Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Callers to action, creators of Superpacs, and championers of causes great and small unite! Air all your political thoughts here. Whitened teeth, dyed hair, and spray-on tans not required but preferred.

Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:49 am

The gist of the article below is summed up in this line from it:

Secularists remain politically weak in part because of the reluctance of many, especially the young, to become “joiners.” Rejection of labels may be one reason so many of the religiously unaffiliated prefer to check “nothing in particular” rather than the atheist or agnostic box.

But it takes joiners to create a lobby.


So this post and topic is somewhat of an outgrowth of a recent conflict I had here on AC&AA (not attempting to rehash that, just explaining some background). In the conflict, I noted my political passions and offered some ideas. There's a reason for this of course, which is outlined in the article below. I wanted to keep the whole article so it's preserved here for possible future reference, and I am offering both the byline (Susan Jacoby) and the link to it for as long as it lasts. It's not massively long, though longer than most posts, but my commentary on this appears below it.

Sick and Tired of "God Bless America"

The population of nonreligious Americans — including atheists, agnostics and those who call themselves “nothing in particular” — stands at an all-time high this election year. Americans who say religion is not important in their lives and who do not belong to a religious group, according to the Pew Research Center, have risen in numbers from an estimated 21 million in 2008 to more than 36 million now.

Despite the extraordinary swiftness and magnitude of this shift, our political campaigns are still conducted as if all potential voters were among the faithful. The presumption is that candidates have everything to gain and nothing to lose by continuing their obsequious attitude toward orthodox religion and ignoring the growing population of those who make up a more secular America.

Ted Cruz won in Iowa by expanding Republican voter turnout among the evangelical base. Donald J. Trump placed second after promising “to protect Christians” from enemies foreign and domestic. The third-place finisher Marco Rubio’s line “I don’t think you can go to church too often” might well have been the campaign mantra. Mr. Rubio was first christened a Roman Catholic, baptized again at the age of 8 into the Mormon Church, and now attends a Southern Baptist megachurch with his wife on Saturdays and Catholic Mass on Sundays.

Democrats are only a trifle more secular in their appeals. Hillary Clinton repeatedly refers to her Methodist upbringing, and even Bernie Sanders — a cultural Jew not known to belong to a synagogue — squirms when asked whether he believes in God. When Jimmy Kimmel posed the question, Mr. Sanders replied in a fog of words at odds with his usual blunt style: “I am who I am. And what I believe in and what my spirituality is about, is that we’re all in this together.” He once referred to a “belief in God” that requires him to follow the Golden Rule — a quote his supporters seem to trot out whenever someone suggests he’s an atheist or agnostic.

The question is not why nonreligious Americans vote for these candidates — there is no one on the ballot who full-throatedly endorses nonreligious humanism — but why candidates themselves ignore the growing group of secular voters.

Yes, America is still a predominantly Christian nation, but evangelical Christians (including multiple Protestant denominations), at 25.4 percent, are the only group larger than those who don’t belong to any church. At 22.8 percent, according to Pew, the unchurched make up a larger group than Catholics, any single Protestant denomination and small minorities of Jews, Muslims and Hindus.

Critics have suggested that there is no such entity as secular America, because the nonreligious do not all share the same values. One might just as easily say the same thing about the religious. President Jimmy Carter, for example, left the Southern Baptist Convention because he disagreed with its views about women — but Mr. Carter remains his own kind of devout and liberal Baptist in the tradition of his 18th-century religious forebears.

Secularists remain politically weak in part because of the reluctance of many, especially the young, to become “joiners.” Rejection of labels may be one reason so many of the religiously unaffiliated prefer to check “nothing in particular” rather than the atheist or agnostic box.

But it takes joiners to create a lobby. The American Center for Law and Justice, an organization focused on the rights of Christians, gathered more than a million signatures on a petition protesting the imprisonment of Saeed Abedini, an Iranian-American pastor and convert from Islam who was one of four Americans freed in last month’s prisoner swap.

For small secular organizations, a million signatures for any cause would constitute a supernatural happening. I spent a few years working for the Center for Inquiry, a humanist think tank that merged last month, in a rare union of secular forces, with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Michael De Dora, the center’s public policy director, argues that secularists must work with liberal and mainstream religious groups on issues of mutual concern.

Yet there is some controversy over coalition building between those who consider themselves “hard” and “soft” atheists. I suppose I must be a “soft” atheist for believing that there is a huge political upside to ad hoc coalitions with liberal religious groups.

Freedom of conscience for all — which exists only in secular democracies — should be at the top of the list of shared concerns. Candidates who rightly denounce the persecution of Christians by radical Islamists should be ashamed of themselves for not expressing equal indignation at the persecution of freethinkers and atheists, as well as dissenting Muslims and small religious sects, not only by terrorists but also by theocracies like Saudi Arabia. With liberal religious allies, it would be easier for secularists to hold candidates to account when they talk as if freedom of conscience is a human right only for the religious.

Even more critical is the necessity of reclaiming the language of religious freedom from the far right. As defined by many pandering politicians, “religious freedom” is in danger of becoming code for accepting public money while imposing faith-based values on others.

Anyone who dismisses the importance of taking back this language should consider the gravity of the mistake made by supporters of legal abortion when they allowed the anti-abortion movement to claim the term “pro-life” after Roe v. Wade.

Secularists must hold candidates to account when they insult secular values, whether that means challenging them in town hall meetings or withholding donations. Why, for example, would any secular Republican (yes, there are some) think of supporting the many Republican politicians who have denied the scientific validity of evolution? Politicians will continue to ignore secular Americans until they are convinced that there is a price to be paid for doing so.

“God bless America” has become the standard ending of every major political speech. Just once in my life, I would like the chance to vote for a presidential candidate who ends his or her appeals with Thomas Paine’s observation that “the most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason.”

Susan Jacoby is the author of the forthcoming book “Strange Gods: A Secular History of Conversion.”


Ok, so I'm not here to debate whether we're a Christian nation or not, because that's not the point here that I want to get to. Rather, I want to explore is why I'm politically passionate about this subject, and how our beliefs chain together so that seemingly unrelated issues actually have very power real life consequences (and we can change those consequences if we so choose).

So the article points out that our politicians make almost no effort to appeal to the "nones" -- those with no specific religion -- or non-believers (they are generally conflated together). While this clearly represents a very large voting bloc, there is a disjointed element which precludes this group (I'm going to say "us" at this point to make it easier) is uninclined to become a unified voice.

This is disastrous for progressive ideals and just basic human rights like gay marriage issues. Primarily because our counterparts, the religious right, are powerfully aligned. They DO join. They ARE Lobbyists. And because of this, Congress is up to its ears in Tea Party right wing extremists who think there's no climate change concerns because they can bring ion a snowball to Congress.

This somewhat explains why the US Government seems to be a seething pit of religious loons and why presidential candidates like Carson, Cruz, and Rubio get any traction at all when you'd think they are far more deserving of back water pulpits -- and yet the USA in general seems to be vastly more progressive. Reproductive rights, gay rights, authoritarian leanings (authoritarians are the type of people who just fall over themselves loving them some Trump, who speaks in short sound byte that are meaningless, devoid of policy, but speak to the "we're the best!" versus "they are evil!" platitudes -- and this is also a persistent characteristic of right wing religious folks) all work together when this small, but well organized and intensely voting, very prone to fear mongering group gets involved in American Civics.

So when we get into these debates here and I keep hearing how "most Americans aren't this type of extremist" I'm brought back to the same conclusion: Maybe most Americans AREN'T extremists, but if they don't coalesce, if they are an unheard/unseen nebulous entity, they are not able to have a voice. Clearly, mainstream politicians don't even think about them despite being noted as 22% of the electorate. That's huge. And the fully non-believer contingent (us atheists) are much bigger than, for instance, the Jewish population, but we not only don't get much acknowledgment, but we're cast as outsiders in a whole slate of instances, like in being permitted to do something as simple as council invocations.

I don't for a minute think all atheists are perfect. There's some fucked up people out there. But I do know that our counterparts-- the religious right -- are out to push back some major social progress, and if we don't become a cohesive element, they are going to eventually win.

These things are chained together, like it or not. If we don't encourage the development of non-believers, then the religious will do so in our stead. They begin at birth with people, we argue about even trying it at all. And I'm not talking about inculcation of non-belief, but simply establishing a baseline for critical thinking. But let's even leave this on the side -- there's clearly a lot of people who have doubts and those doubts need a place to be explored. And yes-- nurtured. Because I care about a free world where gays can marry those they love, and women can dictate their reproductive destiny, and history isn't revised, and our problems are faced directly and not shuffled off to the responsibility of what I call a fictional character, and we learn to value human lives which are here and real and now, and leave the worry about things like "souls" to whatever happens after we die.

And this type of world would hopefully maximize the comfort and happiness of almost every other human being on the planet. Any reduction in tribal blood feuds, ancestral land wars, squabbling over so-called holy places, salvation by proxy, of eternal rewards and penalties, Armageddons and jihads, bigotry and persecution based merely on a difference of belief-- every reduction of these things benefits every single person interested in the survival of themselves, their children, their species.

I believe we should all work towards these goals, regardless of belief, and certainly there are some on the religious side who do believe these things, albeit they are very very quiet when confronted by the din of the extremists. But whether they are there or not is not relevant to my goals, because for me the best hope for achieving these victories over intolerance happens to lie in those who are without these beliefs. And that is a completely valid element of society to nurture and cultivate.

I want the secular segment to find its voice, and in that voice its strength, and in that strength be a salient part of directing our social models.

Some group is going to be the compelling motion behind social change, and I have no compunction in saying that the far better choice for who is the guiding principle comes from the non-religious. Not perfect, but socially progressive and aware. And if there are religious people who feel the same, great. They need to "join" as well.

It is the way things change (shy of bloodshed and war).
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Rian » Fri Feb 12, 2016 2:13 pm

I appreciate your passion for making a better world (IYO), KTR. I appreciate that you care for others.

The one comment I'd like to make is on this from the article:

“God bless America” has become the standard ending of every major political speech. Just once in my life, I would like the chance to vote for a presidential candidate who ends his or her appeals with Thomas Paine’s observation that “the most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason.”


To me, this perfectly illustrates a common error in thinking that many atheists/secularists/humanists have; that "reason" is the answer. The problem with this is that reason is a neutral tool. A murderer, for example, that uses reason will be more successful at murdering than a murderer that doesn't (we've been watching "Forensic Files" recently as my daughter was recovering from her heart procedure, and you wouldn't believe how stupid some people can be!)

I'm all for using reason. I go over logical fallacies with my kids, and teach them how to analyze statements and look for hidden assumptions, etc. I'm frustrated at how brainless so many highschoolers are. They just repeat whatever mantra is "in" at the time without even thinking about it (my daughter will sometimes politely challenge them, and they can't give any reasons behind their statements). But "reason" as used by many atheists/secularists/humanists is often just a code-word for "have the same ideology as I do", which isn't right.

My wish in the area of reason is not that people use it as a tool to get people on their side. My wish is that people use it as a tool to assist people to make their own decisions about what is right.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6204
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Chapabel » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:00 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:These things are chained together, like it or not. If we don't encourage the development of non-believers, then the religious will do so in our stead. They begin at birth with people, we argue about even trying it at all. And I'm not talking about inculcation of non-belief, but simply establishing a baseline for critical thinking. But let's even leave this on the side -- there's clearly a lot of people who have doubts and those doubts need a place to be explored. And yes-- nurtured. Because I care about a free world where gays can marry those they love, and women can dictate their reproductive destiny, and history isn't revised, and our problems are faced directly and not shuffled off to the responsibility of what I call a fictional character, and we learn to value human lives which are here and real and now, and leave the worry about things like "souls" to whatever happens after we die.

I have highlighted two portions of your post that, to me, reflect the hypocrisy of the liberal left. In one breath you defend a woman's reproductive destiny and in the next you claim we need to learn the value of human life. What about the value of human life in a woman's womb? Do unborn lives matter? Women already have control over their reproductive destiny. They can abstain from sex; they can use birth control pills, and/or other birth control measures; they can ensure their sexual partners use birth control. Overwhelmingly, unwanted pregnancies are the result of irresponsibility. Also, there are multitudes of couples who are unable to have children of their own who would quickly adopt an unwanted child. Until liberals recognize the value of unborn infants, and identify abortion as nothing more than legalized murder of an innocent child, I personally don't care to hear them decrying injustices of other people groups. If people do not value the life of a child in the womb, I find it hypocritical for them to champion other causes. But this is just my opinion.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Keep The Reason » Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:19 am

Chapabel wrote:I have highlighted two portions of your post that, to me, reflect the hypocrisy of the liberal left.


Ok, you have no support to call those for reproductive rights of women hypocrites. At all. The irony meter literally explodes when you do.

First of all, valuing HUMAN life doesn't include zygotes. HUMANS are developed quite a bit beyond the proto-embryonic and embryonic stage upon which you'd actually confer personhood. The constitution ONLY protects PERSONS -- and CITIZENS. Not dividing zygotes. And for you conservatives and religious extreme rightists to demand that protection to not-yet humans means you are actually for a MASSIVE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT INTRUSION ON PRIVATE CITIZENS.

The hypocrisy of those like you is off the charts on this issue.

From the "less government!" arm of the political spectrum, we get "Except where it enforces MY PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!" Hypocrisy writ large.

And here's where the irony meter cinders explode a second time. All women are perfectly free NEVER TO HAVE AN ABORTION. In other words, a woman's rights not to have an abortion are 100% defended. If any woman's religious views command her to never have an abortion, her right of refusal to have one is guaranteed. I don't think you can cite a single instance of jackbooted government thugs hauling American women off to abortion clinics to have their fetal tissues ripped from their uterine against their will...

Wait. I forgot. Silly me. This is the religious right wing crowd speaking. I'm sure you'll dream one up, which will include flies alighting on Obama's lips, signs in the asteroid belt that the Apocalypse is nigh yet again, blood moons, the Illuminati, and the ghost of Napoleon poisoning Judge Scalia because your side of the political spectrum represents rational fact-based thinkers.

In one breath you defend a woman's reproductive destiny and in the next you claim we need to learn the value of human life. What about the value of human life in a woman's womb? Do unborn lives matter?


Like everything else in existence, there is a scale that is applicable. But black and white ideologues like you can never see it. It's always the "all or nothing" with you guys. The fact is life is a continuous chain. Sperm are alive. Ova are alive. Even zygotes are alive. What they are not is human. And the slippery slope of illogic your position endorses is not only anti-liberty, it's literally impossible to enforce.

For instance, let's say we grant you that a zygote is granted full personhood protection. Now you're in for it. Every single miscarriage would then be considered a possible crime scene. Every single one. Did the woman walk too fast up a flight of stairs? Did she smoke a cigarette or have a drink BEFORE she even knew she was pregnant? True enforcement of your view would require every pregnant woman to be lashed to a table under government scrutiny until birth, and if you think that such a thing would be laughably too intrusive for the government to do, I'll remind you that your sick, demented, perverted leaders force women to be internally violated so they can be shown their special little packages from Jesus who will simply go back to Jesus and spend eternity in Jesus land if these imbeciles would simply stop obstructing women's rights and leave these woman alone:

Intrusive Violations of Women's Rights Thanks to Sick, Perverted Republican Tyrants

Women already have control over their reproductive destiny. They can abstain from sex; they can use birth control pills, and/or other birth control measures; they can ensure their sexual partners use birth control. Overwhelmingly, unwanted pregnancies are the result of irresponsibility.


And this is where your REAL agenda lies. It's not about the lives of these non-people. It's all about controlling the sex lives of women. It's the patriarchal mandate of your religion that defines women as people who must do as YOU say -- the MAN, whose FATHER is a HE and who gave unto us a SON from a woman who has to be a VIRGIN.

you people are so sexually shattered with all this nonsense that it drives you into this completely self-contradictory positions that make no sense. Put a BILLIONTH of your desire for the "sanctity of life" towards gun control in this country and lessen the 30,000 deaths from guns of real breathing and living people rather than blobs of tissue in a stranger's womb, and you'll have a shred of credibility. For now, you come across as a misogynistic buddinskis who just obsess over what women who are not their property do with their vaginas. It's none of your business, 'less government" man.

Also, there are multitudes of couples who are unable to have children of their own who would quickly adopt an unwanted child. Until liberals recognize the value of unborn infants, and identify abortion as nothing more than legalized murder of an innocent child, I personally don't care to hear them decrying injustices of other people groups. If people do not value the life of a child in the womb, I find it hypocritical for them to champion other causes. But this is just my opinion.


Your opinion is quintessentially hypocritical. Calling a 20 day old embryo a "child" is so stupid that even the bible notes you wait for "the quickening"-- but then actually following the bible isn't really your strong suit, is it?
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Simplyme » Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:06 pm

How the hell are zygotes human life?
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5944
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Chapabel » Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:49 am

Typical liberal tactic to dehumanize infants. Instead of referring to infants in the womb as a child, baby, he, she, etc...you give them names such as zygote and embryo. Soothes your conscience doesn't it? It's easier to kill a zygote instead of a baby, right?

Then, in typical liberal fashion, you completely ignore the fact that the main cause of unwanted pregnancies is irresponsibility. Instead of taking responsibility for indiscretions, it's easier to kill the problem right? There are numerous ways and methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but those ways and means require effort on someone's part. Instead of putting forth minimum effort let's just roll the dice and if a pregnancy happens, we'll just take off a day of work, go to the abortion clinic and get a Starbuck's on the way home and everything's ok. Sick and pathetic mindset. Never mind the million's of people unable to have children of their own who would gladly adopt an unwanted child. Never mind the precious life that is snuffed out in what should be the most secure and safest place in the world...a mother's womb.

If a person destroys a sea turtle's nest and kills the turtle's embryos in the egg, they face fines and even prison time. I suppose to the bleeding heart liberal, sea turtle embryos are of more value than human "embryos". And you call me a hypocrite?

And BTW, when a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman and her unborn baby, he is charged with two counts of vehicular homicide:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/25/texa ... born-baby/
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/11/09 ... unk-driver

For you to claim I am trying to control the sex life of women is absolutely absurd. It's a sign of desperation on your part to create a false narrative. It's none of my business who women have sex with and I don't care. But I do care about the American holocaust that is taking place everyday with millions of innocent lives being lost in the mother's womb just because of someone's careless act. For you to accuse me of controlling a woman's sex life is just another way to demonize anyone who disagrees with your liberal agenda.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Simplyme » Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:21 am

Yes I could destroy many zygotes, and be able to sleep well at night. I could care what the main cause of unwanted pregnancy is. It's the women choice. What is your problem with people having sex? Is it envy? And I find it hilarious that you would see destroying a zygote easier then putting on a condom, how can you see destroying a zygote effortless?

To throw it off as easily as, "lets go to the doctors office and then have starbucks after", makes you sound like a fucking idiot. It's your view of it this way that makes it SICK and PATHETIC. Which is what you are.

You are claiming if we went back in time and undo all the destroying of all zygotes, that people would be able to adopt easier? So explain the millions of children around the world who are parentless and are looking for good homes. Just imagine what would happen if you managed to save all these poor zygotes.......who is going to take care of them, you? There is no precious lives living in the safest place in the world who are being snuffed out. Drama much????

And you turtle example and the drunk driver one are simply stupid. You are a complete fucking idiot. Who is going around destroying other peoples zygotes? If you were to go up to anybody and stab them in the stomach, I would want you arrested also. For fucks sake.

What is your need to control peoples sex life? It would seem that you are a little jealous about so many individuals who are fucking. It boggles my mind.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5944
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Chapabel » Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:50 am

Simplyme wrote:Yes I could destroy many zygotes, and be able to sleep well at night. I could care what the main cause of unwanted pregnancy is. It's the women choice. What is your problem with people having sex? Is it envy? And I find it hilarious that you would see destroying a zygote easier then putting on a condom, how can you see destroying a zygote effortless?

To throw it off as easily as, "lets go to the doctors office and then have starbucks after", makes you sound like a fucking idiot. It's your view of it this way that makes it SICK and PATHETIC. Which is what you are.

You are claiming if we went back in time and undo all the destroying of all zygotes, that people would be able to adopt easier? So explain the millions of children around the world who are parentless and are looking for good homes. Just imagine what would happen if you managed to save all these poor zygotes.......who is going to take care of them, you? There is no precious lives living in the safest place in the world who are being snuffed out. Drama much????

And you turtle example and the drunk driver one are simply stupid. You are a complete fucking idiot. Who is going around destroying other peoples zygotes? If you were to go up to anybody and stab them in the stomach, I would want you arrested also. For fucks sake.

What is your need to control peoples sex life? It would seem that you are a little jealous about so many individuals who are fucking. It boggles my mind.

You like calling me names because you cannot offer anything of substance to the conversation. Your rebuttal of my position is to call an idiot? That's it? Ad hominem attacks are the ploy of the ignorant and those in error. Your claim that I suggest we go back in time and "undo all the destroying of all zygotes" is a flat out lie. I never suggested such a thing. In your blind wrath you lash out by making up things to prop up your position. Lives lost cannot be returned, but maybe we can spare future innocent lives from being lost.

If you want to engage me in conversation, you need to grow up. Stop your childish name calling; stop throwing around profanity trying to make yourself look big and tough. Confront me with facts, not with simpleton claims of (spoken in a thick dim-witted voice) "Your examples are stupid".

While I adamantly disagree with KTR on almost every possible issue, he does support his position with facts. He is also improving in his mannerisms. Now, if you can contribute a sensible, mature rebuttal to my position, feel free to do so. If not, then keep your mouth shut and let the grown-ups talk. OK?
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Chapabel » Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:10 am

Here is a video in which Ray Comfort shows people the reality of the American holocaust:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

The video is a little long (33 minutes) but well worth the time. If you refuse to watch the video, then please don't add silly remarks about it.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Simplyme » Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:37 pm

You like calling me names because you cannot offer anything of substance to the conversation. Your rebuttal of my position is to call an idiot? That's it? Ad hominem attacks are the ploy of the ignorant and those in error. Your claim that I suggest we go back in time and "undo all the destroying of all zygotes" is a flat out lie. I never suggested such a thing. In your blind wrath you lash out by making up things to prop up your position. Lives lost cannot be returned, but maybe we can spare future innocent lives from being lost.


Not calling you names just making observations. I did not claim anything, I asked a question. Did you forget what the "?" symbol was for? According to your belief, they are not really lost. Unless your claiming these zygotes don't automatically go to heaven, is this what you are saying? (notice the "?" symbol)

If you want to engage me in conversation, you need to grow up. Stop your childish name calling; stop throwing around profanity trying to make yourself look big and tough. Confront me with facts, not with simpleton claims of (spoken in a thick dim-witted voice) "Your examples are stupid".


Are you upset that I used the word fuck? Why would that word upset you? Do you feel it is a dirty word, or just a dirty act?

While I adamantly disagree with KTR on almost every possible issue, he does support his position with facts. He is also improving in his mannerisms. Now, if you can contribute a sensible, mature rebuttal to my position, feel free to do so. If not, then keep your mouth shut and let the grown-ups talk. OK?


I'm sure he is ecstatic that you think he is improving in his mannerism. You must feel tough telling me to keep my mouth shut? Well buddy, if your incline to try and stop me from posting, your more then free to try. But I know your type.....All mouth!
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5944
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Simplyme » Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:39 pm

Chapabel wrote:Here is a video in which Ray Comfort shows people the reality of the American holocaust:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

The video is a little long (33 minutes) but well worth the time. If you refuse to watch the video, then please don't add silly remarks about it.



You post something and tell people not to comment on it?

Why would you take serious anything "Banana Man" says? Ray Comfort......REALLY!?!?!?
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5944
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Keep The Reason » Fri Feb 19, 2016 1:14 pm

Chapabel wrote:Typical liberal tactic to dehumanize infants. Instead of referring to infants in the womb as a child, baby, he, she, etc...you give them names such as zygote and embryo. Soothes your conscience doesn't it? It's easier to kill a zygote instead of a baby, right?


No, it's just not a human baby yet. You're on a slippery slope here. If a zygote is a human baby protected with full human rights, then why isn't a sperm, or an ovum? They are as potentially human as is the zygote. Hell, for that matter, the banana you eat may use proteins to make your sperm, so your food is also as much responsible for the creation of a baby than anything else.

Then, in typical liberal fashion, you completely ignore the fact that the main cause of unwanted pregnancies is irresponsibility. Instead of taking responsibility for indiscretions, it's easier to kill the problem right? There are numerous ways and methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but those ways and means require effort on someone's part. Instead of putting forth minimum effort let's just roll the dice and if a pregnancy happens, we'll just take off a day of work, go to the abortion clinic and get a Starbuck's on the way home and everything's ok. Sick and pathetic mindset. Never mind the million's of people unable to have children of their own who would gladly adopt an unwanted child.


You know, the underlying issue here is how YOU dehumanize women who undergo this procedure. You, as a man, don't know anything about what it's like, so who are you to say how a woman might feel about it?

I say NOTHING about how she feels about it-- that's her business and not either yours or mine. The only thing I want for women to have is the right to decide if they are willing to bring a pregnancy to term. You, on the other hand, have the unmitigated arrogance to speak for these women when you know utterly nothing about them.

Your fantasy-land retread here is pretty much nothing like what women ACTUALLY experience. why don't you look into how the women feel about it, and go with that, instead of your "They're just sluts and whores who want to fuck and chop off babies heads" imaginary folklore?

If a person destroys a sea turtle's nest and kills the turtle's embryos in the egg, they face fines and even prison time. I suppose to the bleeding heart liberal, sea turtle embryos are of more value than human "embryos". And you call me a hypocrite?


No, what's most important are the rights of full human beings. Women own their bodies. You don't. I don't. Potential children don't.

Sea turtles deserve protection for a completely different reason (they are endangered BY humans. Humans, at 7 billion and growing, are not endangered).

But leave it to you to make these equivalency arguments that make no sense. Only YOU are claiming there's some comparative weight between a human being and a sea turtle. Only you are doing that.

And BTW, when a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman and her unborn baby, he is charged with two counts of vehicular homicide:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/25/texa ... born-baby/
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/11/09 ... unk-driver


Right. You know why? Because when the mother dies it's assumed she wants her pregnancy to come to term. The choice is taken AWAY from the mother by the actions of the drunk driver. You seem to think abortions are forced issues. Like the gun control issue, you conflate the real issue with the imaginary one.

I am not pro abortion, I am pro women having the choice to what they do with their bodies.
I am not pro abolishing of guns, I am pro reasonable control mechanisms that limit the carnage.

Neither of these positions are high-minded nor subtle positions, but both of them tend to completely escape the ability of religious right wingers to process.

If it's any consolation to you, I agree that there are many people who would adopt. I wish adoption were far more used. But once again -- I don't own these women or their wombs -- and neither do you. Our job here is to STFU and let WOMEN be the masters of their own destinies. Not you. Not me. Them.

For you to claim I am trying to control the sex life of women is absolutely absurd. It's a sign of desperation on your part to create a false narrative.


Which is directly contradicted by your outright stating that you are outraged by their conduct. I'll point that out in a bit. Read on.

It's none of my business who women have sex with and I don't care. But I do care about the American holocaust that is taking place everyday with millions of innocent lives being lost in the mother's womb just because of someone's careless act. For you to accuse me of controlling a woman's sex life is just another way to demonize anyone who disagrees with your liberal agenda.[/quote]

I'll tell you want. Outline your agenda as to how to take care of all these millions of babies you want "saved" and then we'll see where your real intent is. What will you do to support the women and these children when they have no jobs, no options, no opportunities? Even assuming this isn't ALL of them, it's enough. So tell us your plans to be really pro LIFE and help those children?

What are your plans for these children to get special healthcare if they are born deformed? Do you have a plan? Because there's a percentage of women who choose to temrinate based on age or tests that indicate a high likelihood of mental or physical disability. So what's your plan for them?

How will you discern the difference between a simple miscarriage and the use of medical abortions? Would you subject every woman who has a miscarriage to test for the chemicals?

Link

The best and safest way a woman can do an abortion herself until the 12th week of pregnancy is with the use of two medicines called Mifepristone (also known as the abortion pill, RU 486, Mifegyn, Mifeprex), and Misoprostol (also known as Cytotec, Arthrotec, Oxaprost, Cyprostol, Mibetec, Prostokos or Misotrol).


You want to make this into a "liberal" issue when what it really is is a "government not standing in the way of its citizens" rights issue. As a so-called conservative, you should be fully FOR a US citizen;'s right to chose their destiny, but your own argument makes it clear you think it's used by women who want to "fuck irresponsibly". You claim it isn't but you literally say this is the reason in black and white terms right here:

Instead of putting forth minimum effort let's just roll the dice and if a pregnancy happens, we'll just take off a day of work, go to the abortion clinic and get a Starbuck's on the way home and everything's ok.


You are specifically saying, "These people are too lazy so they will fuck anyway and then la-dee-dah traipse down to the clinic and get an abortion".

Your underlying intention is to control how women fuck. That's your desire, that's your goal. And that is just about 100% coming from your religion.

You adopting a religious set of rules does not represent a social contract for me in any way, shape or form. If you want to obey some set of moral rules for yourself by your own mandate, then you are free to do so. But where that ends is a few micrometers beyond your own skin. That's where it stops. This is non-negotiable.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Particles » Fri Feb 19, 2016 1:27 pm

Chapabel wrote:Typical liberal tactic to dehumanize infants. Instead of referring to infants in the womb as a child, baby, he, she, etc...you give them names such as zygote and embryo. Soothes your conscience doesn't it? It's easier to kill a zygote instead of a baby, right?


It's no less typical than the religious right tactic of calling a fetus an "infant" or "child" as you have. However, fetus is an accurate and neutral term, while whether the fetus should be called an infant or child is a major point of contention.

Then, in typical liberal fashion, you completely ignore the fact that the main cause of unwanted pregnancies is irresponsibility. Instead of taking responsibility for indiscretions, it's easier to kill the problem right? There are numerous ways and methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but those ways and means require effort on someone's part.


I would agree that more contraception education and promotion would help decrease unwanted pregnancies. Yet, it's your religious right allies that want to promote abstinence education in place of contraception.

And this point is disingenuous from you anyway since I doubt it's your position that abortions should be allowed if the woman used contraception.

Instead of putting forth minimum effort let's just roll the dice and if a pregnancy happens, we'll just take off a day of work, go to the abortion clinic and get a Starbuck's on the way home and everything's ok. Sick and pathetic mindset.


I doubt anybody is thinking before they have sex, "I won't bother using contraception because I can just have an abortion." The people not using contraception aren't putting that much thought into it. Or it could be they were steered away from contraception by what their abstinence education told them.

Never mind the precious life that is snuffed out in what should be the most secure and safest place in the world...a mother's womb.


Not quite, since over a third of all conceptions end in miscarriage naturally. That's apparently how your God designed it, which would make Him the biggest mass serial killer of all. It seems that's where you should really be directing your ire.

For you to claim I am trying to control the sex life of women is absolutely absurd. It's a sign of desperation on your part to create a false narrative. It's none of my business who women have sex with and I don't care. But I do care about the American holocaust that is taking place everyday with millions of innocent lives being lost in the mother's womb just because of someone's careless act. For you to accuse me of controlling a woman's sex life is just another way to demonize anyone who disagrees with your liberal agenda.


Nah, you just want to force women to carry to term fetuses they don't want, because they had sex, whether carelessly or not.

Does anybody doubt that if men could be pregnant, that the same religious right would be calling abortion a sacred ritual act?
Particles
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2084
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: USA
Affiliation: Gnostic atheist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Chapabel » Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:26 am

Simplyme wrote:
Chapabel wrote:Here is a video in which Ray Comfort shows people the reality of the American holocaust:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

The video is a little long (33 minutes) but well worth the time. If you refuse to watch the video, then please don't add silly remarks about it.



You post something and tell people not to comment on it?

Why would you take serious anything "Banana Man" says? Ray Comfort......REALLY!?!?!?

Is your reading comprehension lacking? Notice my request...don't comment on the video unless you watch the video. Please pay closer attention to what is actually posted as compared to what you want to read into a post.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Cause and Effect and Convergance...

Postby Chapabel » Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:07 am

You know, the underlying issue here is how YOU dehumanize women who undergo this procedure. You, as a man, don't know anything about what it's like, so who are you to say how a woman might feel about it?

No, I am not dehumanizing women. I am asking people (men and women) to take responsibility for their actions. That, my friend, is a vital component of being human. To simply snuff out a life that is seen as an inconvenience is not human, it's barbaric.

Women own their bodies. You don't. I don't. Potential children don't.

A baby growing inside a woman is not "her" body, it's the baby's body. If people do not have the right to force their will on others, how can a woman force her will on a child in the womb? Doesn't an infant have the right to live?

Sea turtles deserve protection for a completely different reason (they are endangered BY humans. Humans, at 7 billion and growing, are not endangered).

But leave it to you to make these equivalency arguments that make no sense. Only YOU are claiming there's some comparative weight between a human being and a sea turtle. Only you are doing that.

No dude, you just reinforced my statement. You claim sea turtles deserve protection while infants in the womb do not. You validate your position by claiming sea turtles are endangered while humans are not. In your eyes sea turtles are of more value than an infant because there are less turtles than humans.

Right. You know why? Because when the mother dies it's assumed she wants her pregnancy to come to term.

You just placed yourself in an indefensible position here. Morally, it is wrong to murder an infant regardless of being in the womb or not. Scientifically, your position is in error because it validates the infants life based solely on the opinion and desires of the mother. Science does not operate on emotions, feelings and desires. If two 8 week old infants are killed, one on purpose and the other by accident, scientifically and biologically they are the same. If the one killed on accident is considered human, then the other must be also. You cannot have it both ways and remain consistent in your beliefs.

I'll tell you want. Outline your agenda as to how to take care of all these millions of babies you want "saved" and then we'll see where your real intent is. What will you do to support the women and these children when they have no jobs, no options, no opportunities? Even assuming this isn't ALL of them, it's enough. So tell us your plans to be really pro LIFE and help those children?

Again, you reveal your liberal position. Why am I responsible for taking care of these children? If people want to have unprotected sex there are consequences that must be taken into consideration. One of those consequences is pregnancy. As responsible adults my wife and I concluded that two children were all we could comfortably care and provide for. After our second, we took measures to prevent us from have any more. I did not ask you or anyone else to help pay for or raise our children. It was our responsibility to do this. Why should you and I be forced to pay for children which are a result of someone else's careless actions? People should realize that if they cannot raise children they should not have children. Abortion simply removes any and all responsibility from individuals. The result is an American holocaust.

As a so-called conservative, you should be fully FOR a US citizen;'s right to chose their destiny,

I am 100% for this. Including the infant's right to live. You would take away the child's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, for the convenience of irresponsible parents.

You are specifically saying, "These people are too lazy so they will **** anyway and then la-dee-dah traipse down to the clinic and get an abortion".

Your underlying intention is to control how women ****. That's your desire, that's your goal. And that is just about 100% coming from your religion.

I do not care who women have sex with; I don't care how often women have sex; I don't care what in position they have sex. I do care about the murder of innocent lives. As a liberal, I thought you would have cared more about innocent life. It looks like we both have misconceptions of what liberal and conservatives believe.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Next

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest