Feed on Posts or Comments 23 April 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 16 Mar 2012 12:43 am

Religious Republicans are completely insane – the religious war on women

It is impossible to imagine this happening in a modern superpower country, but it really is happening:

Fired For Using Birth Control? It Could Be Possible In Arizona

A proposed law in Arizona could give employers the right to fire women who use birth control. The bill, which sailed right through the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee, grants employers the right to ask for proof that contraceptives are being taken for non-contraceptive reasons… Not only would the bill grant employers the right to pry into a woman’s (and only a woman’s) medical history, it would give them opportunity to fire women for simply having a sex life.

Imagine the regressive, delusional, insane mindset that would propose a law like this. Only religious delusion could create this level of insanity. You expect this kind of behavior in tribal villages, not in modern, technological countries.

U.S. returning to the Dark Ages

“What has happened, that we are fighting again for reproductive rights?” wonders Rosie O’Donnell, filling-in for Piers Morgan. “And how did guys, get to be the ones to solely discuss it?” responds Angelica Huston. “It’s absolutely astonishing to me, it’s the Dark Ages.”

An excellent related thread on Reddit:

“Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me. But they all seem to. It doesn‘t matter what country they’re in or what religion they claim. They all want to control women.” Hillary Clinton

It is time to end religion and create treatment programs for the delusional.

65 Responses to “Religious Republicans are completely insane – the religious war on women”

  1. on 16 Mar 2012 at 2:14 pm 1.BrianE said …

    Wow, just wow. Republicans hate big government, except when it comes to a woman’s reproductive tract – then they want the government monitoring that and shoving probes in there before abortions. Fucking disgusting hypocrites.

    For their next trick perhaps they’d like to go old school OT and have the government check for intact hymens before marriage to ensure virginity!

  2. on 16 Mar 2012 at 2:19 pm 2.Anonymous said …

    It will be fascinating to hear the christians justify this law and the thinking behind itt!

  3. on 16 Mar 2012 at 2:25 pm 3.Help us all said …

    I am certain that the founding fathers assumed a sane electorate. But in this they erred. Now we must consider testing those who vote, and those who run for office, to determine their mental soundness.

  4. on 16 Mar 2012 at 3:16 pm 4.Anonymous said …

    Texas Loses Entire Women’s Health Program Over Planned Parenthood Law

    “The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that it will cut off all Medicaid funding for family planning to the state of Texas, following Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) decision to implement a new law that excludes Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program.”

  5. on 16 Mar 2012 at 4:47 pm 5.Godless Monkey said …

    I am a working professional woman who uses birth control, which can only mean to the religious right nutjobs in government and their brain dead lemmings that I am nothing more than what their demigod Limbaugh refers to as a slut and a prostitute. Are they stoking the fire now for my heresy? But wait, perhaps there’s hope for me! I’m also a heterosexual woman married to a man who, in their interpretation, must of course be my master, and this husband of mine, I mean “master” excuse me, also prefers that we not have so many children that we cannot afford to raise them properly. Will that save me from the bonfire? Doubt it.

  6. on 16 Mar 2012 at 4:58 pm 6.Lou said …

    As always, got to to due diligence to find out the purpose of the bill. The bill is proposed so that insurance companies are not forced to pay for woman’s contraceptives. Good for Arizona. Government shouldn’t be telling insurance what they must cover. This is for the marketplace to weed out.

    I am all for woman’s rights which includes them paying for their own contraceptives or going down to the local clinic.

    I also don’t agree with Maher who refers to woman in the most horrid of names. Barrack should be ashamed of taking Maher’s money to get reelected. What a slimeball.

  7. on 16 Mar 2012 at 5:09 pm 7.BrianE said …

    @Lou, get a clue. The ONLY reason why this is a debate is NOT because insurance companies have a problem with paying for contraception; they don’t. They pay for a lot of other drugs that will help patients avoid more expensive care later. No, this is only a fight because of religious conservatives.

    And secondly, Maher called ONE WOMAN a dumb twat (which she is), whereas Rush called EVERY WOMAN that would want free contraception a slut and a prostitute. Are you so dumb as to not see this difference?

  8. on 16 Mar 2012 at 5:13 pm 8.RC said …

    “the Religious war on woman”

    It is so cute how they use “war” to really give this issue the exaggeration it really deserves. Polls have shown it has backfired it the Presidents face.

    If there is a war, it is on conservative woman and had been going on for over a decade. Being one, I certainly have witnessed it. Unfortunately, this President will never come to their defense. You must be a registered Democrat to get his support.

    Any poor woman can get contraceptives, free. If they do not it is do to laziness or ignorance. This is all to deflect attention to what the President and his regime has done to destroy this once great nation.

  9. on 16 Mar 2012 at 5:20 pm 9.Godless Monkey said …

    Don’t understand sarcasm much, do you, Lou? But as to your comments, contraceptives are not only used for birth control, so do your due diligence. Next I suppose you’ll agree that insurance — well, insurance for women, that is — shouldn’t pay for pap smears, mammographies, cervical cancer, endometriosis, etc, or any diseases that a woman might get down there in “those parts” except for, of course, having those babies! You are anything but for women’s rights. Ask the women in Texas how that clinic you suggest is working out for them.

  10. on 16 Mar 2012 at 6:48 pm 10.Lou said …

    RC

    There is no war by conservatives, it is all by liberals.

    Notice how Monkey calls herself a “working woman” implying woman who stay home and care for their family are not working woman.

    Then Monkey implies being pregnant is like having a disease! Maybe i can get my kids jock strap paid for since without it, he could injure himself. I certainly should not need to lay out my own money.

    Oh Monkey, if you read the article only contraception used for birth control was screened. Now what is your complaint?

    Notice how Brian continues to call a woman filthy names all because he doesn’t like her conservative viewpoint. The war is alive.

  11. on 16 Mar 2012 at 7:56 pm 11.Godless Monkey said …

    Lou, your comments do not even merit a response from a mere mortal such as I as you seem to be like the gods themselves and somehow magically “know” all about me and what I “meant” in my short post. Keep up the great work there, Carnac

  12. on 16 Mar 2012 at 8:37 pm 12.BrianE said …

    @Lou & RC – both of you keep using that word ‘war’; I do not think you know what it means.

    Why don’t you tell me – what is it that liberals are doing or trying to do to conservative women to take away any of their freedoms? And when you’re done, correlate that against what conservatives are doing or want to do to liberal women to take away their freedoms. Go ahead and post your responses so we can all have a laugh.

  13. on 16 Mar 2012 at 9:51 pm 13.RC said …

    I didn’t use the war Brian. The posts uses the word War. I just reused it.

    Now, please tell me what this “war is all about? I am a woman and nobody is trying to take my contraceptives. I can buy them, I can go to a clinic and get them free and I can order them in the mail.

    Please, share. What are the conservatives taking me to war on Brian?

  14. on 16 Mar 2012 at 10:27 pm 14.Lou (DFW) said …

    13.RC said …

    “I didn’t use the war Brian.”

    Introducing another Hor sock puppet…

  15. on 16 Mar 2012 at 10:33 pm 15.Godless Monkey said …

    RC, hopefully you don’t live in Georgia, get pregnant, have the fetus die in utero, then have the audacity to want that dead fetus removed from your sacred womb. A conservative republican nutjob there thinks that you ought to just carry it around, dead, like a cow would, until you deliever it. Sounds like sane medical advise to me! The conservative, religious men of your ilk think so little of you that your life is of little or no consequence when compared to that of a fetus…even a dead one. There is a war among conservatives: Men V. Women, and guess what, it’s all in your bible, where they get these directives. And since you, unfortunately, were born with a vagina, you lose.

  16. on 16 Mar 2012 at 10:33 pm 16.Lou (DFW) said …

    4.Anonymous said …

    “Texas Loses Entire Women’s Health Program Over Planned Parenthood Law”

    “The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that it will cut off all Medicaid funding for family planning to the state of Texas, following Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) decision to implement a new law that excludes Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program.”

    Remember, this the same state whose governor declared a day of prayer to end one the most severe droughts in the state’s history. But rather than end the drought, Perry’s imaginary god told to him to run for POTUS, exposing him to the world to be the idiot that he is.

  17. on 16 Mar 2012 at 10:57 pm 17.RC said …

    Monkey,

    Do you have evidence of this war? Brian has gone strangely silent. Some bill that has been introduced in Georgia is not a war. Now you claim there is a war among conservatives. Which is it and where is the the war?

    I have one. How about babies half way out of the womb having a medical instrument shoved into their brain and murdered. Our President voted for that as being OK. Now that sounds like a war and the babies have no chance.

  18. on 16 Mar 2012 at 10:58 pm 18.RC said …

    Monkey, if you don’t mind how about a link to this bill.

  19. on 16 Mar 2012 at 11:12 pm 19.Godless Monkey said …

    “Why Evolution Is True”. Google it. True, it’s just a “bill that’s been introduced,” but it’s the insanity of such bill that should make one’s hairs stand on end. Did I somehow time travel back to the dark ages? What’s next, a bill to determine how one vets out a witch?

  20. on 17 Mar 2012 at 1:13 am 20.RC said …

    Let me give you the actual news. I find your ilk tend to get emotional and look to blogs for news rather than an actual news source. From Raw Story:

    “Franklin’s bill would classify the removal of a fetus from a woman for any reason other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus as “prenatal murder.”

    So no, woman would not carry around a dead fetus.

    So a bill that will not pass gives you more outrage than something that happens regularly, the murdering a baby half way out of the womb? This is what your president is OK with and why this nation is declining. More worry for so-called “womans’ rights” than protecting the young.

    Well, at leas your priorities are in order.

  21. on 17 Mar 2012 at 2:14 am 21.Anonymous said …

    RC – “I find your ilk tend to get emotional”

    RC – “So a bill that will not pass gives you more outrage than something that happens regularly, the murdering a baby half way out of the womb?”

    Nice example of double standards, exaggeration, and hypocrisy. Let me guess, you’re a Christian and lying is what you do best.

  22. on 17 Mar 2012 at 3:46 am 22.Anonymous said …

    GOP freshmen, big-bucks donors hobnob at resort

  23. on 17 Mar 2012 at 4:23 am 23.Slapnuts McGee said …

    In other news, St. Patrick’s Day is tomorrow. Cheers???

  24. on 17 Mar 2012 at 10:43 am 24.Anonymous said …

    Relevant article

    Even GOP women defend Moveon ad

  25. on 17 Mar 2012 at 12:08 pm 25.40 year Atheist said …

    In a sense, all Atheists are ethicists, in that they determine at least their own personal ethical systems of behavior. So every Atheist is at least a moral authority unto himself. It is not entirely clear how it is that some, but not all, Atheists acquire the extra moral authority to declare ethics for everyone. Regardless of how that accreditation is acquired, some Atheists have it, and they become career moral authorities for the rest of humanity.

    Now two of these career moral authorities have declared a new class of non-valued humans: the post-natals. Here is a summary of their new revelations:
    Abstract
    Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
    Now, since this new revelation is an intellectual understanding of some sort, we should see how it stacks up before rejecting it as the product of fools. Well, “should” is too strong, that is a moral pronouncement itself; it is not necessary to examine it before rejecting it on the basis of “who do they think they are, God?” – the product of fools… and summarily shit-canning the entire subject.

    But of course, many folks will consider this Atheist revelation to be elegantly compelling, and for that reason alone it needs to be analyzed.

    First off, it presumes that pre-natal abortion of a fetus is a rational and therefore moral action. It explains legally declared ethical reasons to destroy a fetus and then asks, what is the difference between a fetus and a new-born, the answer for which is merely: a breath of air.

    For diseased pre-born fetuses it is presumed ethical to kill them. But some diseases, such as Down’s syndrome, are not 100% detectable prior to birth. So why not kill them post-natally? Since there is no definitive difference between pre-birth canal and post birth canal existence, the value of the critter is the same one second after as it is one second before traversing the canal. So it is not the process of birth that influences the value being placed on the critter.

    Yes, it’s a critter all right. But is it a human? Who is to say? If the mother and the ethicists agree that it is not a person, why then who can disagree? In fact, at what age does this determination procedure become invalid? Well, age is not the criterion. There is no age limit for placing value on a human.

    What is the criterion for personhood? According to these two career moral authorities, it is just whatever they, themselves, figure it to be. Their specific criterion is… well, it just doesn’t matter; they have one today. Now we might sit down and calculate the ROI for a just birthed critter, say on the average of a large population. Or we might do a specific calculation on the ROI for a just birthed critter for the individual case, say based on class, genetic history, family prior contribution to human welfare, needs for balancing the sexual population, needs for dealing with social ills such as poverty, or other social imbalances which this individual might exacerbate, etc. (Can Social Justice be ignored at the valuation of an individual, morally?)

    There is absolutely no restriction which is logically attached to the authoritative determination of the value of humanesque critters, regardless of birth status or time since traversing the birth canal. So it is incumbent upon someone to make the decision, someone with moral authority of course. And we already know who that is, the career moral authorities: the ethicists.

    By measuring the value of individuals (as has already been done by the Emmanuels in the current Democrat administration) those who do not contribute significantly to the betterment of humankind (for example) can be credited with less or no value. This is a simple determination. Equations already exist toward that end.

    The problem then becomes what to do with them, those who are devalued. At what point are their sources of sustenance reduced, or their sources of life maintenance removed, or maybe outright termination is required? Since the age, post natally, is not the issue, then how should the older ones be terminated? Or should they be sequestered in encampments? Perhaps some value might be extracted in terms of labor? And when they no longer can perform that, then extinguish them?

    These issues will be decided by the ethicists, of course.

  26. on 17 Mar 2012 at 2:56 pm 26.Anonymous said …

    Apparently, Stan seems incapable of understanding that an atheist is someone who rejects the claim that gods exist.

    How this idiot gets from that position to the dribble and nonsense above can only be clear to someone with a cognitive defect.

  27. on 17 Mar 2012 at 3:28 pm 27.Anonymous said …

    By the way, Stan, why are you so angry that you keep posting these inflammatory screeds? None is this is going to provide proof of any god, but it does provide an insight into your destructive anger and bitterness.

  28. on 17 Mar 2012 at 3:46 pm 28.A said …

    40ya,

    Some great work in that post. The self-righteous atheists like Dawkins (who refers to himself as an ethicist)like to tell the rest of us what is moral.

    Careful 40ya, anony-mouse has classified you as cognitively impaired so they may be looking to exterminate you. I think he is frustrated at you speaking above his head.

  29. on 17 Mar 2012 at 3:59 pm 29.Anonymous said …

    Thanks Hor for a wonderful example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. Plus, of course, your confirmation of a persecution complex that being another sign of a delusional personality.

    You and 40Y-addlebrain perfectly describe the effect in action. Wiki’ puts it quite well: “The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which the unskilled suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.”

    Now, where’s the evidence for these imaginary gods of yours?.. cue Curmudgeon, Boz, or Ben, to dispense some more red herrings and parroting of arguments.

  30. on 17 Mar 2012 at 4:27 pm 30.Lou (DFW) said …

    28.A said …

    “The self-righteous atheists like Dawkins (who refers to himself as an ethicist)like to tell the rest of us what is moral.”

    Really? But xtians, and theists in general, don’t? Hilarious stuff.

    Let’s assume that Dawkins does that. How does that provide evidence for your imaginary god? Can you ever defend your creed without lying about atheists?

  31. on 17 Mar 2012 at 4:45 pm 31.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Speaking of war, here’s the result of Christian ethics – particularly those based on the 10 commandments – in action.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

    The Lord’s Resistance Army (also Lord’s Resistance Movement or Lakwena Part Two) is a militant group that was formed in 1987 in the Acholi ethnic region of Northern Uganda. Initially, the LRA was an outgrowth and continuation of the larger armed resistance movement waged by some of the Acholi people against a central Ugandan government which they felt marginalized them at the expense of Southern Ugandan ethnic groups, such as the Baganda. The group operates in northern Uganda, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic.

    The LRA is accused of widespread human rights violations, including murder, abduction, mutilation, and forcing children to participate in hostilities. There have also been reports of cannibalism and child-sex slavery within the group.

    It is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Holy Spirit, which the group believes can represent itself in many manifestations. Ideologically, the group is a syncretic mix of of mysticism, Acholi nationalism, and Christianity, and claims to be establishing a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and local Acholi tradition.

    I wonder if Kony also has a “personal relationship” with his god, just like Matt and the other theists who post here.

  32. on 17 Mar 2012 at 5:48 pm 32.A said …

    “Dunning-Kruger effect”

    Anonymouse the first step to being helped is admittance. Studies have shown that sufferers like you can be helped with some tutoring. I’m willing to help you and keep reading 40ya posts. He can help your ineptness too. Chin up, you can reach your full potential.

    Here is your first step:

    http://www.forerunner.com/mandate/X0016_Overcoming_the_Myth_.html

  33. on 17 Mar 2012 at 6:25 pm 33.alex said …

    “Anonymouse the first step to being helped is admittance. Studies have shown that sufferers like you can be helped with some tutoring.”

    admittance that i don’t believe in hesus, zeus, raeus, buddaeus, amadeus? which one, moron? more links? how how some proof? quit the red salmon, tuna, whatever. freakin moron. leave the kids alone.

  34. on 17 Mar 2012 at 9:02 pm 34.ReligionIsStupid said …

    I wonder how “A” thinks he is helping when he is so negative? If he really wanted to help he’d post proof of this god of his. Instead, it’s playground taunts and red herrings.

    So, again, “A”, offer up this proof that this god of yours actually exists. Your proof, not some cut and paste stuff or a link to a silly article.

    By the way, “A”, what do you think to Kony’s antics? He claims to be in contact with his god, your god I think. Is he lying? Is his god a different god? Is it the same god?

    How are we non-believers supposed to react when so many of you claim such different aspects of the same deity and he, apparently, doesn’t care to correct anyone? For a supposedly-loving god, he certainly doesn’t seem to mind when people kill and rape in his name. In fact, his non-interference is indistinguishable from non-existence.

  35. on 17 Mar 2012 at 9:13 pm 35.Anonymous said …

    I Decided To Consume Only Conservative News Sources For A Week, Here’s What I Learned

  36. on 17 Mar 2012 at 9:22 pm 36.alex said …

    “For a supposedly-loving god, he certainly doesn’t seem to mind when people kill and rape in his name”

    …because theists are cowards, they pick and choose dey battles. they pick on effeminate homosexuals to beat up, defenseless little boys to molest and they pass laws and policies against the ineffective women electorate. even for the ones that don’t do it, they wink, wink and pray to god to forgive the perps. fucking excuses. if your version of god exist, i’m supposed to be impressed? bring on the brimstone.

    next. now, venus is another matter. i’ve seen pics.

  37. on 18 Mar 2012 at 12:16 am 37.Lou (DFW) said …

    32.A said …

    “Chin up, you can reach your full potential.”

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2190&cpage=2

    201.Xenon said …

    “Chin up Lou and DPK.”

  38. on 18 Mar 2012 at 12:40 am 38.DPK said …

    32A… thanks for the link. Nothing there other than standard christian pandering and banalities, but I was struck by this passage, which says more about the appeal of theism to the weak minded than I think you probably intended.

    “In the three years of Christian belief, my view of life and the world has been fundamentally changed. As I look up at the sky in the dark peacefulness, I feel that I have finally found my direction. GONE ARE MY FEARS ABOUT DEATH. While still facing many difficulties in my life, I feel deeply in my soul that I am moving toward a promising land, which is difficult to express. I know that my limited life has been linked with eternity. Jesus Christ is my own personal God.”

    The opiate of the people, indeed.

  39. on 18 Mar 2012 at 1:38 am 39.alex said …

    “GONE ARE MY FEARS ABOUT DEATH”

    the dude’s a coward. everybody knows too damn well that it’s very possible that death is final. ain’t no damn reincarnation.. sheeat!

    you all know who you are. reading this while waiting for the porn to download on your other tab.

  40. on 18 Mar 2012 at 3:16 pm 40.41Year Atheist said …

    I always, always get tickled when people (theists) try to assert that no one can be an actual moral authority.
    Doctors are medical authorities.
    Aircraft engineers are aviation authorities.
    Historians are history authorities.
    Ninjas are assassination authorities.
    Lawyers are law authorities.
    Economists are economics authorities
    Nutritionists are nutrition authorities.
    Scientists are science authorities (in their fields).
    Politicians are pandering authorities.
    Theists are making-shit-up authorities.
    And… wait for it…
    Moral philosophers are… moral authorities.

    Thankfully for everyone though (sarcasm mark), religion has declared it to be arrogant and blasphemous to assert that anyone is a moral authority except God, who never speaks and thus, de facto, the clergy become the moral authorities despite that lack of credentials 40yA was talking about.

    On theology island, you don’t actually need to think about moral questions, then, to become a moral authority, you only have to read these Bronze Age books and the exegesis laid on top of them by centuries of agendist, mostly ignorant asshats.

  41. on 18 Mar 2012 at 4:38 pm 41.ReligionIsStupid said …

    At first glance I was puzzled by post 40 not following S’ usual pattern of logical fallacy or false assumption, word salad, erroneous conclusion. Then I did my maths.

    Well played sir!

  42. on 18 Mar 2012 at 5:53 pm 42.A said …

    “Moral philosophers are… moral authorities.”

    Why and which ones?

  43. on 18 Mar 2012 at 6:06 pm 43.Boz said …

    Then you have atheist who are authorities on the belief in nothing!

    Well played A, me thinks the 40ya wnannabe will never bow to moral authority of Alvin Plantiga, Albert Scheitwer or Søren Kierkegaard.

    But since wannabe made the statement, maybe he will renounce his belief in nothingness. Let us wait and see what utters from his keyboard next.

    What is even funnier is Stupid congratulates wannabe. ha ha

  44. on 18 Mar 2012 at 7:33 pm 44.Biff said …

    “Not only would the bill grant employers the right to pry into a woman’s (and only a woman’s) medical history”

    As we sit back and let the entire US government do the same to all of us. Remember liberals, you chief enemy, the GOP will be back in power again one day.

    To the A comment, what makes someone a moral authority? Does one go to Philosophy U and became a moral authority?

  45. on 18 Mar 2012 at 7:49 pm 45.Lou (DFW) said …

    43.Boz said …

    “Then you have atheist who are authorities on the belief in nothing!”

    And don’t forget that people who don’t believe in Bigfoot are authorities in belief in no Bigfoot.

  46. on 18 Mar 2012 at 7:53 pm 46.Lou (DFW) said …

    44.Biff said …

    “To the A comment, what makes someone a moral authority? Does one go to Philosophy U and became a moral authority?”

    What difference does it make? It’s no more relevant than where theists get their moral authority.

    What’s relevant is that you NEVER, EVER provide evidence of your imaginary god, but instead babble on and on in meaningless discussions in order to avoid admitting that you have no evidence for your imaginary god.

  47. on 18 Mar 2012 at 7:56 pm 47.Lou (DFW) said …

    43.Boz said …

    “But since wannabe made the statement, maybe he will renounce his belief in nothingness.”

    And maybe he will also renounce his belief in non-belief in leprechauns.

    “Let us wait and see what utters from his keyboard next.”

    But we know we will NEVER, EVER have to wait and see if any evidence for your imaginary god “utters” from you keyboard, will we?

  48. on 18 Mar 2012 at 8:09 pm 48.A said …

    “Does one go to Philosophy U and became a moral authority?”

    I don’t know Beff, but I don’t think 41 (DPK) will be revealing which moral philosophers to acknowledge as our authority and why we should yield to them.

  49. on 18 Mar 2012 at 8:21 pm 49.Lou (DFW) said …

    48.A said …

    “I don’t know Beff, but I don’t think 41 (DPK) will be revealing which moral philosophers to acknowledge as our authority and why we should yield to them.”

    Who cares what you “think” about whether or not he will reveal any such thing?

    What is KNOWN is that such discussions are irrelevant tangents that theists you use to divert attention from the FACT that they don’t have any evidence for their imaginary god. But this tactic is evidence that they don’t have the moral fortitude to be honest and admit it.

  50. on 19 Mar 2012 at 12:22 am 50.40 year Atheist said …

    The current Atheist meme (Atheists have these nasty little reproducing memes, where the rest of us have ideas which either pass or fail logic) is that they, Atheists, are good without God.

    Now if we are to analyze this concept, we can concede right away that they are without God. No problem there. The problem arises with the word “good”. Good, as it is used here, denotes a moral state. A moral state must be have a standard against which behavior is judged to be good or bad. The existence of the moral state has been accepted by the Atheists making this statement, who judge themselves to be on the “good” side of the differentiating morality equation.

    What they don’t say is exactly what the standard is which they use to judge themselves. There are several possibilities here. First, Atheism comes with no moral standard attached, so it can’t be an Atheist moral standard that they are using to judge themselves. So it must be one of the following:

    a) A moral standard which they have created for themselves.

    b) An existing moral standard, say Judeo-Christianity.

    c) A legal or judicial standard, which they mistake for a moral standard.

    d) They are self-deceived into thinking they are moral by definition: tautologically moral.

    e) They are lying about conforming to any standard.

    Let’s take a look at each of these possibilities.

    a) Atheism comes not with a moral standard but with a behavior standard called Consequentialism. This allows them to do whatever they wish, so long as they call the goal or end, “moral”. Included in this justification for any behavior whatsoever is the necessity to lie about reality as required. As Alinsky said, the only immoral tactic is the tactic not used. So Consequentialism is a natural standard for behavior in the absence of actual objective moral principles, one which allows and even requires lying as it is seen necessary to pursue one’s objectives.

    Even as Consequentialism is a natural system of behaviors, the Atheist also can create a set of objectives that suits himself, a set which he cannot fail to fit into, one which he calls “moral”. Thus he considers himself to be de facto “moral”, since his moral values are set to match his actual behaviors: he cannot be immoral unless he changes his behaviors. And if he does in fact change his behaviors, then his moral set also changes to match his new behaviors. The complete flexibility of the Atheist moral set renders it impossible to violate: Atheist morality is guaranteed under this system of perfectly flexible principles.

    b) Some Atheists co-opt existing moral systems, such as Judeo-Christianity. They then claim to be “more Christian” than Christians. Their failure here is a standard Atheist defect: they completely misunderstand Christian Theology and instead dredge up various straw man caricatures of Christians to compare themselves to.

    But the actual act of co-opting a moral system to which they intellectually object is an act of both theft and of intellectual dishonesty. Their intent is to attempt to pull off a fraud; it can’t be anything else under these circumstances.

    The fact here is that Christians can’t legitimately claim to be good even with God. To be human, for Christians, is to be in a perpetual struggle for the personal self-discipline required for moral behaviors: there is a persistent failure rate. This matches the empirical reality of human behavior, NOT “good without God”.

    Therefore, “Good without God”, under Judeo-Christian standards, is a lie. To steal a standard one does not believe in, then to lie about failing it is necessarily a false statement, one outside of the Judeo-Christian moral set.

    c) It appears that some Atheists think that because they have no record of felonious convictions, that they are moral. This is a category error. Not all moral behavior is covered by civil or criminal law. Consider the injunction against coveting, for example. Using legal behavior as a moral argument fails.

    d) Tautological morality is endemic and epidemic in the Atheo-Leftist community. It is described in item a), above.

    e) It is very likely that the Atheist claiming morality without God is merely lying, repeating a sound-bite, a bumper sticker piece of pseudo-thought. In fact, it is possible that many Atheists actually believe their own pseudo-thought-lie. Certainly they expect the rest of the world to believe it. This represents a loss of contact with rational reality in Atheists. And it also represents a lack of knowledge of actual moral concepts.

  51. on 19 Mar 2012 at 1:05 am 51.A said …

    40

    Your post is outstanding but I doubt blogmaster will post it with a separate thread. Too bad.

  52. on 19 Mar 2012 at 1:58 am 52.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Translation. Blah, blah, blah.

    Ironically, Stan runs a blog where he insists on approving every message before it’s posted thus ensuring he only allows what suits his narrow view and purpose. So, yes, thanks for the demonstration of a complete lack of self-awareness and a hypocritical guide as to who exactly it is that sets themselves up as the arbiter of “good”.

  53. on 19 Mar 2012 at 2:09 am 53.Lou (DFW) said …

    50.40 year Atheist said …

    “The current Atheist meme (Atheists have these nasty little reproducing memes, where the rest of us have ideas which either pass or fail logic) is that they, Atheists, are good without God.”

    EVERYBODY is either “good” or “bad” without god, even you.

    “This represents a loss of contact with rational reality in Atheists.”

    Actually, your rambling manifesto “represents a loss of contact with rational reality.”

  54. on 19 Mar 2012 at 2:24 am 54.BiffTannen said …

    44.Biff said …

    “To the A comment, what makes someone a moral authority? Does one go to Philosophy U and became a moral authority?”

    Um, yes, that’s pretty much exactly how that happens, except “Philosophy U” needs to be replaced by “accredited college or university, preferably one that offers doctoral degrees.” At “Phil U,” these will-be moral authorities spend a great deal of time studying difficult ethical questions and the moral systems that have been developed in the past, including ones mentioned here like Kierkegaard and even Platinga, and learn from their ideas, including refutations of their claims. They then go on to study difficult ethical and moral questions of their own, do a great deal of work in the field, and emerge as “moral authorities.”

    Your comment is embarrassing you. It’s very much like saying “…what makes someone a medical authority? Does one go to Medicine U and became a medical authority?” Do you have the slightest idea how educational systems work, what they represent, what they do, or what comes out of them? Or are you stuck in some anti-intellectualist rut thinking that they’re some kind of “liberal factories” or something?

    To whoever else foolishly taunted me with idiocy, you can’t renounce unbelief, you can only decide to start believing. Since you’ve given no evidence and all the evidence I’ve seen points to the contrary, I’ll stay with unbelief until such time as the evidence points me somewhere else.

  55. on 19 Mar 2012 at 2:41 am 55.41Year Atheist said …

    50.40 year Atheist said …

    “Atheism comes with no moral standard attached, so it can’t be an Atheist moral standard that they are using to judge themselves. So it must be one of the following:
    a) A moral standard which they have created for themselves.
    b) An existing moral standard, say Judeo-Christianity.
    c) A legal or judicial standard, which they mistake for a moral standard.
    d) They are self-deceived into thinking they are moral by definition: tautologically moral.
    e) They are lying about conforming to any standard.

    Let’s take a look at each of these possibilities.”

    Yes, let’s. Bear in mind, in the following, that when I say “we,” I mean “intelligent nonbelievers,” since I am not a moral philosopher specifically but rather a mathematician. I, though, like you can read. Additionally, hmm… no insults now, I can think.

    a) This is the right answer, but you’re not quite right about how it happens. The moral standard is created by the field of moral philosophy which will probably be replaced by moral science in the coming century. We examine consequences, yes, in a “consequentialist” way, and from the possible consequences we draw conclusions. From those conclusions, we attempt to decide what is and is not generally moral in any given context in terms of something we can actually measure and observe, though not particularly well yet: the well-being and suffering of sentient beings, notably people.

    This framework has evolutionary and cultural components to it–it’s not simply dreamed up by the atheists. Without a code to be meaninglessly bound to, however, we are each forced to think through various moral situations and determine what is and is not appropriate, taking whatever guidance we need to. In that, we develop true moral fiber as opposed to regurgitating morals by rote from a book (or set thereof) filled with questionable stuff among a few nice cherries. We all go through this process, to varying degrees, regardless of our beliefs or lack thereof. Even 100% psycho illiterate faith-heads do it to some degree.

    Even when this doesn’t happen, we actually absorb most of our moral notions from our family, friends, and other childhood authorities during our formative years. Some of us think about it and become “moral authorities,” and some of us don’t and are like everyone that doesn’t think about something–rather unqualified. Since I think about it, I’m qualified.

    No doubt, you’ll require elaboration on this. I’m not going to do it for you, since you’re clearly a big boy and can read for yourself.

    b) Judeo-Christianity does not provide an existing moral standard. It provides a hodgepodge of ideas of varying moral worth, and the people that look at that hodgepodge pick the morals from it that they agree with or feel like, for whatever reason, they should agree with. It’s Morality Lite in the same way that Miller Lite is with regard to beer. Of course, people with taste don’t consider Lite beer to be beer. Don’t steal that “lite” thing either. It’s copyrighted. To me.

    c) Wrong. Only unthinking people do this. Of course, this is exactly what the ancient Jews did with their Deutero-Levitical Laws. Oops, that’s a strike against yous guys.

    d) You wish we were so silly as to define ourselves as moral. We did the work; we know why we’re moral, and it’s mostly as a result of dealing with other people’s ideas on the matter while applying them with our own sense and experience.

    e) You’ve always got to accuse of us lying when you can’t get your head around something, right? Fits in with your tradition of heretic-hunting.

    Sweet self-debasement with your nonsense, though. It’s like you’re pre-putting yourself in your place.

  56. on 19 Mar 2012 at 2:55 am 56.BiffTannen said …

    Addendum: Previously (#54) I said: “To whoever else foolishly taunted me with idiocy, you can’t renounce unbelief, you can only decide to start believing.”

    This, strictly speaking, isn’t correct. We cannot decide to start believing something. We believe what we think is true. For those of us who have decided to follow evidence, believing in God is impossible until we think his existence is true, which requires evidence, which doesn’t exist. Don’t get all giddy like I was implying that we can “choose to believe” if we want. That’s crap, and we all know it.

    I suppose we could choose to set aside our standards for evidence, maybe. That’s a harder question. If we concede that we could choose that (which would be a stupid choice), then MAYBE we could believe on what there is. For most of us that have thought about it, though, it’s too late. There’s no going back to crazytown with you guys.

  57. on 19 Mar 2012 at 2:57 am 57.Anonymous said …

    BiffTannen, be aware that A, Biff, Boz, Ben and others are sock-puppet accounts pretending to be different posters.

  58. on 19 Mar 2012 at 2:58 am 58.41Year Atheist said …

    50.40 year Atheist said …

    “It is very likely that the Atheist claiming morality without God is merely lying, repeating a sound-bite, a bumper sticker piece of pseudo-thought.”

    Hmm… like “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.”?

    Oh wait, sorry, the morons that put bumper stickers like that on their car don’t know the proper use of a semicolon and thus employ comma splices instead. Pardon the misquote.

  59. on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:53 pm 59.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Do you not realize that God is …

    Our ability to form a collective intelligence and reference it extrapolate procedures of coexisting in harmony.

    Jesus was the embodiment of morals and ethics.

    Therefore, a perfectly moral and ethical creature had to manifest in a Human body for us to understand morals and ethics clearly.

    We are incapable of being moral and ethical at all times, therefore we cause problems in our relationships, and therefore in each others lives.

    We don’t want to cause these problems, but we can’t help it.

    If you are trying to get something you want, you have to be motivated

    We can’t always motivate ourself to do the right thing

    Thus, we need Christ to motivate to think about others and not ourself.

  60. on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:55 pm 60.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    His sacrifice tells us its Ok your not perfect, you’ll get their.

    Whereas Atheism tells us that perfection in your relationships and emotional life can be obtained through science and human reasoning.

  61. on 23 Mar 2012 at 8:58 pm 61.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    Which is like saying you can use an italian dictionary to interpret the english language

  62. on 23 Mar 2012 at 9:54 pm 62.Godless Monkey said …

    No doubt about it — you are batshit crazy. I don’t know about other non-theists (and with you I use the term “non-theist” as reading the word “atheist” seems to damage your ability to think clearly) but I know I am not perfect and perhaps, not surprisingly enough, I don’t expect perfection from others. You, on the other hand, are delusional, play the redemption card whenever you’re an asshole to others, then feel “redeemed.” Me, I take accountability for my actions and just try to — you’re gonna love this one — do unto others… BTW, buddha got the jump on Jesus on that one.

  63. on 23 Mar 2012 at 10:47 pm 63.Lou (DFW) said …

    60.It is Painful to Be Human said …

    “His sacrifice tells us its Ok your not perfect, you’ll get their.”

    Is English your native language?

  64. on 23 Mar 2012 at 11:47 pm 64.Godless Monkey said …

    And Painful To Be Human also believes that one day he’ll be perfect because a failed apocolyptic prophet s Sounds like the same crap Charlie Manson used to feed to his cult members.

  65. on 23 Mar 2012 at 11:49 pm 65.Godless Monkey said …

    Let me fix that last post…because a failed apocolyptic prophet (jesus) told him so.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply