than bible thumpers because at least they have an excuse. They believe a lie. You don't believe the lie so you have even less reason to believe in a god.

If something must have created the universe, something must have created god. Can't have that argument both ways.

The world has no need for more sinners living lives of sin. Jesus will return very soon and all evil and sin will be destroyed,the world and all creation will be re-newed back to pergection for eternity!!! TL.

 

[HUGGY]

It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
But I wish you the best of luck.

When I read this person's posts it reminds me of #16 on whynogod.com

God is the universe/love/laws of physics.

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

“To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

So if god isn't the invisible man who literally created adam, flooded the earth after tipping noah off, went down and impregnated mary all so he could grow up to be crucified, and he isn't the one the mormons or muslim's say he is or the jewish god, then who is he? In some ways people who know organized religions are a scam but still believe in god are even dumber than bible thumpers because at least they have an excuse. They believe a lie. You don't believe the lie so you have even less reason to believe in a god.

If something must have created the universe, something must have created god. Can't have that argument both ways.

The world has no need for more sinners living lives of sin. Jesus will return very soon and all evil and sin will be destroyed,the world and all creation will be re-newed back to pergection for eternity!!! TL.

Your posts make it seem that you are desperate. Each one is more of a last gasp than the one before it. My guess is that your brain will explode eventually. Do the board a favor and when you are having your last big annurism please hit the "send" button half sentence into one of your rants so we will know your brain is imploding and we can all have a good laugh.

 

[sealybobo]

It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
But I wish you the best of luck.

When I read this person's posts it reminds me of #16 on whynogod.com

God is the universe/love/laws of physics.

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

“To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

So if god isn't the invisible man who literally created adam, flooded the earth after tipping noah off, went down and impregnated mary all so he could grow up to be crucified, and he isn't the one the mormons or muslim's say he is or the jewish god, then who is he? In some ways people who know organized religions are a scam but still believe in god are even dumber than bible thumpers because at least they have an excuse. They believe a lie. You don't believe the lie so you have even less reason to believe in a god.

If something must have created the universe, something must have created god. Can't have that argument both ways.

The world has no need for more sinners living lives of sin. Jesus will return very soon and all evil and sin will be destroyed,the world and all creation will be re-newed back to pergection for eternity!!! TL.

Are you suggesting you don't sin?

Wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Its not even a sin to not believe in god. Notice intelligence isn't a sin?

Who said Jesus would return? 11 people? I don't know why our ancestors believed or passed on this story but it seems if you study history that there were other religions/cults that were competing and christianity just won. Probably because the kings finally decided to adopt it so they could use their divine authority to collect taxes. A lot harder to say no to paying taxes when the church and state are one and the same. Don't pay and guess what happens? You go to hell!!! Count the cost.

 

[sealybobo]

When I read this person's posts it reminds me of #16 on whynogod.com

God is the universe/love/laws of physics.

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

“To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

So if god isn't the invisible man who literally created adam, flooded the earth after tipping noah off, went down and impregnated mary all so he could grow up to be crucified, and he isn't the one the mormons or muslim's say he is or the jewish god, then who is he? In some ways people who know organized religions are a scam but still believe in god are even dumber than bible thumpers because at least they have an excuse. They believe a lie. You don't believe the lie so you have even less reason to believe in a god.

If something must have created the universe, something must have created god. Can't have that argument both ways.

The world has no need for more sinners living lives of sin. Jesus will return very soon and all evil and sin will be destroyed,the world and all creation will be re-newed back to pergection for eternity!!! TL.

Your posts make it seem that you are desperate. Each one is more of a last gasp than the one before it. My guess is that your brain will explode eventually. Do the board a favor and when you are having your last big annurism please hit the "send" button half sentence into one of your rants so we will know your brain is imploding and we can all have a good laugh.

One day my friend quoted something from the bible on facebook and I asked him what it was supposed to mean or tell me. What was so profound about what he said. It's like slowly brainwashing people with god said this and god said that and god said this until eventually you start believing in this god person. How come god doesn't say anything today? Why is he hiding on the other side of the moon?

I have one for GISMYS: Galatians 5:12

I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!

 

[hunarcy]

While you are kindly debating pro lifers who you think agree with you

House Republicans Pass Sweeping Anti-Abortion Bill

And that's just on the federal level. Check out the anti abortion legislation state governments are passing in any states that have GOP run legislatures.

Why Have So Many States Banned Abortions? - ABC News

I think if you asked most people they would want abortion to remain legal and safe yet here we have republicans passing laws like this country is anti abortion.

But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.

Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no. But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it. If they were being honest that is. Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids. Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own. Survival of the richest I mean fittest.

At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no. And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions. No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used. Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.

 

[sealybobo]

But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.

Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no. But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it. If they were being honest that is. Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids. Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own. Survival of the richest I mean fittest.

At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no. And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions. No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used. Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.

No they can't afford it. So they will have the kids and then we will have to pay for it for 18 years. This is why we pay for abortions. Saves us money in the long run.

So we pay $451 now so we don't have to pay for it the next 18 years.

And since you can't cut off hungry innocent babies, you have no choice but to at least pay food stamps. Unless you are suggesting cutting that off too? I'd love to see the party of jesus do away with food stamps. They already say fuck no to healing the sick if they are poor. Next they will show us they don't really follow anything Jesus said. Why? Because you don't have to be a good person to get into heaven. All you have to do is believe the mythical story about jesus and christians think they are in.

 

[GISMYS]

Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no. But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it. If they were being honest that is. Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids. Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own. Survival of the richest I mean fittest.

At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no. And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions. No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used. Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.

No they can't afford it. So they will have the kids and then we will have to pay for it for 18 years. This is why we pay for abortions. Saves us money in the long run.

So we pay $451 now so we don't have to pay for it the next 18 years.

And since you can't cut off hungry innocent babies, you have no choice but to at least pay food stamps. Unless you are suggesting cutting that off too? I'd love to see the party of jesus do away with food stamps. They already say fuck no to healing the sick if they are poor. Next they will show us they don't really follow anything Jesus said. Why? Because you don't have to be a good person to get into heaven. All you have to do is believe the mythical story about jesus and christians think they are in.

WHY don't you give up your life and allow a baby to live????

 

[sealybobo]

But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.

Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no. But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it. If they were being honest that is. Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids. Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own. Survival of the richest I mean fittest.

At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no. And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions. No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used. Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.

Someone working at Walmart who is already on public assistance because walmart doesn't pay for shit can not afford that. This is why we pay for their abortions. If they can't afford $451 then they certainly can't afford to have a kid so they are going to be on public assistance EVEN MORE if they have children, so we pay for it.

The only reason we wouldn't is because of religion. Again, another example of how this fairytale is holding us back. Paying for poor people's abortions makes perfect sense in a rational/logical non religious society. So we'll pay for it for 18 years instead. Dummy.

 

[sealybobo]

At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no. And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions. No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used. Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.

No they can't afford it. So they will have the kids and then we will have to pay for it for 18 years. This is why we pay for abortions. Saves us money in the long run.

So we pay $451 now so we don't have to pay for it the next 18 years.

And since you can't cut off hungry innocent babies, you have no choice but to at least pay food stamps. Unless you are suggesting cutting that off too? I'd love to see the party of jesus do away with food stamps. They already say fuck no to healing the sick if they are poor. Next they will show us they don't really follow anything Jesus said. Why? Because you don't have to be a good person to get into heaven. All you have to do is believe the mythical story about jesus and christians think they are in.

WHY don't you give up your life and allow a baby to live????

It's not a baby just like my scrambled eggs isn't a chicken.

 

[HUGGY]

At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no. And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions. No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used. Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.

No they can't afford it. So they will have the kids and then we will have to pay for it for 18 years. This is why we pay for abortions. Saves us money in the long run.

So we pay $451 now so we don't have to pay for it the next 18 years.

And since you can't cut off hungry innocent babies, you have no choice but to at least pay food stamps. Unless you are suggesting cutting that off too? I'd love to see the party of jesus do away with food stamps. They already say fuck no to healing the sick if they are poor. Next they will show us they don't really follow anything Jesus said. Why? Because you don't have to be a good person to get into heaven. All you have to do is believe the mythical story about jesus and christians think they are in.

WHY don't you give up your life and allow a baby to live????

If your god is all you say he is he could easily save every embryo and baby and child. Why does your god allow them to die? It's your god that allows it..not humans. He could wiggle his nose just like on "bewitched" and save them all. Don't come bawling to human beings when you have such a close relationship with the only one capable of fixing the problem.

 

[Montrovant]

Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no. But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it. If they were being honest that is. Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids. Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own. Survival of the richest I mean fittest.

At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no. And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions. No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used. Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.

Someone working at Walmart who is already on public assistance because walmart doesn't pay for shit can not afford that. This is why we pay for their abortions. If they can't afford $451 then they certainly can't afford to have a kid so they are going to be on public assistance EVEN MORE if they have children, so we pay for it.

The only reason we wouldn't is because of religion. Again, another example of how this fairytale is holding us back. Paying for poor people's abortions makes perfect sense in a rational/logical non religious society. So we'll pay for it for 18 years instead. Dummy.

That is just untrue. Religion is not required to consider abortion to be murder, or immoral. It certainly helps, but I've seen non-religious people argue against abortion.

It also doesn't require religion to not want tax dollars to pay for abortion. You are mixing political views and religious views without seeming to realize it. That you think it is the rational or logical course does not mean that anyone who disagrees with you does so because they believe in god(s).

The vast majority of people who are anti-abortion are religious, yes. However, since the vast majority of people, period, self-identify with some religious or spiritual belief, that's hardly unexpected.

So yes, many religious beliefs may be opposed to abortion, but being anti-abortion doesn't make one automatically religious.