Why do the God-haters persist?

[HUGGY]

If you FORCE women to carry to the birth of a child then YOU are responsible for the maintenance of the child.

On a purely economic basis early abortions or better yet comprehensive birth control education costs by far the least.

You cannot FORCE women into grinding poverty by giving birth.

The solution is simple. Stop impeding birth control. Stop impeding early abortions. Mind YOUR OWN BUSINESS ... OR take full responsibility for the raising of unwanted children.

Me personally religists ... I vote that you mind YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

Mind your own business... that's what thugs say when you pass the alley where they are beating up some poor victim. No, we have a civic duty to NOT mind our own business here, because the innocent victims in this case are the unborn children. Your sob stories about their inevitable lives of poverty are sickening to me. It's "better" in your mind that they are terminated rather than to live poor. This conscious value of materialism over life is often seen in people who lack belief in anything greater than self.

I grew up poor. I can tell you stories about it you wouldn't believe, but in my adulthood, where I am at today, I would not trade that upbringing for anything in this world. It taught me a LOT of lessons and made me who I am. In fact, you will find this is the story for many great achievers, they started with humble beginnings. Sometimes their condition was so bad that it became the driving force behind their motivations to succeed. From every field, business, entertainment, sports, science... there is a superstar who emerged from "grinding" poverty to become exceptional.

As for a "woman's choice" ...I am ALL for that! But you see, this all begins with their choices, so we need to address that. Not to get too technical for you, but when two humans engage in sexual intercourse it can produce a fetus. If you are mature enough to understand this, you should also be mature enough to accept responsibility for what might happen. There has been legal birth control in all 50 states for as long as my old ass can remember, and despite whatever outrageous hyperbolic claims you may overhear at liberal kook blogosphere, this is not going to change. So the woman has many options here and can choose many ways to go.

Now I understand having sex with other humans is fun, I get that part. But if you are mature enough to understand babies come from having sex with other humans, you should be able to see how any baby produced would be your responsibility. Are you following so far?

So if you took the chance, as a mature, thinking adult, and made the choice to have sex with another human, you knew this was a possibility. If you lack the maturity to grasp this, you should stick to having sex with yourself.

Now we're getting into the "second choices" of women. After the first possibly bad choice, how many OTHER choices do women get? Because we may need to think about this "woman's right to choose" thing a little more. I mean, maybe she gets the right to choose taking a ball-peen hammer to my head while I sleep because I came home drunk?

Okay, so there are numerous ways a woman could potentially find herself pregnant without having the real opportunity to choice in the matter. Rape, incest, drunk/drugged... etc. So here is where I part with many on the 'religious right' on abortion, but I am willing to give the woman a mulligan on the first choice, you get to have that choice regardless of your judgement because I can't put myself in your shoes, I don't know what went down. And now you're pregnant.

As someone mature enough to have sex and make a baby, you have to understand within a few weeks, that thing inside you is another living human being. It is going to me morally and ethically wrong to kill it and you know it will be. No amount of word gymnastics is going to change what you know is the truth here. And the longer you wait to kill it, the worse and more wrong it becomes. So the responsible and mature thing to do is own this and deal with it. If you're not ready for a child, there is always adoption. Many choices for women!

A zygot is not a baby. You FORCE people to take chances by fighting tooth and nail to restrict birth control and teaching birth control in schools.

The amount of time it takes for an embryo to develope into a baby is already established and law. You will NEVER make it law that will stand up in appelate court that a zygot or an embryo is a baby. You waste the proccess continuing to change that which will not be changed. Give it up. You have lost that fight. This is one major reason we will persist in educating the public about the fraud you call god.

 

[GISMYS]

if you force women to carry to the birth of a child then you are responsible for the maintenance of the child.

On a purely economic basis early abortions or better yet comprehensive birth control education costs by far the least.

You cannot force women into grinding poverty by giving birth.

The solution is simple. Stop impeding birth control. Stop impeding early abortions. Mind your own business ... Or take full responsibility for the raising of unwanted children.

Me personally religists ... I vote that you mind your own business.

mind your own business... That's what thugs say when you pass the alley where they are beating up some poor victim. No, we have a civic duty to not mind our own business here, because the innocent victims in this case are the unborn children. Your sob stories about their inevitable lives of poverty are sickening to me. It's "better" in your mind that they are terminated rather than to live poor. This conscious value of materialism over life is often seen in people who lack belief in anything greater than self.

I grew up poor. I can tell you stories about it you wouldn't believe, but in my adulthood, where i am at today, i would not trade that upbringing for anything in this world. It taught me a lot of lessons and made me who i am. In fact, you will find this is the story for many great achievers, they started with humble beginnings. Sometimes their condition was so bad that it became the driving force behind their motivations to succeed. From every field, business, entertainment, sports, science... There is a superstar who emerged from "grinding" poverty to become exceptional.

As for a "woman's choice" ...i am all for that! But you see, this all begins with their choices, so we need to address that. Not to get too technical for you, but when two humans engage in sexual intercourse it can produce a fetus. If you are mature enough to understand this, you should also be mature enough to accept responsibility for what might happen. There has been legal birth control in all 50 states for as long as my old ass can remember, and despite whatever outrageous hyperbolic claims you may overhear at liberal kook blogosphere, this is not going to change. So the woman has many options here and can choose many ways to go.

Now i understand having sex with other humans is fun, i get that part. But if you are mature enough to understand babies come from having sex with other humans, you should be able to see how any baby produced would be your responsibility. Are you following so far?

So if you took the chance, as a mature, thinking adult, and made the choice to have sex with another human, you knew this was a possibility. If you lack the maturity to grasp this, you should stick to having sex with yourself.

Now we're getting into the "second choices" of women. After the first possibly bad choice, how many other choices do women get? Because we may need to think about this "woman's right to choose" thing a little more. I mean, maybe she gets the right to choose taking a ball-peen hammer to my head while i sleep because i came home drunk?

Okay, so there are numerous ways a woman could potentially find herself pregnant without having the real opportunity to choice in the matter. Rape, incest, drunk/drugged... Etc. So here is where i part with many on the 'religious right' on abortion, but i am willing to give the woman a mulligan on the first choice, you get to have that choice regardless of your judgement because i can't put myself in your shoes, i don't know what went down. And now you're pregnant.

As someone mature enough to have sex and make a baby, you have to understand within a few weeks, that thing inside you is another living human being. It is going to me morally and ethically wrong to kill it and you know it will be. No amount of word gymnastics is going to change what you know is the truth here. And the longer you wait to kill it, the worse and more wrong it becomes. So the responsible and mature thing to do is own this and deal with it. If you're not ready for a child, there is always adoption. Many choices for women!

a zygot is not a baby. You force people to take chances by fighting tooth and nail to restrict birth control and teaching birth control in schools.

The amount of time it takes for an embryo to develope into a baby is already established and law. You will never make it law that will stand up in appelate court that a zygot or an embryo is a baby. You waste the proccess continuing to change that which will not be changed. Give it up. You have lost that fight. This is one major reason we will persist in educating the public about the fraud you call god.

"unborn child" is an unborn child!!! Duh!!! Don't be a silly demon inspired tard!!!

 

[Boss]

A zygot is not a baby. You FORCE people to take chances by fighting tooth and nail to restrict birth control and teaching birth control in schools.

I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed. I am opposed to teaching abortion as birth control. A zygote begins as fused gamete cells and becomes a living organism, it can't be anything other than human if produced by human gamete cells.

The amount of time it takes for an embryo to develope into a baby is already established and law.

There is no "amount of time" it takes, in biology a criteria has to be met. Once cells begin reproducing and an organism exists, it is a living organism from then until it dies. All you can haggle over is what phase the living organism is in, but that too has criteria.

Established law is not the issue here. Did you think I was arguing that abortion is not legal? I understand what the law says, the law also once said that black people were property. The law can be wrong and it can be changed.

You will NEVER make it law that will stand up in appelate court that a zygot or an embryo is a baby. You waste the proccess continuing to change that which will not be changed. Give it up. You have lost that fight. This is one major reason we will persist in educating the public about the fraud you call god.

I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.

Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.

 

[BreezeWood]

I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed.

.................

I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.



Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.

B: The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.


Bossy, can you explain how using a condom is not an abortion or "killing babies" ? -

* not for men anyway ....

.

 

[Hollie]

A zygot is not a baby. You FORCE people to take chances by fighting tooth and nail to restrict birth control and teaching birth control in schools.

I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed. I am opposed to teaching abortion as birth control. A zygote begins as fused gamete cells and becomes a living organism, it can't be anything other than human if produced by human gamete cells.

The amount of time it takes for an embryo to develope into a baby is already established and law.

There is no "amount of time" it takes, in biology a criteria has to be met. Once cells begin reproducing and an organism exists, it is a living organism from then until it dies. All you can haggle over is what phase the living organism is in, but that too has criteria.

Established law is not the issue here. Did you think I was arguing that abortion is not legal? I understand what the law says, the law also once said that black people were property. The law can be wrong and it can be changed.

You will NEVER make it law that will stand up in appelate court that a zygot or an embryo is a baby. You waste the proccess continuing to change that which will not be changed. Give it up. You have lost that fight. This is one major reason we will persist in educating the public about the fraud you call god.

I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.

Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.

Here as usual, religious zealots such as boss presume a right to force their fundamentalist views on others.

The extremist religious nutters on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point. On the other end, there are those would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the State should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational Americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, Roe vs Wade is a reasonable compromise.

I’m actually comfortable with Roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother’s health moot, if the state chose to peruse it.

 

[GISMYS]

A zygot is not a baby. You FORCE people to take chances by fighting tooth and nail to restrict birth control and teaching birth control in schools.

I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed. I am opposed to teaching abortion as birth control. A zygote begins as fused gamete cells and becomes a living organism, it can't be anything other than human if produced by human gamete cells.



There is no "amount of time" it takes, in biology a criteria has to be met. Once cells begin reproducing and an organism exists, it is a living organism from then until it dies. All you can haggle over is what phase the living organism is in, but that too has criteria.

Established law is not the issue here. Did you think I was arguing that abortion is not legal? I understand what the law says, the law also once said that black people were property. The law can be wrong and it can be changed.

You will NEVER make it law that will stand up in appelate court that a zygot or an embryo is a baby. You waste the proccess continuing to change that which will not be changed. Give it up. You have lost that fight. This is one major reason we will persist in educating the public about the fraud you call god.

I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.

Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.

Here as usual, religious zealots such as boss presume a right to force their fundamentalist views on others.

The extremist religious nutters on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point. On the other end, there are those would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the State should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational Americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, Roe vs Wade is a reasonable compromise.

I’m actually comfortable with Roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother’s health moot, if the state chose to peruse it.

CAN WE expect GOD to bless and protect the USA when we murder over 40,000,000 of our own unborn children???

 

[Hollie]

i'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as i said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed. I am opposed to teaching abortion as birth control. A zygote begins as fused gamete cells and becomes a living organism, it can't be anything other than human if produced by human gamete cells.



There is no "amount of time" it takes, in biology a criteria has to be met. Once cells begin reproducing and an organism exists, it is a living organism from then until it dies. All you can haggle over is what phase the living organism is in, but that too has criteria.

Established law is not the issue here. Did you think i was arguing that abortion is not legal? I understand what the law says, the law also once said that black people were property. The law can be wrong and it can be changed.



I'd be careful what i predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in america, and a good many people oppose that ruling. The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.

Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need god to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.

here as usual, religious zealots such as boss presume a right to force their fundamentalist views on others.

The extremist religious nutters on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the state seize control of the womb at that point. On the other end, there are those would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the state should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, roe vs wade is a reasonable compromise.

I’m actually comfortable with roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. If it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother’s health moot, if the state chose to peruse it.

can we expect god to bless and protect the usa when we murder over 40,000,000 of our own unborn children???

repent now sinner. The end of the world is near and time is short.

And you?

 

[hunarcy]

Maybe you should face up to the notion that some things are just none of your business.

When you demand that tax money be used to pay for abortions, you make it his business.

You don't get to pick and choose what taxes are spent on. If you are holding up congress's state and federal because as a minority you are not getting your religist agenda passed into law then your are just political terrorists.

Face THIS fact. Society does not have to bend to your religion.

Face THIS fact. If taxpayers pay for abortions, then the taxpayers have a right to have a say in the process.

 

[GISMYS]

here as usual, religious zealots such as boss presume a right to force their fundamentalist views on others.

The extremist religious nutters on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the state seize control of the womb at that point. On the other end, there are those would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the state should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, roe vs wade is a reasonable compromise.

I’m actually comfortable with roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. If it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother’s health moot, if the state chose to peruse it.

can we expect god to bless and protect the usa when we murder over 40,000,000 of our own unborn children???

repent now sinner. The end of the world is near and time is short.

And you?

guilt and shame weigh heavy.huh???

 

[Hollie]

can we expect god to bless and protect the usa when we murder over 40,000,000 of our own unborn children???

repent now sinner. The end of the world is near and time is short.

And you?

guilt and shame weigh heavy.huh???

Just a bit of comic relief.

Isn't it about time for you to dump yet another silly "endtimes are upon on us", thread? Hasn't it been 24 hours since your last one?

Come on, grab your chickens feet and magic potions and thrill us.

 

[GISMYS]

repent now sinner. The end of the world is near and time is short.

And you?

guilt and shame weigh heavy.huh???

Just a bit of comic relief.

Isn't it about time for you to dump yet another silly "endtimes are upon on us", thread? Hasn't it been 24 hours since your last one?

Come on, grab your chickens feet and magic potions and thrill us.

GOD SAYS== Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:3-9

 

[HUGGY]

When you demand that tax money be used to pay for abortions, you make it his business.

You don't get to pick and choose what taxes are spent on. If you are holding up congress's state and federal because as a minority you are not getting your religist agenda passed into law then your are just political terrorists.

Face THIS fact. Society does not have to bend to your religion.

Face THIS fact. If taxpayers pay for abortions, then the taxpayers have a right to have a say in the process.

Taxpayers have the right to expect that the laws of the land are upheld. We pay many hundreds of thousands times more on law enforcement than on medical procedures related to abortions.

Abortion issues have become settled in the courts ad nauseum. Unless something new comes up that changes the facts you people are just wasting time and money better spent elsewhere.

Throwing the spectre of your made up sky fairy god in the face of the public to make some kind of point is getting old.

 

[Uncensored2008]

????

If I was going to make a generalization about what kills people historically,
it's retribution and unforgiveness.

That may be, but the fact remains that the Atheist rulers in the 20th century slaughtered more peace time civilians under their rule than all the religions in history combined.

In fact, all the religions in history don't even reach 10% of what the Atheists did - even if you absurdly toss Hitler into the "religion" bucket.

Atheism is the most deadly belief system in recorded history.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The atheist left as appose to the religious right?

If we look at nations where theocracy exists, you can hardly call it "right." Iran has a managed economy, centrally planned by the state. Hardly "right wing."

Well I'm part of the American Atheist left and I can tell you we don't want to kill you.

The left advocates for authoritarianism. The American left agitates for the dissolution of the Republican form of government authorized by the Constitution in favor a central, authoritarian state.

The American left seeks rigid control by the central authority over economic activity, seeking central planning and direct involvement of rulers over the market. While most of the totalitarian demands of the left involve economic issues, there is a strong current of social regimentation, which you exemplify here.

You lack the ability to march people like GISMYS off to reeducation camps, but is it accurate to say that you lack the desire to do so?

Do you think Neal Degrass Tyson wants to murder you? No he does not.

What an absurd straw man.

In fact he gave his position on religion and he said he's just too busy to give it much thought.

Which would make him an agnostic, rather than an Atheist Crusader dedicated to stamping out Christianity, the way you are.

Since Tyson is an agnostic, and I am agnostic, why would there be conflict?

He clearly doesn't believe in god but he isn't militant like I'm coming off. This is a message board. This is where you are suppose to come and spout off your thoughts, uninhibited. I'll be honest. I don't give a crap if people want to be religious. I don't like it when they try to push it on us. I don't like it when they try to pass laws based on it like anti abortion or anti gay marriage. And I really don't like it that people are so unevolved still that they'd prefer to vote for a pot smoking cheater than an atheist.

No one tries to push their beliefs on me personally quite the way Atheists do. Atheist missionaries - and ALL ATHEISTS ARE MISSIONARIES - constantly tell me what I can or cannot believe. Atheists are worse than Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists.

I myself for the longest time thought of satin when I heard the word atheist.

I associate satin more with porn stars.

Not true. It just means we don't believe there is a god.

You go a bit further than that - you DEMAND there is no god and seek to and DO use the government to silence those with differing views.

We are still good people.

Especially Joe Stalin - he was the model Atheist!

I would say smarter and more open minded than religious people because at least we can grasp the idea that religion was invented by man, not the other way around. God didn't make you, you made up god.

I made god? Kewl, then he must do my bidding.

Is that what you mean by "smart?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're getting quite frantic. You are a bit reality challenged in that you are unable to connect disbelief in gods with the actions of political ideologies and megalomaniacs.

Your "irrefutable fact" is not a fact at all but the ranting of someone who has not studied the facts.

Oh my, well then we'll have to inform the victims of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al. that they really are not dead after all - a whackjob internet troll has declared that her religion is flawless and therefore their genocide is hereby revoked..


ROFL

You're a joke, sparky - though the subject isn't really funny.

I mean, you DO realize that you are every bit as fanatical and irrational as GISMYS, don't you?

It's tragically comical that you hope to blame the atheist left for the Holocaust. Try learning a bit of history so you don't make yourself the village idiot.

Hitler's SS wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. Do a web search for what that translation.

I suspect you failed to complete your education through the sixth grade, but grown ups are aware that as abominable as the slaughter of 14 million by Hitler was, it is dwarfed by the 200 million slaughtered by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pot, Kim. et al.

Junior High really would have helped you...

That's a shame. Your tender sensibilities are offended so you launch the "bigot", slogan. It seems that anyone who refutes your specious claims is automatically penned with the "bigot", label.

When you're not emotionally and intellectually prepared to deal with refutations to your pointless charges, you should avoid posting.

Yet all you can spew is mindless bigotry.

Ignorance on your part does make being clueless so much easier.

I'm not the one ignorantly denying the slaughter of 200 million people, sploogy.

Does that come with a Jingle?

Your application for martyrdom is rejected. You weren't quite pompous enough. I am prepared however, to make you Queen for a Day.

You're not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag, are you?

 

[Boss]

I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed.

.................

I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.


Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.

B: The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.

Bossy, can you explain how using a condom is not an abortion or "killing babies" ? -

* not for men anyway ....

I thought we already covered the birds and bees?

A male gamete cell known as the sperm is released during ejaculation while having intercourse with a female, who has a gamete egg cell. Until the two gamete cells fuse and reproduce cells, there is no unique human organism. The condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and creating a baby. But it isn't 100% effective, no birth control is, other than abstinence. Women take birth control pills which render the egg invalid, taking one of the gamete cells needed for reproduction out of the equation, so... no baby.

Now I realize some religions don't condone birth control, and some oppose you teaching our kids about such things without the expressed consent of the parent. Some people just don't like the idea of their tax money paying for birth control. But they are all lumped together as this big bad boogie-man who is going to somehow BAN contraception. Why do liberal idiots use such weak and pitiful conjecture to scare folks? No one is ever going to take away birth control.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

If you truly believe that, you ARE and it's a waste of time to read your drivel.

Many people believe that and more. I believe unwanted children fall victim to emotional problems and are more likely than children that are wanted and planned to acting out and ending up in trouble with the law. I believe unwanted children are more likely to be abused. I believe women that are not forced to have an unwanted child will have a better opportunity to get educated and succeed in creating an environment where someday she will be more desireable to end up in a stable marraige or relationship and eventually be a better parent.

And if Hunacy doesn't understand this then he/she is a waste of our time.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed.

.................

I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.


Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.

B: The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.

Bossy, can you explain how using a condom is not an abortion or "killing babies" ? -

* not for men anyway ....

I thought we already covered the birds and bees?

A male gamete cell known as the sperm is released during ejaculation while having intercourse with a female, who has a gamete egg cell. Until the two gamete cells fuse and reproduce cells, there is no unique human organism. The condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and creating a baby. But it isn't 100% effective, no birth control is, other than abstinence. Women take birth control pills which render the egg invalid, taking one of the gamete cells needed for reproduction out of the equation, so... no baby.

Now I realize some religions don't condone birth control, and some oppose you teaching our kids about such things without the expressed consent of the parent. Some people just don't like the idea of their tax money paying for birth control. But they are all lumped together as this big bad boogie-man who is going to somehow BAN contraception. Why do liberal idiots use such weak and pitiful conjecture to scare folks? No one is ever going to take away birth control.

We need to pay for it. Poor women who shouldn't be having kids but can't afford birth control if it isn't covered will end up getting pregnant and society will end up paying for it. We already had this debate and settled this argument a long time ago. But now catholics are acting like they are offended that they have to provide birth control.

No you aren't banning it. You're just making it unaffordable for the people we need it the most. It's like in red states who closed all abortion clinics but one in the state. So people have to drive 2-5 hours go get an abortion. Then the lying fucks say "see, we didn't ban abortion, what are you liberals talking about

 

[sealybobo]

The atheist left as appose to the religious right?

If we look at nations where theocracy exists, you can hardly call it "right." Iran has a managed economy, centrally planned by the state. Hardly "right wing."

Well I'm part of the American Atheist left and I can tell you we don't want to kill you.

The left advocates for authoritarianism. The American left agitates for the dissolution of the Republican form of government authorized by the Constitution in favor a central, authoritarian state.

The American left seeks rigid control by the central authority over economic activity, seeking central planning and direct involvement of rulers over the market. While most of the totalitarian demands of the left involve economic issues, there is a strong current of social regimentation, which you exemplify here.

You lack the ability to march people like GISMYS off to reeducation camps, but is it accurate to say that you lack the desire to do so?



What an absurd straw man.



Which would make him an agnostic, rather than an Atheist Crusader dedicated to stamping out Christianity, the way you are.

Since Tyson is an agnostic, and I am agnostic, why would there be conflict?



No one tries to push their beliefs on me personally quite the way Atheists do. Atheist missionaries - and ALL ATHEISTS ARE MISSIONARIES - constantly tell me what I can or cannot believe. Atheists are worse than Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists.


I associate satin more with porn stars.



You go a bit further than that - you DEMAND there is no god and seek to and DO use the government to silence those with differing views.

We are still good people.

Especially Joe Stalin - he was the model Atheist!

I would say smarter and more open minded than religious people because at least we can grasp the idea that religion was invented by man, not the other way around. God didn't make you, you made up god.

I made god? Kewl, then he must do my bidding.

Is that what you mean by "smart?"

Did you see Americans would rather vote for a pot smoking cheater than they would an atheist? Once that is not true anymore, I'll get less militant. I really don't care unless I think that ignorant view is holding me or society back, which I do. Stem cell & the way the Catholic church treated Galileo are just two of many examples.

 

[Boss]

A zygot is not a baby. You FORCE people to take chances by fighting tooth and nail to restrict birth control and teaching birth control in schools.

I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed. I am opposed to teaching abortion as birth control. A zygote begins as fused gamete cells and becomes a living organism, it can't be anything other than human if produced by human gamete cells.



There is no "amount of time" it takes, in biology a criteria has to be met. Once cells begin reproducing and an organism exists, it is a living organism from then until it dies. All you can haggle over is what phase the living organism is in, but that too has criteria.

Established law is not the issue here. Did you think I was arguing that abortion is not legal? I understand what the law says, the law also once said that black people were property. The law can be wrong and it can be changed.

You will NEVER make it law that will stand up in appelate court that a zygot or an embryo is a baby. You waste the proccess continuing to change that which will not be changed. Give it up. You have lost that fight. This is one major reason we will persist in educating the public about the fraud you call god.

I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.

Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.

Here as usual, religious zealots such as boss presume a right to force their fundamentalist views on others.

The extremist religious nutters on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point.

Hold on there, toots... can't let you get away with this. I don't have a "fundamentalist" view on abortion. My "political" solution to the issue of abortion is to allow states to determine the law for themselves.

My viewpoints are from a humanitarian and biological perspective and involve ethics, which you probably know little about. Human life begins at a successful conception, when the fused sperm/egg zygote produces another cell. Biology is very clear on this, and there is no other way to get around it. A unique human being has come to exist, and we all began like this. In order to have any kind of meaningful dialogue with the subject of abortion, this has to be established first.

On the other end, there are those would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the State should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational Americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, Roe vs Wade is a reasonable compromise.

There is no such thing as "personhood" it's a made-up word to get around killing human beings in the womb. If brain waves are the criteria for it, you're in real trouble, toots. Human beings develop all kinds of different abilities, some things may take well into adulthood to develop. And we all develop at different rates at different times. None of these things qualify us as human beings. There is no arbitrary "time" at which we become human beings, we are what we are from point of conception.

I’m actually comfortable with Roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more.

Well, I am not comfortable with Roe because it ignores the right of the unborn. They ARE human beings residing in the United States... they weren't "born" here (yet) but like illegal immigrants, they still should have some constitutional protections. The state does have a compelling interest to protect the human rights of the unborn, but if the state doesn't, the people certainly should.