April 7, 2011

April Thunderfool


I wanted to wait a few days as to not confuse people of this post being a joke in of itself. This is a serious matter that needs to be exposed and addressed. Our friend Larry Murphy points out the blindness (blinders) that the Atheists so often have.

Atheists are seeking to find justifications for their rebellion towards Christians and God. Its as simple as that. The argument has been made over and over as Atheists are anti-Christian, its not just all religions. Certainly not Buddhism and Taoism since they're atheistic in themselves.

I just want to make the point how irrational Atheists are sometimes in feeling that we are a real threat to their way of living, as the New Science article, 'Religion is irrational, but so is atheism', pointed out. (If you do not wish to sign up to read the full article, HERE it is)

Everyone should be aware of, and understand, that most of the Atheists here have a true moral opposition to Christianity as we continually point out. Hopefully, some are catching on to the fact that Atheists are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing Atheist's contempt toward God.

The more accurate battle for the Atheist here, is an internal one. We should be grateful that the internal dialog is still active in some. There is still hope in them. When that dialog dies out, and they settle in on the cult of science (even if it doesn't address important questions like purpose) they then drink the kool-aid of their own religion of modern secularism. All is then, lost. Most just go one step further and wish harm, or place their sites on, the messenger also. We're the problem in their eyes. If eradicated, all laws would be 'secularized' and all can act as if there is no accountability, but to self. That is just not the case. If we do anything at all, we are here to remind you of that point.

"They have now surrounded our steps; they set their eyes to cast us to the ground." ~

44 comments:

  1. Dan,
    I'm not anti-Christian nor anti-all religions

    I'm anti- genocide, bigotry, ingnorence, indoctoration, eliteism, facism, intolerence, hate, scaremongering, infant genotial mutilation, etc. etc.

    It just so happens that religion including Christianity prostulate this type of shit.




    " If eradicated, all laws would be 'secularized' and all can act as if there is no accountability, but to self." Amen

    the D.A.N. thought blocker pray say it before bed, punish your childern if they don't do it too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan
    If eradicated, all laws would be 'secularized' and all can act as if there is no accountability, but to self. That is just not the case. If we do anything at all, we are here to remind you of that point.
    Is it my imagination or is Dan getting this shit from other apologists? Where does secularism or atheism say that it's about no accountability?

    We acknowledge accountability, it's just to each other, the authorities, our parents when we're kids, etc, just not some imaginary god.

    ReplyDelete
  3. D.A.N. said...

    Atheists are seeking to find justifications for their rebellion towards Christians and God.

    I need no justification as I'm not in rebellion. The argument you make has been refuted over and over, atheists aren't anti-Christian, we're not 'anti-' any religion, we simply don't believe their claims.

    I certainly don't see you as any threat to my way of living although I guess Americans may see your brand of vocal extremism as something of a threat to theirs.

    If eradicated, all laws would be 'secularized' and all can act as if there is no accountability, but to self.

    What is this drivel? Do you not realise that the laws you are talking about are already secular? Separation of church and state requires that the laws enacted in your country don't care about religion except to protect each person as they exercise their right to practice or abstain from it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dan, I'm a pantheist - that doesn't make me anti-religious. It just means I don't consider god to be the mythical (yet remarkably human) being dreamed up by prescientific nomadic herders, nor do I consider the sacred to be contained by any scriptures. It also means I'm quite amused at the attempts by you and other Christians to claim that you're not religious.

    I also think you're wrong, and I can bring observable, experiential evidence to the table to support my assessment. Can you?

    ReplyDelete
  5. DD,

    >>I also think you're wrong, and I can bring observable, experiential evidence to the table to support my assessment.

    Do you mean like macro-evolution and multiverses (The foundations for an atheistic worldview)? Sure you can.

    >>Can you?

    As much as God allows, which is plenty. See the prior debate post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What is this drivel?

    Drivel is what Dan does best

    ReplyDelete
  7. Concerning evidence of god, Dan resorts to not offering anything but assertions and babble like this.

    Dan said, "As much as God allows, which is plenty. See the prior debate post."

    So Dan is the fact that your favorite book shows your god telling man to kill innocent children in a violent act of war what you call evidence? The fact that your response to that is that if its the work of god its good and righteous, is very telling.

    Keep up the good work.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  8. D.A.N. said, quoting DD:

    >>I also think you're wrong, and I can bring observable, experiential evidence to the table to support my assessment.


    Do you mean like macro-evolution and multiverses (The foundations for an atheistic worldview)? Sure you can.
    I have no idea nor care about multiverses, but for macroevolution, I know damned well I've given you this site before.

    All Dan has to do is do some reading of his own, but the only thing he seems to read is apologitic bullshit.

    We on the other hand, are stuck reading both since we at least want to examine the other side before commenting on it as opposed to making up strawmen.

    And I'm not sure if you'd really consider them the "foundations" for an atheistic worldview. Wasn't atheism in existence (though in the minority) before the theory of evolution became well known?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh yeah, Dan? You may want to read this where Thunderfoot posted that video:

    Is she a Poe (basically a satirical 'Christian'). I think so, but that the whole point of the Poe, its impossible to tell. If all I had seen of Pat Roberson and Jerry Falwell was their post 9/11 interview (as shown in this video), I would have called them Poes too, and they are some of the most powerful and respected religious figures in the US (well Falwells dead, but you know what I mean).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gimi,

    >>So Dan is the fact that your favorite book shows your god telling man to kill innocent children in a violent act of war what you call evidence?

    The Bible a historical narrative so the things in the Bible are what happened.

    But you're holding me to the standard of the Bible but feel you are not to be held by that same standard. You're argument is fallacious Atomic Gimi.

    >>The fact that your response to that is that if its the work of god its good and righteous, is very telling.

    I sure hope so. Its telling that morality is objective, not subjective like your atheistic worldview. IF, big IF, "good" is subjective then you cannot say that God is not good. Yet again, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Reynold,

    >>I have no idea nor care about multiverses, but for macroevolution, I know damned well I've given you this site before.

    Does science change? Are the same conclusions the same as even 100, 50, 20 years ago? Could they be wrong? If you are offing "proof" for evolution you misunderstand the basic tenets of science. Please try again.

    >>All Dan has to do is do some reading of his own, but the only thing he seems to read is apologitic bullshit.

    Said the pot to the kettle. :7)

    >>Wasn't atheism in existence (though in the minority) before the theory of evolution became well known?

    Sure was, Atheism is a Biblical times thingy. Its even more consistent then science has been about its conclusions. Keep this little snippet in mind,

    Hell will have mostly Atheists, Heaven will have a great deal of scientists but NO Atheists

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dan
    Does science change? Are the same conclusions the same as even 100, 50, 20 years ago?
    Would you rather that something never change, even if the evidence showed that it should??

    Could they be wrong? If you are offing "proof" for evolution you misunderstand the basic tenets of science. Please try again.
    I'm offering evidences of evolution. That was in the title of the very article I linked to, Dan! Here, let me help you:
    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

    How likely that it's true is dependent on how well the evidence stand up over time, has explanatory power, and can make useful predictions. Evolution theory has had over 150 years to be disproven, yet so far it's only been confirmed over and over again, thus making it less likely that it's wrong.

    That was the point of the entire article which Dan of course never bothered to even read.

    So, are you saying that if a scientific idea can change over time because of new evidence we should never accept it in the first place?

    It's you who has no clue about science Dan.

    Dan then goes on to ignore the fact that I've stated that I've read apologetic work, and just throws my accusation back at me. Nice. I've read McDowell, Gish, Sarfati's shit, various AIG articles, etc. How else would I be able to tell what they're saying?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Reynold,

    >>Oh yeah, Dan? You may want to read this where Thunderfoot posted that video:

    Oh yeah, Reynold. Did you realize he added that "update" AFTER the video was posted to save face. Nice try though. I am not fooled.

    ReplyDelete
  14. BTW all, speaking of evolution, "People do Not Even Believe Evolution is Real!". They're not fooled either.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gimi,

    I should of answered your response better.

    >>>>So Dan is the fact that your favorite book shows your god telling man to kill innocent children in a violent act of war what you call evidence?

    Asserting that the Bible teaches everything we need to know about God, therefore "God telling man to kill innocent children in a violent act of war" teaches everything we need to know about God is called the Fallacy of Division. Please try again.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Reynold,

    >>How else would I be able to tell what they're saying?

    Thanks for proving my entire point of this post here, Its the ol "keep your friends close and your enemies closer", thingy. Thanks for the admission.

    ReplyDelete
  17. D.A.N. said, quoting me:

    Reynold,

    >>How else would I be able to tell what they're saying?


    Thanks for proving my entire point of this post here, Its the ol "keep your friends close and your enemies closer", thingy. Thanks for the admission.
    Huh? Admission of what? That I read the stuff put out by your side after you accuse me of not doing so?

    Huh?

    ReplyDelete
  18. D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    >>Oh yeah, Dan? You may want to read this where Thunderfoot posted that video:


    Oh yeah, Reynold. Did you realize he added that "update" AFTER the video was posted to save face. Nice try though. I am not fooled.
    The only one fooling you is you, Dan.

    Do you have the screenshot that backs you up? From what I've seen, he's always had that comment up there.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcikNCsilHk

    His entire bloody point was to let others decide if she was a poe or not, because he suspected in the first place that she was. Nice and xian of her though, to use a tragedy to fucking try and be a poe on someone.

    He suspected this because so many of you evangelical twits say shit like that for real. Remember Swaggert and Robertson after Sept 11, 2001?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Reynold,

    >>He suspected this because so many of you evangelical twits say shit like that for real.

    Oh you are going to just love (read hate) the next post. In 3,2,1

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wow that guy was a tool. He said in the video and in the comment that she could have been a Poe. That's the point of Poe's Law, you can't be certain!

    Besides, she only came out as a troll after being harrassed by the internet. So it's not like you could guarentee that she wasn't lying then to stop the harassment.

    ReplyDelete
  21. >>I also think you're wrong, and I can bring observable, experiential evidence to the table to support my assessment.

    Do you mean like macro-evolution and multiverses (The foundations for an atheistic worldview)? Sure you can.


    First of all, actual biologists draw no distinction between macro and micro evolution. The processes of each are the same. Creationists invented the distinction so they wouldn't look even more foolish than they already do by denying the often-observed fact of changes in gene frequencies between generations of a population.

    Second, the jury is still out on the multiverse. It might be that our universe is one of many, or it might be that it is one of many possible configurations that just happened to eventually produce intelligent life, or it might be that it just is the way it is, because the nature of matter and energy mean it couldn't have been otherwise.

    And the foundation of atheism is seeing no need to believe in a god. Go read up on that.

    >>Can you?

    As much as God allows, which is plenty. See the prior debate post.


    You mean the tired and oft-debunked baseless arguments presented by Craig? Not even a nice try. And Craig is an evidentialist, so why are you even bothering to listen to him?

    ReplyDelete
  22. While I do wonder at Bathtub saying that Thunderfoot was a tool, I agree with the rest of what his comment said:

    You can't tell, that's the point of Poe's Law.

    I notice that you didn't say anything Dan, that actually refutes what I said earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I wasn't referring to TF (though he can and has been a tool), he didn't make the video Dan linked to.

    ReplyDelete
  24. D.A.N;

    You say atheists personally attack christianity. I don't know about all the atheists in the world, but me - personally - I'm not out to get christians or any other religious people. What I’m against is prejudice/violence/genocide/intolerance/hate/indoctrination/bigotry/misleading/fundamentalism/dogmas/etc - what happens is that is exactly what you find in most religions of the world (that includes christianity; islamism; judaism; hinduism just for starters). What I am against is the fact that some religions ignore basic human rights and some religious people use their creed/god(s) as an excuse to perform terrible acts against their own kind.

    For example I'm not against wicca and budhism because they are not the kind of religion that preaches dogmas and force you to be someone you are not; they don’t do anything that goes against human rights and they are peaceful/tolerant religions. I’ve never seen wiccans declaring war over some society because they are not wiccans or a buddhist monks stoning people to death because those people don’t believe in Buddha. I’ve never seen wiccans or buddhists protesting against gay civil unions or burning the bible or the Koran or the Torah for no reason whatsoever or even threatening people to eternal damnation in hell because – in their minds – those people are disobeying their gods’ will/laws.

    I’m not angry at any gods because I don’t believe in them. They have no influence over my life. I have nothing against religious people (as long as they don’t do something really bad over their religion). If they chose to have a religion, fine…I respect that. All I ask in return is to respect the fact I’m an atheist (even if they don’t agree with it) – and please - don’t try to convert me. Is that so difficult to do?

    Following your train of thought D.A.N: since you don’t believe in Kali, TupĆ£; Thor, Odin, Aphrodite; Poseidon; Ra; Anubis, Buddha; Mitra; Zeus; Ninurta; Utu; Tsovinar ; Ataguchu; Icovellauna; Svarog; Susanoo-no-Mikoto; Huitzilopochtli; Yaluk; Gluskab ; Orunmila; Chijoragi; Iemanja; etc; it means you are angry and revolting at them and refuse to accept on living by their rules; therefore you will be punished for all the eternity.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dan, ,"But you're holding me to the standard of the Bible...."

    No I'm holding you to a better standard than that Dan. The standard I'm using considers ordering men to go into a city to commit genocide and giving exact detail to kill all the innocent women and children is not good and righteous. According to you it is and that is the standard of your bible and your opinion of god.

    " but feel you are not to be held by that same standard."

    I hope not, I try to hold myself to a higher standard than that. If you think the violent and cruel acts from the bible, such as killing of innocent Canaanite children, is morally acceptable, I think you need to reanalyze the standards you speak so highly of.

    "Its telling that morality is objective, not subjective like your atheistic worldview."

    No Dan, Its telling that your world view and moral view are both contradictory. You claim morals are absolute yet you say man killing innocent children is immoral unless they are ordered by god to do so. Which is it Dan? If its immoral, than god committed an immoral act doing that amongst many other things shown in the bible. If your feel god committed a good and righteous act concerning the killing of the innocent Canaanite children than that means that killing children is not absolutely immoral and at times is a good thing.

    Like I said Dan, your world view is so full of contraindications and conflict. I can't understand how you can think straight. I think what it is is that you don't think, you just blindly follow. You refute and contradict your own claims so regularly Your entire blog in a testament to that fact.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dan mumbles a second reply to me about the bible and Fallacy of Division.

    Dan, you seem to like to post up some fallacy you have no understanding of about a point you totally missed, and think you did something good.

    Let me set you straight. My point was:

    You see the bible as evidence of your god. You think morals are absolute per your god and the bible. You think those said morals are not followed by our god but instead are part of your god. You think that according to your gods word and morals, killing innocent children is wrong. Your bible shows your god ordering man to kill everyone including the innocent women and children in a violent act of genocide. You think the killing of children by your god was a good and righteous thing.

    Do you see the problem here Dan? You claim the universal law, absolute law and morals are evidence for your god, but if morals are absolute than killing innocent children can not be good and bad at the same time Dan. On many different occasions on this blog you have said it was good and bad according to your bible. If you think it is both good and bad than your standard is not absolute or objective, which you claimed was your presup evidence that your god exists.

    Good job Dan! Good Job!

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  27. D.A.N. said...

    Its telling that morality is objective, not subjective like your atheistic worldview. IF, big IF, "good" is subjective then you cannot say that God is not good. Yet again, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.

    It's telling that Dan doesn't understand what 'objective' actually means. If he did he would be orced to concede that he can't account for it from within his inherently subjective Christian worldview. The atheist has no such problem.

    To quote Wes Morriston on divine command theory:

    "Either God has good reasons for his commands or he does not. If he does, then those reasons (and not God’s commands) are the ultimate ground of moral obligation. If he does not have good reasons, then his commands are completely arbitrary and may be disregarded. Either way, the divine command theory is false."

    Your claim that morality requires your God is patently false, Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gimi,

    >>You claim morals are absolute yet you say man killing innocent children is immoral unless they are ordered by god to do so. Which is it Dan?

    The power of God is more then ours. By shedding innocent blood, men are getting rid of children. An order from God, is God calling His children home.

    You claim morals are subjective, you say man killing innocent children is immoral unless they are ordered by the mother to do so, like abortions.

    So tell me, how do you KNOW that killing innocent children, ordered by God, is immoral Atomic? If morality is indeed subjective, you have no argument. If objective your argument quickly breaks down. Wheeeee.

    ReplyDelete
  29. In reference to killing of the innocent Canaanite children Dan said, "The power of God is more then ours. By shedding innocent blood, men are getting rid of children. An order from God, is God calling His children home."

    So taking away an innocent child's right to life and the pursuit of happiness is OK with you. The fact that you omnipotent god didn't do it in a gentle and manor, but instead decided to have man do it through acts of violence, which can only have been a horrific experience for the children too, is OK with you too. So your morals are absolute, for everyone except your god and those men he so orders to contradict those absolute morals.

    I like how you try to pad your god having man brutally murder children with phrases like "calling His children home." but talk about man doing anything that goes against your beliefs in much more violent lines like "shedding innocent blood, men are getting rid of children." Even if we agree that abortion is wrong Dan, no matter how you dice it, slaughtering children in an act of war is still a more violent act than an abortion. Even if god told them to do it.

    Good Work Dan. You scored in your own goal again.

    Dan said,”If morality is indeed subjective, you have no argument.”

    Assertions mean nothing Dan. You still have not supported that claim nor do you understand the standards I live by to make a comment about them, though I have explained them to you over and over.

    How or why I have certain moral standards is irrelevant anyway Dan. I’m just holding up your own words, your own moral standard, and claims of morals being absolute. Even if my own standards are in some way wrong or poor standards to live by, it doesn’t change the fact that you keep shooting yourself in your own foot, and only reveal that you live by subjective standards too.

    You see the vicious & violent act of murdering of innocent children for no other reason than your god said to do it as it as good and righteous. It’s thinking like this that religions justify in modern times that scares me.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  30. D.A.N,

    >> By shedding innocent blood, men are getting rid of children. An order from God, is God calling His children home.

    So, if god wanted his children to be with him and your god is so merciful, why he wanted those innocent children to be killed in such a horrific and cruel way? Why he asked men to do this dirt job for him? If you god is so benevolent/merciful he would do it the task himself preventing men from breaking the “Thou shall not kill” commandment and he would give this children a peaceful death (like making them sleep to never wake up again, for example). But no…he wanted men to kill those children in the bloodiest way someone can think of because the god you blindly follow and believe is a bloodthirsty psychopath.

    >>You claim morals are subjective, you say man killing innocent children is immoral unless they are ordered by the mother to do so, like abortions.

    D.A.N, stepping out a little in the morality discussion (because abortion is a touchy subject when it’s about morality). The woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body. There are certain circumstances where abortion – if not the only way out – at least is the wisest one.
    If a woman is pregnant of a fetus who has no brain and won’t live more than a few hours, so why keep it? If the woman has a high risk pregnancy, the wisest decision is – unfortunately – to abort the fetus. If a woman who had been through the trauma of being raped and suddenly finds out she’s pregnant of the man who raped her forcing her to go through the entire pregnancy – considering the case she doesn’t want to – it’s terrible and even more traumatic.

    There are cases that some women are not ready to be a mother yet (I’m not here to judge them), so they decide to terminate the pregnancy. I prefer that those women abort an embryo or a fetus that can’t feel no pain (physically, psychologically and emotionally) than – after giving birth to a baby – decide to put them in garbage bag and throw them in the lake to drown; in the garbage truck to have their bones crushed or abandon them in the street so they can die out of cold.

    There was one case in my country where a 9 year old girl got pregnant of her own stepfather (who raped her constantly since she was 6 years old). The doctors told she had no condition – physical and emotionally – to be a mother. Her body wasn’t ready for that and she could die in the table. They told her mother the right thing to do was an abortion and her mother – to protect/save her daughter – agreed with it. The Catholic Church went ballistic against the doctors and the mother – threatening them with excommunication (oh the horror! <--- insert sarcasm here) – if they made the abortion. The Catholic Church didn’t care about the poor girl who went through a trauma of a sexual abuse and a pregnancy and yet they didn’t say a word condemning her stepfather for doing harm to her and do you know why? Because that bastard wanted the girl to carry on with the pregnancy!!! If that’s what you call christian and godly values/christian and godly morality, then I’m glad I’m not a christian and I’m even more glad I’m an atheist.

    Now, a question: if god told you to shed blood of innocent children saying that he wanted to take those children to live with him in heaven forever, would you do it?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mhich,

    >>So, if god wanted his children to be with him and your god is so merciful, why he wanted those innocent children to be killed in such a horrific and cruel way? Why he asked men to do this dirt job for him?

    Again, you as a criminal is attempting to judge God, the Judge. Maybe its to appreciate Him all the more. I should add 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 here.

    This brings me to 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that. I will trust Him until that wonderful day. You?

    >>The woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body.

    No true. Can a woman do heroin? That hypocrisy of this government is quite telling. Obviously the government feels that you DO NOT have rights to your own person. Certainly in relation to drugs. So that is not true.

    Oh and all of those "examples" of yours to commit murder all together represents less then probably less then 10% of all the cases out there. The real reason is a convenience to eradicate a perceived parasite. If you were honest with yourself, you would agree to that fact.

    >>The doctors told she had no condition – physical and emotionally – to be a mother.

    And yet nature ITSELF said that she was ready to have children. You don't give too much credit to nature. Its understandable. Even as horrible, tragic, and sad as that story is she could of delivered that baby and I would be more then willing to raise that child in a proper home. I must say though, I hate the evil that you promote and allow within your worldview. In a fallen world, this one, those tragic things happen and you chalk it up as being human and OK.

    >>if god told you to shed blood of innocent children saying that he wanted to take those children to live with him in heaven forever, would you do it?

    Certainly not! God would never want me to listen to some god. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. D.A.N,

    >> Again, you as a criminal is attempting to judge God, the Judge.
    If god is a judge then he is doing a lousy job. Your god commits acts that he condemns. How about that?

    >> Can a woman do heroin?

    First abortion and drug addiction – besides being a public health matter – are two different things. But, if a grown person decides – willingly – to use heroin or have an abortion – it’s his/her choice. But he or she will have to be mature and responsible to face the consequences (the real world ones; not facing eternity in a mythical place that you call hell)

    >> And yet nature ITSELF said that she was ready to have children. You don't give too much credit to nature. Its understandable. Even as horrible, tragic, and sad as that story is she could of delivered that baby and I would be more then willing to raise that child in a proper home. I must say though, I hate the evil that you promote and allow within your worldview. In a fallen world, this one, those tragic things happen and you chalk it up as being human and OK.

    First of all, there’s nothing natural about rape. Second: there’s nothing natural about a 9 year old girl being pregnant. Third: in the cases of rape/high risk pregnancy/not being ready to be a mother/a baby who won’t survive more than a few hours after being born/etc - in the case of an adult woman – it’s her choice to carry on with the pregnancy or to terminate the pregnancy. The government/religious groups/churches/pro life associations/etc; have nothing to do with it; it’s the woman personal’s choice.

    She couldn’t have delivered the baby. The doctors told her mother she and the baby would die with 100% of probability – if not during the pregnancy – then they would die in labor. Do you have any idea how much it hurts when a woman is giving birth? How much her hips and that hole in the vagina dilates so a baby can pass through? Imagine this in a 9 year old kid who’s body it’s not even physically ready to go through this process? If it was with you would you prefer to lose your daughter? Wouldn’t you prefer to save her life if given the opportunity to do so?

    In case you don’t know, our hips don’t get larger in puberty so we can have curves to look sexy. They get larger to be prepared to give birth. Since puberty begins to happen around 12, 13 years old and she was 9, so she would not take it. Even if it was made a C-section, because she would probably die before that.

    Besides, it’s not only the physical side that it’s worrying. The emotional/psychological side also matters. Imagine this: a girl goes through a horrible trauma of being raped by some man who supposed to her father and – as a result of constant sexual abuse – she sees herself pregnant. Can you imagine how traumatic that is? Forcing this girl (and all women who got pregnant of her rapist) to carry on an unwanted pregnancy – without considering what consequences this could bring to their emotional and psychological state – it’s cowardice and it’s irresponsible. It’s like punishing them for something that wasn’t their fault.

    The only thing here I’m promoting is the right of women to choose. Since you’re not a woman D.A.N, you don’t have a say in this one. You are a man meddling in woman’s business about things you have no clue about.

    >> Certainly not! God would never want me to listen to some god.
    Some god? Your god told Abraham to kill his own son as an offering; when Joshua – by your god’s orders – kills everyone he finds (including children and babies); god also sent 2 bears to kill 42 children because they made fun of Elijah; the list goes on and on…

    ReplyDelete
  34. >>So, if god wanted his children to be with him and your god is so merciful, why he wanted those innocent children to be killed in such a horrific and cruel way? Why he asked men to do this dirt job for him?

    Again, you as a criminal is attempting to judge God, the Judge. Maybe its to appreciate Him all the more.


    Because we all know the best way to make someone appreciate your love for them is to treat them violently. I'm sure many a wife-beater thinks that way too, Dan.


    This brings me to 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that. I will trust Him until that wonderful day. You?

    Sure I will, Dan, just like I'll be getting up really early on Easter Sunday to catch a glimpse of of the Easter Bunny, and leaving milk and cookies and maybe a glass of brandy out for Santa Clause on Christmas eve.

    ReplyDelete
  35. DD,

    >>Because we all know the best way to make someone appreciate your love for them is to treat them violently. I'm sure many a wife-beater thinks that way too, Dan.

    Don't be so fast to write that off. You do understand there is some truth to to that? Now, I am certainly not advocating it at all, ever, but some wives feel its their fault and stick around and actually have a certain attraction to the "bad boy" that beats them. They seek that kind of mate out even. My Dad saw a man beating his wife so my Dad stepped in and punched the guy out. The wife garbed a frying pan and started beating my Dad! So insert 'Stockholm syndrome' here to help that claim.

    Now, I am clueless as to the purpose of thing for God, and what He does, but maybe we are humbled in a 'Stockholm syndrome' kind of way to understand Him. Its the act to place ourselves in His position to sympathies with Him. Humanists, of course, call this a bad thing. But how do they know it is? Because of the fall, our arrogance gets in the way too much. Some people call it Karma and other things, but when we are arrogantly bad (like a child the gets spanked) we often get humbled ourselves. Same thing with bullies (who never gets spanked). They often see what the victim feels finally when they're stood up (read beat up) by their victims. By the way, that boy in the video that gets slammed (Richard Gale) he said he deserved what he got for being a bully and when asked if he would bully someone again now, he said "probably not". Sounds like he was 'humbled' to me.

    >>Sure I will,

    Let me clarify, when I said 'we', I meant the saved will have omniscience. I cannot say the same with the Atheists in Hell, as the Bible claims no such a thing. The saved will know.

    >>Dan, just like I'll be getting up really early on Easter Sunday to catch a glimpse of of the Easter Bunny, and leaving milk and cookies and maybe a glass of brandy out for Santa Clause on Christmas eve.

    Yes, we all understand that most Atheists have what is called, Santa Syndrome.

    Marvin's Law: "As a discussion on God grows longer, the possibility of some Atheist bringing up Santa approaches 1."

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Again with the empty attempt at criticism, Dan - you offer nothing to rebut my suggestion that belief in your god is as rational as belief in any other imaginary being.

    And you heard it here first, folks - Dan thinks that debasement, humiliation, subjugation and self-abnegation are the proper condition for humans to live in; that a state of psychological trauma is healthier than the alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  38. And don't forget, Dan, that bullying is often a result of the very feelings of helplessness and degradation that you're recommending we all adopt.

    Which also raises the question: what's your god's excuse for being a bully? Who made him feel inadequate? Surely not us little atheists who doubt his existence...

    ReplyDelete
  39. D.A.N; (I’m sorry if you received a lot of repetitive comments, the slow internet refused to load the page when I was posting the answer)

    Here is what happens in Stockholm syndrome:
    - Hostages who develop Stockholm syndrome often view the perpetrator as giving life by simply not taking it. In this sense, the captor becomes the person in control of the captive’s basic needs for survival and the victim’s life itself (since the captor – in this case, the abusive husband – pays for her food, clothes, health care, pays the bills, etc. he controls her life in way that he makes her think she’s nothing without him. That she will starve to death if he leaves her or something.)
    - The hostage endures isolation from other people and has only the captor’s perspective available. Perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world’s response to their actions from captives to keep them totally dependent. (she only knows her abusive husband’s point of view; basically she can’t think for herself; she doesn’t do anything without her husband’s permission.)
    - The hostage taker threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception of having the capability to do so. The captive judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor than to resist and face death. (Ex: “if you leave me, I’ll hunt you down wherever you are and beat you to death”. And he beats her up pretty bad to show he’s capable of that)
    - The captive sees the perpetrator as showing some degree of kindness. Kindness serves as the cornerstone of Stockholm syndrome; the condition will not develop unless the captor exhibits it in some form toward the hostage. However, captives often misinterpret a lack of abuse as kindness and may develop feelings of appreciation for this perceived benevolence. If the captor is purely evil and abusive, the hostage will respond with hatred. But, if perpetrators show some kindness, victims will submerge the anger they feel in response to the terror and concentrate on the captors’ “good side” to protect themselves. (Ex: the husband beats her and after that he gives roses, chocolates or some other gifts to show “how kind/good husband” he is. This makes the wife think that – despite all the beating – he loves her too much to the point of pleasing her with nice gifts, material comfort or simply not beating her up because he woke up in a good mood.)
    In the case of the abused wife beating up your father to protect her abusive husband happened because she saw your father as a threat. Besides, it’s not like the woman doesn’t leave the husband because “she likes bad boys” and yes because she fears for her life/her children’s life, she’s terrified of him but at the same time she feels like she depends on him for everything and – if, for example, your father ended up killing him or her husband went to jail – she would be lost and wouldn’t know what to do to survive.
    If you think – the relationship you have with god is a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome. You have no different point of view than god’s; you are so dependent on him that you can’t think for yourself/you do nothing without his permission; only god’s will matters; your god is always right – no matter how cruel/violent/abusive he is; he threatens you with eternal torture if you do something that he simply doesn’t like it but he makes you think – through some acts of kindness (like not striking you dead) that despite all the abuse – he loves and cares about you and that you are a nobody without him.

    >> Bullies usually come from abusive homes/environments. They are abused by those who supposed to take care of him/her and then when he/she goes to school he/she abuses those who are weaker than him/her. It’s a vicious cycle. Probably this bully will become an abusive person in the future. Unless something happens that breaks the cycle.
    Trust me, I know a lot of bullies and all of them come from abusive/broken homes.

    ReplyDelete
  40. DormantDragon Comments,” Because we all know the best way to make someone appreciate your love for them is to treat them violently. I'm sure many a wife-beater thinks that way too, Dan.”

    Dan response begins with, ” Don't be so fast to write that off. You do understand there is some truth to to that? Now, I am certainly not advocating it at all, ever…”

    That’s not true Dan, you advocate the violent acts your god has done as shown in the bible. The Canaanite children event is only one and you openly told us you think this act of your god is just, righteous and good. The only thing you do in an attempt to hide the contradiction to your absolute moral claims and how horrific of a thing it was, is you try to use flowery phrase like, “An order from God, is God calling His children home.” to describe it.

    The rest of your comment is a bunch of twisted logic and nonsense in an attempt to support your idea that it OK for god to do immoral and violent acts, that even conflict with the one you claim to live by.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dan
    Yes, we all understand that most Atheists have what is called, Santa Syndrome.

    Marvin's Law: "As a discussion on God grows longer, the possibility of some Atheist bringing up Santa approaches 1."

    How's about you link to all the posts where we brought up "Santa" so you can see just how full of shit that "law" of yours is?

    How about a real example of Marvin's Law?

    For example whenever we talk about religion, you keep bringing up Sye's presup crap by asking things like "how can you tell your senses/reasoning, etc are valid" instead of dealing with the points that we bring up?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Mhich:

         There are many choices that I think people should have the right to make for themselves. There are others that I think they should not. That is to say, there are some types of choices that I think the law should intervene in. Whenever someone conceals the action in question with a phrase like "right to choose," I think he has already identified that it properly belongs to the second category. That would explain why he is trying to conceal the act chosen. I also find it interesting that you use the "since you're not a woman" line. You might want to dispose of that one, unless you want to go back to a time when rape was considered "okay" because only men were considered to have the means to understand. Abortion is about what happens to the "fetus" which, though attached, is still a separate entity from the person choosing life or death.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Pvblivs;

    I agree with you that are choices people should have the right to make for themselves and abortion is one of them. But I don’t agree that law should intervene in abortion.
    In my opinion, abortion – no matter what the reasons the woman has to decide on terminate the pregnancy are – should be legalized. If the government can’t fight against it, well…the only way is to create laws that legalize abortion. By doing so, the woman is protected. She will have the best care, with doctors specialized in abortions, psychological help and all that.

    In the country I live abortions are only permitted in cases of rape and high-risk pregnancies, but even in those cases they need the approval of a judge. If the judge doesn’t approve it, the woman is forced to carry on with the pregnancy. If they perform the abortion they are sent to jail; it’s not fair to them.

    In other cases (like the woman not being ready to be a mother yet, for example) it’s illegal. In my opinion – as a woman – it’s unfair for the woman to be forced to carry on an unwanted pregnancy. When the government/or the family/or the boyfriend/whoever; do that it’s when the shit hits the fan. There are lot of illegal abortion clinics here (slaughterhouses it’s the proper name) because they have no trained personnel to perform the abortions, not too mention there’s no hygiene in the place; no special beds; the instruments are not sterilized correctly (if they are) and a lot of women – who doesn’t have where to go – turn to those places where they can have complications during or after the procedure (like infections, diseases; they can loose their entire reproductive organs – and the worst case scenario – die on the table).
    There are women – in desperation – buy in the black market a medicine called Cytotec (a medicine used for the treatment of ulcer which one of the side effects is causing abortion – it’s prohibited in my country) and take this medicine at home, when they bleed non-stop with massive pain. They almost die due to the huge blood loss.
    Other cases, some of those women carry on with the pregnancy, have the baby and put them on cardboard box or in a black plastic bag and throw the baby away in a garbage can, in a lagoon or river; or simple put them in the sidewalk and leave.
    There’s the consequences for the government of my country not legalizing abortions.

    Abortion it’s only about the woman’s choice. No one should meddle in it. It’s her body. When I say “it’s the woman’s matter alone” is because it is. If I have to chose between “killing” a fetus or an embryo that is not able yet to feel any pain and between killing a newborn baby, guess what I choose? If – one day – I see myself pregnant and I decide to do an abortion, I will. It’s my body, my right. Not the government's, not the law's, not my family's, not anybody else.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>