Toddler Starved, Stuffed in Suitcase for not Saying "Amen"

[Dev]

"A toddler whose remains were found inside a suitcase in Philadelphia
this spring was starved to death by members of a religious cult,
including his mother, in part because he refused to say 'amen' after
meals, police said."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4343113.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4343113

"Another unnamed informant told police that after Javon died,
Antoinette left the boy's body in a room for more than a week,
claiming 'God was going to raise Javon from the dead,' the documents
show."
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24167492-952,00.html

Poor little atheist. :(

[Trance Gemini]

Sick Freaks!

 

Poor little atheist. :( 

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown

Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown

[Walt]

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=21696

If you eat cheese, you're as bad as Hitler.

On Aug 12, 6:21 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> "A toddler whose remains were found inside a suitcase in Philadelphia
> this spring was starved to death by members of a religious cult,
> including his mother, in part because he refused to say 'amen' after

> meals, police said."http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4343113.shtml?...

[Dev]

Uh-huh. And most pedophiles and racists don't kill people, so it's
okay to encourage both.

> > Poor little atheist. :(- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[rappoccio]

Someday you'll learn that the cases are different:

Toddler dies because of religion. Fault lies with the religion.

Hitler likes cheese and is an aunicornist, but both are irrelevant
because neither contributed to his heinous acts. Never mind that
religion did, it's besides the point here.

I know it's hard for you to understand. But concentrate. Maybe you'll
learn something about logic.

[Drafterman]

According to your logic, as long as the people that did this gain some
happiness from it, it isn't bad and we're not allowed to criticize it.

And thinking that makes you a worthless piece of shit of a human
being.

On Aug 12, 6:44 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Walt]

Suppose a mother kills her kid for crapping in his pants (Í'm sure
it's happened). Would that be a reason to abolish potty training?

[Walt]

And again...

A pedophile, by definition, wants to rape children.
A racist, by definition, wants to harm people of a different race.
There is nothing about belief in God, in and of itself, that requires
or causes the believer to harm others.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Suppose a mother kills her kid for crapping in his pants (Í'm sure
it's happened).  Would that be a reason to abolish potty training?

No, but it's a reason to abolish child abuse.

[Walt]

But sometimes when parents are trying to potty train their kids, the
parents lose their temper, so potty training lends justification to
child abuse.

> Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown- Hide quoted text -

[watts]

I'll just use your definitions:

A pedophile wants to rape children. There is nothing about
pedophilia, in and of itself, that requires or causes the pedophile to
harm others.

A racist wants to harm people of a different race. There is nothing
about racism, in and of itself, that requires or causes the racist to
harm others.

A christian wants to harm itself and others. There is nothing about
christianity, in and of itself, that requires or causes the christian
to harm others.

Key word: wants. Key similarity: 'in and of itself, that requires or
causes ... harm [to] others.'

Now would you think that because the pedophile or racist or christian
might not actually harm anyone, that it's morally permissable to be
any of those things? or is it you ascertion that being one of those
things that could harm others does indeed lead them to harm others?
Or, do you think a christian doesn't want to harm others (knowingly or
unknowingly)?

If it's the latter, we have already shown many times the harm
chrisitianity decrees. The real problem is that no one can define
Christianity because there are so many different sects and takes on it
that it's hardly a unifying description. But for the most part, they
all seem to think everyone needs to be saved, and this irrational
reasoning is indeed desired by christians to have an effect on
everyone. Thus the harm presents itself and Chrisitian do indeed want
it on all.

[LL]

On Aug 12, 7:00 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And again...
>
> A pedophile, by definition, wants to rape children.
> A racist, by definition, wants to harm people of a different race.
> There is nothing about belief in God, in and of itself, that requires
> or causes the believer to harm others.

LL: But religious people do such things all the time in the name of
their religion. Remember that the people who bombed the WTC were all
religious and were doing it for their religion. The Inquisition and
the Crusades were done for religion. Whether you like it or not
religion drives a lot of horrible acts.

I like the bumper sticker that says: There is a REASON atheists don't
bomb buildings.

[Dag Yo]

Well said.

[Dev]

Well, good to know that Walt's bullshit is so transparent to everyone.
He's had the problems with his analogies explained to him already--
more than a few times. The "you can't prove theism inherently kills
people" argument is a sick joke because you can't prove that AIDS
"inherently" harms people--the point is it does, and it does more harm
than good by the most basic shared moral standards of "good".
Likewise, pedophilia is simply the desire to have sex with children
and racism is simply the belief that certain races are superior or
inferior (Walt tries to redefine these terms, but as watts points out,
even with his stupid redefinitions the point stands)--neither of these
mentalities are more "inherently" harmful than theism, they are simply
harmful, they do more harm than good, and anyone who perpetuates them
is partially responsible for their consequences. To apply different
standards to theism is to employ a double-standard, and the original
post of this thread is just one of a billion examples of what this
double-standard leads to.

So it's hard to believe Walt really thinks he's making any sense. He
would have at least tried a different strategy by now. His analogies
are obviously not intended to prove a point, but to distract from the
point, and since everyone is pretty much over him using them he's
largely just doing it to be annoying. But you've got to suspect an
ulterior motive. One is just that he's a trolling theist, which is
substantiated by a lot of what he has said in the past about the
importance of theism for morality (which, if he were really an
atheist, would be by his own terms an admission to immorality). The
other, of course, is that he has a sexual obsession with killing
children--which is also consistent with everything he's posted here.

[Walt]

Pedophilia generally is not a choice. Seems like the prevailing
scientific thinking is that pedophiles can't control the desire to
molest children, but I'm not an expert. I'll leave it to the experts
to determine which pedophiles belong in prison, which in an asylum,
and which, if any, can safely remain at large.

Racism is a choice to have the intent of harming a group of people.
If a person never advocates or acts upon their racist thinking, well
that's a one-hand-clapping kind of a thing, not really relevant to
much of anything.

There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in
conflict with Science or secular morality. For other Christians it's
not a black/white thing. Few Christians overtly reject Science or
secular morality. Rather, they use the Bible to "bend" them, to a
slight or ridiculous degree. For example, the Catholic Church, like
Gahndi, is anti-sex, This is not completely unjustifiable secularly.
Sex does have a strong tendency to cause people to objectify other
people. Non-religious people generally feel this is trumphed by the
suffering that is caused by excessive frustration of sexual impulses
that can be expressed benignly. Especially in the case of
homosexuals, who cannot have procreative sex, which is the only type
of sex Catholicism permits.

And intent does matter. Our legal system says a person is responsible
for caused harm if there was intent to do harm, or intent to be
reckless. The law recongnizes that many people are too dumb to
recongnize what is wrong or reckless for themselves. But it presumes
that even dumb people are aware when behavior is seen as bad by the
vast majority of people. So it's not appropriate to be so hostile
towards those who bend rationality without intent or understanding of
the danger. Unfortunately, there is no consensus against doing this.
As Jesus said, they know not what they do.

So don't hate on them, try to educate them. And don't tell them they
have to become atheists to be moral, because they don't

[Dev]

It doesn't matter what they "want" to do. (Many racists, by the way,
claim they don't want to harm other races. I don't think the KKK has
publicly said it wants to hurt black people in years.) That is
precisely irrelevant to the consequences of these beliefs. watts
already explained this to you, but it bears repeating--there is
nothing about racism that _requires_ hurting people, and there is
nothing about pedophilia that _requires_ raping children, so you have
absolutely no fucking point and I think you realize that. The
consequences of theism are what they are regardless of what you or
anybody else thinks they should be.

[Dev]

By Walt's logic, it's okay for him to kill children and screw their
corpses because nobody can prove he's "required" to do it.

[Dag Yo]

> There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in
> conflict with Science or secular morality.

Really? So the belief that a guy with non-functioning organs all over
his body (who is for all intents and purposes; dead) can walk around
like nothing happen and let people stick their dirty fingers in his
wounds, does not in any
way, conflict with what medical science would have us believe about
the
necessity of healthy functioning organs?

[Dev]

If non-potty-trained people functioned just as well or better than
potty-trained people, and potty-training was the principle cause of
much death and persecution throughout history and all over the world
today, making it analogous to theism might be something somebody who
wasn't retarded would do.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

I've got to admit Walt has really made me rethink some of my
positions. For example, I used to be opposed to executing the mentally
retarded, but Walt made me rethink that.

[Walt]

Dumb is dumb. 100 times dumb is not smart. It doesn't make you right
because more people are wrong with you.

You lay out nuanced definitions of racism and pedophilia that include
benign behavior. Then of course, being rational, I have to say that
under those defintions, racism and pedophilia are not entirely evil.
Then you call me pro-racist and pro-pedophilia as irrational smears.
You attack Christianity for every thimble-full of irrationality, while
you're pouring out truckloads of irrationality yourself. Your "logic"
consists of manic, racing chains of weak inductive arguments, with no
consideration of alternate possibilities. You try to disguise this by
throwing in irrelevant platitudes, shocking hyperbole and low-brow
"wit".

All marbles are round. Some are blue, some are green. So marbles are
inherently round, but not inherently blue nor inherently green. Some
theist belief does not contradict reason and objective observation.
So theist belief is not inherently irrational. So theism does not
inherently lend justification to dangerous irrationality.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

Believing that Canada exists does not imply not believing that the US
exists. Believing that something beyond Science exists does not imply
not believing in Science.

[Dag Yo]

On Aug 13, 12:44 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dumb is dumb. 100 times dumb is not smart. It doesn't make you right
> because more people are wrong with you.
>
> You lay out nuanced definitions of racism and pedophilia that include
> benign behavior. Then of course, being rational, I have to say that
> under those defintions, racism and pedophilia are not entirely evil.
> Then you call me pro-racist and pro-pedophilia as irrational smears.

If Dev did, he did so not because he wanted it understood as such
directly but because he was using it as an ironic example. If you
understood this you would either argue back that his argument is
invalid for very specific reasons, or you would simply say that you've
changed your mind and are no longer pro-religion now that you
understand that it is dangerous.

[Dev]

On Aug 13, 1:44 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dumb is dumb.  100 times dumb is not smart.  It doesn't make you right
> because more people are wrong with you.

Mm-hmm.

> You lay out nuanced definitions of racism and pedophilia that include
> benign behavior.

I just lay out definitions that are consistent with what they actually
mean.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racist

Nothing there about needing to hurt people of another race, just
discriminatory beliefs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophile

Couldn't be more straightforward: only about attraction, not action.

No, dictionaries are not infallible, but in this case the dictionary
is consistent with the way all intelligent people actually use these
words.

> Then of course, being rational, I have to say that
> under those defintions, racism and pedophilia are not entirely evil.
> Then you call me pro-racist and pro-pedophilia as irrational smears.

We already know you support those things, Walt. Dumb is dumb. 100
times dumb is not smart. It doesn't make you right just because nobody
agrees with you.

> You attack Christianity for every thimble-full of irrationality, while
> you're pouring out truckloads of irrationality yourself.

Oh, well, if _Walt_ makes an assertion it must be true.

> Your "logic"
> consists of manic, racing chains of weak inductive arguments, with no
> consideration of alternate possibilities.  You try to disguise this by
> throwing in irrelevant platitudes, shocking hyperbole and low-brow
> "wit".

Let's see, how do I put this in a way that Walt will think it's
rational? It's like a slinky on a treadmill, but that doesn't mean the
fish is in the toaster. You're not going to assert that the fish is in
the toaster, are you Walt? Because that would be weak, irrational,
inductive reasoning. You aren't considering the alternate
possibilites.

> All marbles are round.  Some are blue, some are green.  So marbles are
> inherently round, but not inherently blue nor inherently green.

One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish.

>  Some
> theist belief does not contradict reason and objective observation.
> So theist belief is not inherently irrational.  So theism does not
> inherently lend justification to dangerous irrationality.

Nope. If you could rationally substantiate any theistic God you could
get mighty famous mighty quick and wouldn't be talking to little old
me.

And by the way, perpetuating something is perpetuating its
consequences, so if the consequences are more negative than positive
it isn't a good thing to do, and no magic islands or space orbs or
aardvarks or marbles or cheese cocaine or paper-baby shredders or blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah is going to change that.

[Trance Gemini]

I know that you're incapable of seeing the lack of relationship and the fact that your analogy is (as usual) irrelevant and faulty.

[Answer_42]

On Aug 13, 4:01 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Believing that Canada exists does not imply not believing that the US
> exists. Believing that something beyond Science exists does not imply
> not believing in Science.

<snip>

Failed analogy.

There has never been any evidence that a god (let alone many gods) has
ever existed.
There is plenty of evidence that the US exists.

_________________________
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it
does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously."
-- Douglas Adams

[Answer_42]

On Aug 12, 9:53 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Suppose a mother kills her kid for crapping in his pants (Í'm sure
> it's happened). Would that be a reason to abolish potty training?

<snip>

Religion is like crapping in one's own pants.

Oh, great analogy, may I use it elsewhere, Walt?

[rappoccio]

Ahhh, still making stupid analogies and beating on strawmen. Maybe you
could find a single post where anyone suggested *abolishing* religion,
or admit you're lying. I won't hold my breath, that would require you
to be a little honest.

What we have stated is that in this case, religion is the cause of
this child's death (absolute true fact). I don't seem to recall any
such incidents about potty training. However, just in the last year or
so, there have been several cases of children dying because of their
parents' religion. Directly. Mom drowns kid in tub because God tells
her to. Parents kill toddler for not saying "Amen". Parents refuse
life-saving treatments to child because of religion.

So instead of bringing out stupid hypotheticals, why not look at the
actual cases that are happening in front of your eyes?

On Aug 12, 9:53 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Lawrey]

Walt,

As an ordinary human being, I find your callous,
somewhat dismissive attitude very strange.
One assumes you are aware of what Dev' is reporting
here about the evils that religion and the so-called
religious are capable of. Your reference to cheese and
Hitler are totally off topic and have nothing to do with
this case. It is difficult to see how you can so easily
dismiss and or ignore the salient point being made.

[rappoccio]

On Aug 12, 10:00 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And again...
>
> A pedophile, by definition, wants to rape children.
> A racist, by definition, wants to harm people of a different race.

False. A racist may just think that they are inferior and cause them
no harm whatsoever.

> There is nothing about belief in God, in and of itself, that requires
> or causes the believer to harm others.

However their belief lends justification to those that do. Someday
you'll get the argument right.

Somehow you think that we are saying that all theists are equally
responsible for all bad actions from theists. They aren't. We
recognize that. No one has ever suggested that. The fact that I have
to spell this out for you (again) just shows that you're either
dishonest, stupid, or both.

However, in the same way that we are all at fault for causing global
warming by driving cars, theists are all responsible for atrocities
committed in the name of dogmatic superstition, because their actions
lend them credibility in the same way that our actions contribute to
global warming. Now, are we going to put everyone in the planet in
jail, or abolish driving cars, because we all contribute to global
warming? Of course not. But that doesn't mean we can't seek to reduce
the carbon emissions of everyone on the planet. Same with religion. We
don't think they should all go to prison. We also don't hold them all
equally accountable for the atrocities committed in the name of
religion. Instead, we just want them to have a more evidence-based
outlook on life and come up with something better as justification for
their actions.

But of course, expecting you to understand this would require a little
honesty and not be so much of a crybaby. Too much to ask, I know.

[rappoccio]

On Aug 13, 1:24 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 7:00 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > And again...
>
> > A pedophile, by definition, wants to rape children.
> > A racist, by definition, wants to harm people of a different race.
> > There is nothing about belief in God, in and of itself, that requires
> > or causes the believer to harm others.
>
> LL: But religious people do such things all the time in the name of
> their religion. Remember that the people who bombed the WTC were all
> religious and were doing it for their religion. The Inquisition and
> the Crusades were done for religion.  Whether you like it or not
> religion drives a lot of horrible acts.
>
> I like the bumper sticker that says: There is a REASON atheists don't
> bomb buildings.

Exactly. This highlights the major point here. Walt continues to bring
up stupid hypothetical situations that would be stupid justifications
for doing bad actions. However, religion actually DOES these stupid
things in the name of their religion. So apparently it IS a problem,
and that's objectively true.

[rappoccio]

On Aug 13, 3:09 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Well, good to know that Walt's bullshit is so transparent to everyone.
> He's had the problems with his analogies explained to him already--
> more than a few times. The "you can't prove theism inherently kills
> people" argument is a sick joke because you can't prove that AIDS
> "inherently" harms people--the point is it does, and it does more harm
> than good by the most basic shared moral standards of "good".
> Likewise, pedophilia is simply the desire to have sex with children
> and racism is simply the belief that certain races are superior or
> inferior (Walt tries to redefine these terms, but as watts points out,
> even with his stupid redefinitions the point stands)--neither of these
> mentalities are more "inherently" harmful than theism, they are simply
> harmful, they do more harm than good, and anyone who perpetuates them
> is partially responsible for their consequences. To apply different
> standards to theism is to employ a double-standard, and the original
> post of this thread is just one of a billion examples of what this
> double-standard leads to.

Exactly. Again. Anti-theism is just holding religion to the same
standards as everything else ;)

> So it's hard to believe Walt really thinks he's making any sense. He
> would have at least tried a different strategy by now.

Maybe he really honestly doesn't get it.

> His analogies
> are obviously not intended to prove a point, but to distract from the
> point, and since everyone is pretty much over him using them he's
> largely just doing it to be annoying. But you've got to suspect an
> ulterior motive. One is just that he's a trolling theist, which is
> substantiated by a lot of what he has said in the past about the
> importance of theism for morality (which, if he were really an
> atheist, would be by his own terms an admission to immorality).

At first I was skeptical about this, but it seems more and more to be
true.

[rappoccio]

Not true. Racism is simply thinking the race in question is inferior.
It has no requirement of harm.

>
> There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in
> conflict with Science or secular morality.

Where the hell are all these "millions of Christians"? I don't see
them.

I'd say that almost every Christian in the world believes at least one
of these is true, which are all in opposition to secular morality:

-That women should be forced (yes, forced) to bear children they don't
want (this is self-explanatory).
-That birth control is evil (this belief leads to the spread of
STD's).
-That homosexuals do not have the right to get married (this belief is
obviously in opposition to their civil rights).
-That a three-day-old zygote is a person (which restricts potentially
life-saving research).
-That the above ideas are not immoral (they permit immoral action even
if they don't share them).

>  For other Christians it's
> not a black/white thing.  Few Christians overtly reject Science or
> secular morality.

Liar. 50% of the Christians in the US reject science, because they do
not believe in evolution. Right there, there are ACTUALLY millions of
Christians who overtly reject science. So you're just bullshitting,
lying, and being your usual shitbag self.

> And intent does matter.

So are you saying that we should permit people to drive SUV's and
waste the world's resources if they don't really INTEND to destroy the
environment? That we should just permit them to fuck the world up for
the rest of us just because they don't INTEND to do so?

In other words, intent does NOT matter, if the results are bad. We
should seek to reduce the bad behavior, even if the person in question
doesn't intend to do bad things.

> Our legal system says a person is responsible
> for caused harm if there was intent to do harm, or intent to be
> reckless.

Again with your straw man. No one is arguing that theists are legally
responsible for any atrocity they didn't actually commit. The rest is
bullshit based on this strawman.

[Walt]

On Aug 13, 8:39 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 4:01 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Believing that Canada exists does not imply not believing that the US
> > exists.  Believing that something beyond Science exists does not imply
> > not believing in Science.
>
> <snip>
>
> Failed analogy.
>
> There has never been any evidence that a god (let alone many gods) has
> ever existed.
> There is plenty of evidence that the US exists.

There is historical evidence that Jesus performed miracles. But the
sources are either biased Christian sources or Jewish sources that may
have been relying on Christian primary sources. So the miracles of
Jesus are not considered established historical fact by true
historians. But history does not assert that the miracles of Jesus
DID NOT happen. So it is not going against any rational conclusion to
believe in the miracles of Jesus. It's just answering a question with
intuition that reason and objective observation cannot answer.

[Drafterman]

Since concluding something is true based on a mere lack of disproof is
a logical fallacy, then yes, it does go against rational conclusion to

[Walt]

Debatable.

> > There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in
> > conflict with Science or secular morality.
>
> Where the hell are all these "millions of Christians"? I don't see
> them.

Your dogmatism doesn't allow you to.

> I'd say that almost every Christian in the world believes at least one
> of these is true, which are all in opposition to secular morality:
>
> -That women should be forced (yes, forced) to bear children they don't
> want (this is self-explanatory).
> -That birth control is evil (this belief leads to the spread of
> STD's).
> -That homosexuals do not have the right to get married (this belief is
> obviously in opposition to their civil rights).
> -That a three-day-old zygote is a person (which restricts potentially
> life-saving research).
> -That the above ideas are not immoral (they permit immoral action even
> if they don't share them).

Not accurate. Not all denominations believe these things, and many
people reject the cruel beliefs of their denomination even if they
don't leave it.

> >  For other Christians it's
> > not a black/white thing.  Few Christians overtly reject Science or
> > secular morality.
>
> Liar. 50% of the Christians in the US reject science, because they do
> not believe in evolution. Right there, there are ACTUALLY millions of
> Christians who overtly reject science. So you're just bullshitting,
> lying, and being your usual shitbag self.

They don't reject science, they embrace Creation "Science" because
they are ignorant and don't know what real science is.

> > And intent does matter.
>
> So are you saying that we should permit people to drive SUV's and
> waste the world's resources if they don't really INTEND to destroy the
> environment? That we should just permit them to fuck the world up for
> the rest of us just because they don't INTEND to do so?

No you should try to educate them (rather than hate on them). Any you
shouldn't tell them they can't even ride a bicycle, because anything
with a wheel lends justification to SUV ownership.

> In other words, intent does NOT matter, if the results are bad. We
> should seek to reduce the bad behavior, even if the person in question
> doesn't intend to do bad things.
>
> > Our legal system says a person is responsible
> > for caused harm if there was intent to do harm, or intent to be
> > reckless.
>
> Again with your straw man. No one is arguing that theists are legally
> responsible for any atrocity they didn't actually commit. The rest is
> bullshit based on this strawman.

But you seem to hate theists for things they do without intent, hence
the relevance.

[Walt]

On Aug 13, 10:09 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 1:24 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 7:00 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > And again...
>
> > > A pedophile, by definition, wants to rape children.
> > > A racist, by definition, wants to harm people of a different race.
> > > There is nothing about belief in God, in and of itself, that requires
> > > or causes the believer to harm others.
>
> > LL: But religious people do such things all the time in the name of
> > their religion. Remember that the people who bombed the WTC were all
> > religious and were doing it for their religion. The Inquisition and
> > the Crusades were done for religion.  Whether you like it or not
> > religion drives a lot of horrible acts.
>
> > I like the bumper sticker that says: There is a REASON atheists don't
> > bomb buildings.
>
> Exactly. This highlights the major point here. Walt continues to bring
> up stupid hypothetical situations that would be stupid justifications
> for doing bad actions. However, religion actually DOES these stupid
> things in the name of their religion. So apparently it IS a problem,
> and that's objectively true.

Group blame is not right. That's objectively true.

[Walt]

On Aug 13, 10:07 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 10:00 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > And again...
>
> > A pedophile, by definition, wants to rape children.
> > A racist, by definition, wants to harm people of a different race.
>
> False. A racist may just think that they are inferior and cause them

One hand clapping. Irrelevant topic best left for discussion while
high on acid.

> > There is nothing about belief in God, in and of itself, that requires
> > or causes the believer to harm others.
>
> However their belief lends justification to those that do. Someday
> you'll get the argument right.
>
> Somehow you think that we are saying that all theists are equally
> responsible for all bad actions from theists. They aren't. We
> recognize that. No one has ever suggested that. The fact that I have
> to spell this out for you (again) just shows that you're either
> dishonest, stupid, or both.
>
> However, in the same way that we are all at fault for causing global
> warming by driving cars, theists are all responsible for atrocities
> committed in the name of dogmatic superstition, because their actions
> lend them credibility in the same way that our actions contribute to
> global warming. Now, are we going to put everyone in the planet in
> jail, or abolish driving cars, because we all contribute to global
> warming? Of course not. But that doesn't mean we can't seek to reduce
> the carbon emissions of everyone on the planet. Same with religion. We
> don't think they should all go to prison. We also don't hold them all
> equally accountable for the atrocities committed in the name of
> religion. Instead, we just want them to have a more evidence-based
> outlook on life and come up with something better as justification for
> their actions.
>
> But of course, expecting you to understand this would require a little
> honesty and not be so much of a crybaby. Too much to ask, I know.

When I drive my car it puts carbon dioxide in the air. It doesn't
merely hypothetically lend justification to someone else putting
carbon dioxide in the air. Poor analogy.

[Walt]

On Aug 13, 10:01 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahhh, still making stupid analogies and beating on strawmen. Maybe you
> could find a single post where anyone suggested *abolishing* religion,
> or admit you're lying. I won't hold my breath, that would require you
> to be a little honest.
>
> What we have stated is that in this case, religion is the cause of
> this child's death (absolute true fact). I don't seem to recall any
> such incidents about potty training. However, just in the last year or
> so, there have been several cases of children dying because of their
> parents' religion. Directly. Mom drowns kid in tub because God tells
> her to. Parents kill toddler for not saying "Amen". Parents refuse
> life-saving treatments to child because of religion.
>
> So instead of bringing out stupid hypotheticals, why not look at the
> actual cases that are happening in front of your eyes?

Maybe because I don't participate in the amoral group-blame?

> On Aug 12, 9:53 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Suppose a mother kills her kid for crapping in his pants (Í'm sure
> > it's happened).  Would that be a reason to abolish potty training?
>
> > On Aug 12, 8:17 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Someday you'll learn that the cases are different:
>
> > > Toddler dies because of religion. Fault lies with the religion.
>
> > > Hitler likes cheese and is an aunicornist, but both are irrelevant
> > > because neither contributed to his heinous acts. Never mind that
> > > religion did, it's besides the point here.
>
> > > I know it's hard for you to understand. But concentrate. Maybe you'll
> > > learn something about logic.
>
> > > On Aug 12, 6:44 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.todaysthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=21696
>
> > > > If you eat cheese, you're as bad as Hitler.
>
> > > > On Aug 12, 6:21 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > "A toddler whose remains were found inside a suitcase in Philadelphia
> > > > > this spring was starved to death by members of a religious cult,
> > > > > including his mother, in part because he refused to say 'amen' after
> > > > > meals, police said."http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4343113.shtml?...
>
> > > > > "Another unnamed informant told police that after Javon died,
> > > > > Antoinette left the boy's body in a room for more than a week,
> > > > > claiming 'God was going to raise Javon from the dead,' the documents
> > > > > show."http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24167492-952,00.html
>
> > > > > Poor little atheist. :(- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dag Yo]

I don't feel like getting into the rest of what was wrong with what
you said at the moment but let me explain why you're wrong about just
this point.

> There is historical evidence that Jesus performed miracles.

You're wrong Walt, and this is why: the ONLY "record" of Jesus
performing miracles is the new testament. And that does not appear to
even be written by any contemporary of Jesus or person who even
witnessed those miracles. And this simply is NOT evidence. Nor would
it be evidence even if it was written by witnesses of these supposed
miracles, contemporaries of these witnesses, or even Jesus himself.
It simply isn't evidence.

If it were "historical evidence" then if I typed something absurd
like: the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn
enjoy tea from Russel's Teapot each afternoon [and I just did], then
that would be "historical evidence" that this occurred.

Now please Walt, either admit that you are completely wrong about this
evidence, or start telling people that there is "historical evidence"
that the FSM and IPU drink tea in space.

[Walt]

On Aug 13, 10:05 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Walt,
>
>  As an ordinary human being, I find your callous,
> somewhat dismissive attitude very strange.
> One assumes you are aware of what Dev' is reporting
> here about the evils that religion and the so-called
> religious are capable of. Your reference to cheese and
> Hitler are totally off topic and have nothing to do with
> this case. It is difficult to see how you can so easily
> dismiss and or ignore the salient point being made.

I dismiss sweeping consclusions from anecdotes.

> On Aug 12, 11:44 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.todaysthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=21696
>
> > If you eat cheese, you're as bad as Hitler.
>
> > On Aug 12, 6:21 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > "A toddler whose remains were found inside a suitcase in Philadelphia
> > > this spring was starved to death by members of a religious cult,
> > > including his mother, in part because he refused to say 'amen' after
> > > meals, police said."http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4343113.shtml?...
>
> > > "Another unnamed informant told police that after Javon died,
> > > Antoinette left the boy's body in a room for more than a week,
> > > claiming 'God was going to raise Javon from the dead,' the documents
> > > show."http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24167492-952,00.html
>
> > > Poor little atheist. :(- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Aug 13, 3:09 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Well, good to know that Walt's bullshit is so transparent to everyone.
> He's had the problems with his analogies explained to him already--
> more than a few times. The "you can't prove theism inherently kills
> people" argument is a sick joke because you can't prove that AIDS
> "inherently" harms people--the point is it does, and it does more harm
> than good by the most basic shared moral standards of "good".

You've gotten far too much traction out of this crappy analogy, and
while I don't have the time to respond to the full post it was in I'll
address it here.

First, we can indeed certainly show that AIDS -- not simply HIV -- in
fact inherently kills people. In its natural form and unimpeded, it
attacks the immune system of the person that it is in. This is, in
fact, generally fatal to humans. If you wanted to argue on pure
sophistry, you could claim that AIDS doesn't kill anyone, but that it
is the other diseases that it stops our immune system from stopping
that kill people, but this is, of course, an utterly ridiculous
claim. Basically, what AIDS does is put people directly into a
position where they die. Any who survive having AIDS only do so
because of something that stops the AIDS virus from placing them into
that position in the first place, either an immunity or through
various treatments and drugs. The majority of people who get AIDS
without any other factors being present die.

This cannot be said for theism. The majority of theists do not kill
people, and there is nothing in believing in the existence of at least
one god that leads one to kill people. The beliefs in certain
specific gods MAY do so, but that is not theism as a whole. A
perfectly pacifist religion based on a god who insists that no one
ever be killed would be theistic, but wouldn't kill anyone. A strain
of HIV that did not produce AIDS would not, of course, be considered
AIDS.

Second, it is not correct to compare AIDS to beliefs in the first
place. AIDS is a virus, and is in fact then completely judged on what
we consider to be its benefits and risks. There is no morality
involved in a virus, a virus has no intentionality, and there are no
moral implications to its elimination. The virus, then, does what it
does. There are moral consequences to attempting to say what it is and
is not acceptable to believe, and in addition one can only claim that
"what a belief does" is what is necessarily logically entailed by it,
since those are the things that a person MUST do or be held to be
inconsistent with the belief. For all other cases, if the actions are
not logically entailed then the person may act otherwise, and then we
can criticize their actions WITHOUT necessarily critcizing the
belief. Thus, unless you can show that theism logically entails
killing people you have no reason to insist that theism must be
eliminated because it allows for killing, especially since almost any
belief of consequence will allow for that as well.

> Likewise, pedophilia is simply the desire to have sex with children
> and racism is simply the belief that certain races are superior or
> inferior (Walt tries to redefine these terms, but as watts points out,
> even with his stupid redefinitions the point stands)--neither of these
> mentalities are more "inherently" harmful than theism, they are simply
> harmful, they do more harm than good, and anyone who perpetuates them
> is partially responsible for their consequences. To apply different
> standards to theism is to employ a double-standard, and the original
> post of this thread is just one of a billion examples of what this
> double-standard leads to.

So, since eugenics can indeed follow directly from the belief in
evolution, should we consider evolution a dangerous belief as well?

And you don't get to defend it on the basis of "it's true whereas
theism is false", because then you'd have to prove that theism is
false, and no weak atheist can even claim that that's been done.

[Walt]

So if you see your child as being special, even if others see you
child as being generally average and ordinary, that mean you're
lending justification to someone flying a plane into an occupied
building?

> believe in the miracles of Jesus.- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

Multiple sources with different biases is conclusive historical
evidence becasue a single source with a particular bias is historical
evidence. 1 is not the same a 0 because 5 x 1 is 5 whereas 5 x 0 is
still just 0.

> > intuition that reason and objective observation cannot answer.- Hide quoted text -

[Answer_42]

On Aug 13, 11:04 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I dismiss sweeping consclusions from anecdotes.

A child dying because of his parents' religious beliefs is an
anecdote?

In case you did not know, here is the meaning of "anecdote"according
to Merriam-Webster:
"a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical
incident"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdote

Hum, so, to your mind, a child dying is an amusing interesting
incident.

To my mind it is more than that, it is in fact a serious event that
that should make any normally constituted human being reflect on the
value of said religious beliefs, at the very least.

You just proved that you were callous, as stated by Lawry.
And, since you seem to have difficulty with understanding English
words, here is what "callous" means in the context Lawrey used it:
"2 a: feeling no emotion b: feeling or showing no sympathy for others
[See] hard-hearted"
and not (Still in Lawrey's context)
"1 a: being hardened and thickened b: having calluses <callous hands>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/callous

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Aug 13, 8:39 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 13, 4:01 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Believing that Canada exists does not imply not believing that the US
> > exists.  Believing that something beyond Science exists does not imply
> > not believing in Science.
>
> <snip>
>
> Failed analogy.
>
> There has never been any evidence that a god (let alone many gods) has
> ever existed.
> There is plenty of evidence that the US exists.

This is simply another case where the analogy is declared "failed"
without ever thinking about what the point was. An analogy can only
fail if it fails to be similar enough to support the relevant point,
and in this case, Walt's entire point was that simply because one
believes in something beyond science does not mean that they reject
science. Your reply is, of course, a valid question, but not to
address that point, since all you are saying is that believing in that
thing beyond science may not be justified, which is a fair question,
but one for a completely different topic.

[Keith MacNevins]

It is intrinsically harmful to hold the belief of inferiority or superiority based upon skin color or heritage.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Lawrey]

Walt,

Several people have cited cases where so-called
religious people have committed attrocities in the
name of a godthing or their religion. We hear almost
daily, of some new case of a child being abused for
the sake of a religious belief, that is not in my opinion
generalising or coming to sweeping conclusions from
ancedotes. Even if it were just the odd one it would be
one too many and it is my opinion, that the most
voiciferous venting should be of condemnation for
the religion, which is responsible, as others have said.
It cannot be brushed asside. It must be brought out
into the open and the religion brought to account.

[Answer_42]

On Aug 13, 11:35 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

<snip>

> This is simply another case where the analogy is declared "failed"
> without ever thinking about what the point was. An analogy can only
> fail if it fails to be similar enough to support the relevant point,
> and in this case, Walt's entire point was that simply because one
> believes in something beyond science does not mean that they reject
> science. Your reply is, of course, a valid question, but not to
> address that point, since all you are saying is that believing in that
> thing beyond science may not be justified, which is a fair question,
> but one for a completely different topic.

I did think about the point Walt was trying to make (and "trying" is
appropriate here), thank you very much. I would appreciate it if you
refrained from assuming what I might have been thinking or not been
thinking based on a few words I posted, it is slightly presumptuous,
don't you agree?

Science can be used to prove that the resurrection is false. If one
believes in science AND in the resurrection, then one needs an
explanation, i.e god or some other extraordinary explanation. The
belief in resurrection casts doubts on the scientific model, or at
least, would force us to review what science has to say regarding
biology, maybe our scientific knowledge is incomplete.

Canada and the US are two totally different/separate entities/
concepts. You cannot use the fact that Canada exists to prove or
disprove the existence of the US. Believing in the existence of the US
has nothing to do with Canada, "the US exists" belief does not bring
into question whether our belief in Canada's existence is accurate/
incomplete or not. This is why I think the analogy is faulty. As you
so eloquently state "An analogy can only fail if it fails to be
similar enough to support the relevant point", I certainly believe
that Walt's analogy was dissimilar enough to fail to convey his
meaning.

You are free to disagree of course, but it seems to me that you are
defending Walt's retarded analogy out of partisanship... Which is sad
because I believe that, based on your other posts, your "analytical
powers" are being wasted in trying to defend the indefensible.

[Drafterman]

On Aug 13, 11:16 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So if you see your child as being special, even if others see you
> child as being generally average and ordinary, that mean you're
> lending justification to someone flying a plane into an occupied
> building?

No, I didn't say that, I said:

"Since concluding something is true based on a mere lack of disproof
is a logical fallacy, then yes, it does go against rational conclusion
to believe in the miracles of Jesus."

Read. Comprehend. THEN respond.

- Hide quoted text -

>
> On Aug 13, 10:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 10:39 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 8:39 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 13, 4:01 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Believing that Canada exists does not imply not believing that the US
> > > > > exists.  Believing that something beyond Science exists does not imply
> > > > > not believing in Science.
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > Failed analogy.
>
> > > > There has never been any evidence that a god (let alone many gods) has
> > > > ever existed.
> > > > There is plenty of evidence that the US exists.
>
> > > There is historical evidence that Jesus performed miracles.  But the
> > > sources are either biased Christian sources or Jewish sources that may
> > > have been relying on Christian primary sources.  So the miracles of
> > > Jesus are not considered established historical fact by true
> > > historians.  But history does not assert that the miracles of Jesus
> > > DID NOT happen.  So it is not going against any rational conclusion to
> > > believe in the miracles of Jesus.  It's just answering a question with
> > > intuition that reason and objective observation cannot answer.
>
> > Since concluding something is true based on a mere lack of disproof is
> > a logical fallacy, then yes, it does go against rational conclusion to
> > believe in the miracles of Jesus.- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Aug 13, 12:11 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 11:35 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > This is simply another case where the analogy is declared "failed"
> > without ever thinking about what the point was.  An analogy can only
> > fail if it fails to be similar enough to support the relevant point,
> > and in this case, Walt's entire point was that simply because one
> > believes in something beyond science does not mean that they reject
> > science.  Your reply is, of course, a valid question, but not to
> > address that point, since all you are saying is that believing in that
> > thing beyond science may not be justified, which is a fair question,
> > but one for a completely different topic.
>
> I did think about the point Walt was trying to make (and "trying" is
> appropriate here), thank you very much. I would appreciate it if you
> refrained from assuming what I might have been thinking or not been
> thinking based on a few words I posted, it is slightly presumptuous,
> don't you agree?

When your counter in no way relates to what the analogy was trying to
address, I fail to see how it is particularly egregious to state that
your point was made without any actual link to the point that it was
addressing. Did I put it a bit harshly? Perhaps. Then again, since
you do claim to have read other posts of mine you'd might have seen
other scenarios where analogies were "refuted" by pointing out
differences that didn't relate to the point the analogy was
establishing, so I'm currently a bit less likely to give the benefit
of the doubt.

Perhaps I should have given more of the benefit of the doubt.

But let me remind you of what was actually said, to highlight how even
what you say here doesn't address it:

"Believing that Canada exists does not imply not believing that the
US
exists. Believing that something beyond Science exists does not
imply
not believing in Science.

On Aug 13, 3:19 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

> > There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in
> > conflict with Science or secular morality.

> Really? So the belief that a guy with non-functioning organs all over
> his body (who is for all intents and purposes; dead) can walk around
> like nothing happen and let people stick their dirty fingers in his
> wounds, does not in any
> way, conflict with what medical science would have us believe about
> the
> necessity of healthy functioning organs? "

Note that there is no real relation between this and credibility of
the belief itself. I would say that what you say below is a better
refutation of the original statement, but it is now being mustered
against the analogy, where again it fails to show that the analogy
does not work.

>
> Science can be used to prove that the resurrection is false.

Really? Please show me how. At best, it gets "quite unlikely" out of
that, but not an outright disproof, as you even admit below ...

> If one
> believes in science AND in the resurrection, then one needs an
> explanation, i.e god or some other extraordinary explanation.

... here. This is the belief in something "beyond science". One can
maintain a belief in things beyond science by insisting that some
questions science simply cannot answer and they are therefore not in
the domain of science. Miracles and the supernatural seem to be the
sort of things that naturalistic science would have trouble with. But
if science could prove it false, then science CAN address it, and so
it becomes a completely different question.

>The
> belief in resurrection casts doubts on the scientific model, or at
> least, would force us to review what science has to say regarding
> biology, maybe our scientific knowledge is incomplete.
>

I fail to see how that impacts anything, since anyone who knows
anything about science already concludes that our scientific knowledge
-- even in biology -- is incomplete. That's actually why there's even
room for belief in the resurrection at all.

> Canada and the US are two totally different/separate entities/
> concepts. You cannot use the fact that Canada exists to prove or
> disprove the existence of the US. Believing in the existence of the US
> has nothing to do with Canada, "the US exists" belief does not bring
> into question whether our belief in Canada's existence is accurate/
> incomplete or not. This is why I think the analogy is faulty. As you
> so eloquently state "An analogy can only fail if it fails to be
> similar enough to support the relevant point", I certainly believe
> that Walt's analogy was dissimilar enough to fail to convey his
> meaning.

Let me restore what you actually replied with:

> Failed analogy.


> There has never been any evidence that a god (let alone many gods) has
> ever existed.
> There is plenty of evidence that the US exists.

None of this relates to or even states that science can be used to
prove religion -- or at least some religions -- wrong. It simply
states that we know the US exists (or have evidence of it). Thus,
your initial comment did not convey the new point that you are raising
here ... even if your new point addressed the analogy. Which, again,
it does not, despite being a better -- if not necessarily correct --
argument against the original claim that religion and science are not
compatible.

>
> You are free to disagree of course, but it seems to me that you are
> defending Walt's retarded analogy out of partisanship... Which is sad
> because I believe that, based on your other posts, your "analytical
> powers" are being wasted in trying to defend the indefensible.

I will say it again: "I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my
side." I'm just sick of rather poor attempts to show analogies failed
instead of simply addressing the points in the first place. If you
had simply said, "Perhaps, but we can accept that both Canada and the
US exist which cannot be done for things like 'the resurrection' and
current biology", I likely wouldn't have replied at all.

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Aug 13, 10:27 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 13, 3:09 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in
> > conflict with Science or secular morality.
>
> Where the hell are all these "millions of Christians"? I don't see
> them.
>
> I'd say that almost every Christian in the world believes at least one
> of these is true, which are all in opposition to secular morality:
>
> -That women should be forced (yes, forced) to bear children they don't
> want (this is self-explanatory).

This can be entirely justified as long as one simply holds that at
some point before birth the foetus gains the rights of a human being.
This can be done for many reasons, including the best logical point
that there is no difference developmentally between the foetus one
minute before birth and the child one minute after, but the mother is
not allowed the kill the child.

Then it simply becomes a matter of WHEN we should stop allowing the
killing.

In addition, many states and countries can charge someone with
manslaughter who deliberately forces a miscarriage. Since the only
difference between that action and an abortion is if the mother wants
the child, and since her wants in no way affect the rights of the
foetus/child, the implication then is that whether or not she is the
one doing it should not determine if a charge is laid.

Then we can get into her rights versus its and actually have an
interesting discussion on that ...

> -That birth control is evil (this belief leads to the spread of
> STD's).

The belief is also coupled with the idea that sex should only be for
reproduction, and thus it can be argued that this is derived from that
one. There would be far more limited spread of STDs if the original
belief was held, and there are indeed secular reasons to hold that, as
many quite secular philosophies would lean towards it (the limitation
of pleasures, for example).

> -That homosexuals do not have the right to get married (this belief is
> obviously in opposition to their civil rights).

One can justify this secularly as well, by pointing out that the main
social purpose of marriage is inheritance, which implies children,
which implies reproduction, which homosexuals cannot do. There is no
benefit to the government to extend it to them, then, and marriage is
only recognized by governments because of the benefits (they have no
reason to do so otherwise, and there is nothing that says that a
government must recognize it). Thus, since they are not equivalently
positioned to fit the purpose of the recognition, it would not violate
their rights to exclude them.

In Canada, the Supreme Court never determined that restricting
marriage to a man and a woman would violate the rights of homosexuals.

> -That a three-day-old zygote is a person (which restricts potentially
> life-saving research).

See above.

> -That the above ideas are not immoral (they permit immoral action even
> if they don't share them).

Even secularly, holding these ideas and acting on them yourself, and
even teaching them to others, would not generally be considered
immoral. We all have the freedom to act and argue as we see fit, or
else "freedom of expression" has no meaning. So you seem to be making
a large leap in defining what "secular" means; secular humanism is not
the only possible secular morality.

I will point out here that all of the above counters may be incorrect,
and do not necessarily reflect my own beliefs; these are just tossed
out to show that what secular morality opposes is not as clear as you
are claiming.

> > And intent does matter.
>
> So are you saying that we should permit people to drive SUV's and
> waste the world's resources if they don't really INTEND to destroy the
> environment? That we should just permit them to fuck the world up for
> the rest of us just because they don't INTEND to do so?
>
> In other words, intent does NOT matter, if the results are bad. We
> should seek to reduce the bad behavior, even if the person in question
> doesn't intend to do bad things.

You do not understand intentionalism. If someone is negligent, their
intent is to be negligent, and that can be criticized. However, if
you have someone who has, say, 6 children and finds SUVs provide the
best way to transport them to what they need to do -- try not driving
in very small villages, for example -- with the minimum amount of fuel
used, are they still bad? What about someone who, say, buys a truck
because they tend to use it to haul things to their house, but know
that they still drive at least 50% less than anyone else, and so their
little extra gas usage still leaves them far below the average? Are
they bad?

>
> > Our legal system says a person is responsible
> > for caused harm if there was intent to do harm, or intent to be
> > reckless.
>
> Again with your straw man. No one is arguing that theists are legally
> responsible for any atrocity they didn't actually commit. The rest is
> bullshit based on this strawman.

Then how ARE we responsible for those atrocities?

[Drafterman]

On Aug 13, 12:57 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> On Aug 13, 10:27 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 13, 3:09 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in
> > > conflict with Science or secular morality.
>
> > Where the hell are all these "millions of Christians"? I don't see
> > them.
>
> > I'd say that almost every Christian in the world believes at least one
> > of these is true, which are all in opposition to secular morality:
>
> > -That women should be forced (yes, forced) to bear children they don't
> > want (this is self-explanatory).
>
> This can be entirely justified as long as one simply holds that at
> some point before birth the foetus gains the rights of a human being.
> This can be done for many reasons, including the best logical point
> that there is no difference developmentally between the foetus one
> minute before birth and the child one minute after, but the mother is
> not allowed the kill the child.

Nor is the mother allowed to kill the fetus one minute before birth.
So you will have to find a better example.

But this is simply the Sorites paradox. There is no significant
developmental difference across any single minute-long period of time
during the growth of the fetus. The same could be said for the growth
of the person after birth as well. Nevertheless, distinctions between
stages of growth as they pertain to rights MUST be made.

There is no difference between a minute prior to their 16th birthday
and a minute after. Yet they can legally obtain a dirver's license.
There is no difference a between a minute prior to their 18th birthday
and a minute after. Yet they are no longer a minor and can vote and
buy cigarettes.
There is no difference between a minute prior to their 21st birthday
and a minute after. Yet they can buy alcohol and gamble.
There is no difference between a minute prior to their 35st birthday
and a minute after. Yet they are allowed to run the country.

The objection is spurious. The inability to draw a purely nonarbitrary
line does not mean that all lines that are drawn are purely arbitrary.

>
> Then it simply becomes a matter of WHEN we should stop allowing the
> killing.
>
> In addition, many states and countries can charge someone with
> manslaughter who deliberately forces a miscarriage.  Since the only
> difference between that action and an abortion is if the mother wants
> the child, and since her wants in no way affect the rights of the
> foetus/child, the implication then is that whether or not she is the
> one doing it should not determine if a charge is laid.
>
> Then we can get into her rights versus its and actually have an
> interesting discussion on that ...
>
> > -That birth control is evil (this belief leads to the spread of
> > STD's).
>
> The belief is also coupled with the idea that sex should only be for
> reproduction, and thus it can be argued that this is derived from that
> one.  There would be far more limited spread of STDs if the original
> belief was held, and there are indeed secular reasons to hold that, as
> many quite secular philosophies would lean towards it (the limitation
> of pleasures, for example).

That sex should only be for reproduction is a rationalization. People
are going to have sex because of biological programming. Without it
we, as a species, would not have survived. People are going to have
sex, period. Wagering on the willpower of hormone laden teenagers is
not a viable solution to the risks involved.

>
> > -That homosexuals do not have the right to get married (this belief is
> > obviously in opposition to their civil rights).
>
> One can justify this secularly as well, by pointing out that the main
> social purpose of marriage is inheritance, which implies children,
> which implies reproduction, which homosexuals cannot do.  There is no
> benefit to the government to extend it to them, then, and marriage is
> only recognized by governments because of the benefits (they have no
> reason to do so otherwise, and there is nothing that says that a
> government must recognize it).  Thus, since they are not equivalently
> positioned to fit the purpose of the recognition, it would not violate
> their rights to exclude them.

This implies that adopted children should have no rights as heirs and
even heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry if they
cannot have kids. (This presents an interesting catch 22. How do you
verify that they can have kids prior to marraige without pre-marital
sex?). To forbid homosexual unions on these premises necessiates the
enforcement of the first two points. Neither non-secular or secular
philosophies, nor government policies recognize the conisder valid the
first two (adoption, barren heterosexual couples) ergo it they
shouldn't have a problem with the third (homosexual unions).

[Walt]

If I take what you said literally, it's just deceitful
mischaracterization of religious belief, not worthy of a response.

[Walt]

The happiness has to be balanced against the harm. The real harm, not
the false group-blame-and/or-slippery-slope-implied harm.

On Aug 12, 9:42 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to your logic, as long as the people that did this gain some
> happiness from it, it isn't bad and we're not allowed to criticize it.
>
> And thinking that makes you a worthless piece of shit of a human
> being.

[Drafterman]

Except I'm going by the characterization YOU presented ("But history

does not assert that the miracles of Jesus DID NOT happen. So it is
not going against any rational conclusion to believe in the miracles

of Jesus.")

So any issues with it are issues you created. If you do not like the
characterization, you are welcome to change it.

[Walt]

And at times in my life, I've been obliged to be in the company of
racists who could also produce and endless litany of atrocities, real
and imagined. committed by non-white people, in order to feed their
spite against them. A big part of why anti-theists scare me. The
only reason anti-theist aren't as scary as racists is that there are
fewer anti-theists.

[Dev]

You're lumping all people who perpetuate group blame into a group.

[Walt]

I think we all need to stop demonizing each other over the abortion
issue. It's hard to objectively define what makes human life more
valuable than cattle life without excluding newborn babies or mentally
handicapped people from humaness. Whether God or evolution-given, we
have an emotional revulsion to the idea of killing a member of the
human species. The best standard I can think of is that, if its OK to
turn off like support for a brain-dead person, it's OK to abort a
fetus that isn't yet "brain-alive". But I'm not sure that's much less
arbitrary than saying a human is a human from the moment of
conception.

[Walt]

Rappoccio Fallacy (not invalidate is the same as validate).

[Walt]

That's fine, as long as I don't include anyone who doesn't perpetuate
group blame in the group of people who perpetuate group blame.

[Dev]

Except you do. Blaming people for perpetuating group blame is no less
group blame than blaming people for perpetuating theism.

[Walt]

The specific religious belief must be brought to account for the harm
it caused, not all religious belief.

On Aug 13, 12:10 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:

[Answer_42]

On Aug 13, 12:38 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

<snip>

> > Failed analogy.
> > There has never been any evidence that a god (let alone many gods) has
> > ever existed.
> > There is plenty of evidence that the US exists.
>
> None of this relates to or even states that science can be used to
> prove religion -- or at least some religions -- wrong. It simply
> states that we know the US exists (or have evidence of it). Thus,
> your initial comment did not convey the new point that you are raising
> here ... even if your new point addressed the analogy. Which, again,
> it does not, despite being a better -- if not necessarily correct --
> argument against the original claim that religion and science are not
> compatible.

OK, I see the problem now.
My mistake was in my original refutation of the analogy. I brought in
the word "god" to refer to the resurrection, which was ordained by a
god, according to the bible. But you are right, it was not correct to
do so. I should have written:

"There has never been any evidence that Jesus was resurrected.

There is plenty of evidence that the US exists."

And then go on, as I did later, to explain that Canada and the US are
not related in the same way science and a hypothetical event like the
resurrection are.

I did not do so in my original refutation because I thought it was
pretty obvious.

Live and learn!
So I will endeavour not to pretend that something is obvious and will
try to be more accurate with my choice of words.

Also note that you seem to be thinking that I was making the
connection between science and religion when addressing the comparison
of Canada with the US (It would be my fault since I used the word
"god" in my refutation). I was not. I was really trying to address the
connection between science and an event like the resurrection.

Still, the analogy is faulty, because, as you stated, "An analogy can

only fail if it fails to be similar enough to support the relevant

point." And in my mind it is too dissimilar.

Finally, I mentioned partisanship becasue in your response I got the
overall impression that you were more interested in showing how the
analogy was valid than showing that my refutation itself was
inadequate. I may have been wrong in perceiving that.

[Turner Hayes]

It doesn't. It can follow from a drastic misunderstanding of evolution, but it doesn't follow from what evolution actually says. You may say "Well, whether or not it follows from actual evolution, some people who believe in evolution go on be eugenicists", but this would be a stupid argument since the same thing could be said of people misunderstanding soap operas.
 

should we consider evolution a dangerous belief as well?

And you don't get to defend it on the basis of "it's true whereas
theism is false", because then you'd have to prove that theism is
false, and no weak atheist can even claim that that's been done.

Not theism in general, no, but specific gods, yes.
 

[Dev]

Yeah, Walt has a creepy thing about dead kids. Most of the other
people on this thread are mad at the people who are responsible for
this, whereas Walt is just mad at people for talking about it like
it's a bad thing.

[LL]

On Aug 13, 12:09 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in
conflict with Science or secular morality.

LL: If they believe in God, a creator, Jesus, the resurrection of
Jesus, the Virgin birth, Satan, Hell, miracles, or the afterlife--
their beliefs are in conflict with science.

So what's left?

As for secular morality, what is it? Is it one thing? Or is it simply
the various philosophies of a lot of people who don't believe in god
or who don't accept their own religion's commands?

> On Aug 12, 10:46 pm, watts <watts....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'll just use your definitions:
>
> > A pedophile wants to rape children.  There is nothing about
> > pedophilia, in and of itself, that requires or causes the pedophile to
> > harm others.
>

> > A racist wants to harm people of a different race.  There is nothing

> > about racism, in and of itself, that requires or causes the racist to
> > harm others.
>
> > A christian wants to harm itself and others.  There is nothing about
> > christianity, in and of itself, that requires or causes the christian
> > to harm others.
>

> > Key word: wants. Key similarity: 'in and of itself, that requires or

> > causes ... harm [to] others.'
>
> > Now would you think that because the pedophile or racist or christian
> > might not actually harm anyone, that it's morally permissable to be
> > any of those things? or is it you ascertion that being one of those
> > things that could harm others does indeed lead them to harm others?
> > Or, do you think a christian doesn't want to harm others (knowingly or
> > unknowingly)?
>
> > If it's the latter, we have already shown many times the harm
> > chrisitianity decrees.  The real problem is that no one can define
> > Christianity because there are so many different sects and takes on it
> > that it's hardly a unifying description.  But for the most part, they
> > all seem to think everyone needs to be saved, and this irrational
> > reasoning is indeed desired by christians to have an effect on
> > everyone.  Thus the harm presents itself and Chrisitian do indeed want
> > it on all.
>
> Pedophilia generally is not a choice.  Seems like the prevailing

> scientific thinking is that pedophiles can't control the desire to

> molest children, but I'm not an expert.  I'll leave it to the experts
> to determine which pedophiles belong in prison, which in an asylum,
> and which, if any, can safely remain at large.
>
> Racism is a choice to have the intent of harming a group of people.
> If a person never advocates or acts upon their racist thinking, well
> that's a one-hand-clapping kind of a thing, not really relevant to
> much of anything.
>

> There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in

> conflict with Science or secular morality.  For other Christians it's

> not a black/white thing.  Few Christians overtly reject Science or

> secular morality.  Rather, they use the Bible to "bend" them, to a
> slight or ridiculous degree.  For example, the Catholic Church, like
> Gahndi, is anti-sex,  This is not completely unjustifiable secularly.
> Sex does have a strong tendency to cause people to objectify other
> people.  Non-religious people generally feel this is trumphed by the
> suffering that is caused by excessive frustration of sexual impulses
> that can be expressed benignly.  Especially in the case of
> homosexuals, who cannot have procreative sex, which is the only type
> of sex Catholicism permits.
>
> And intent does matter.  Our legal system says a person is responsible

> for caused harm if there was intent to do harm, or intent to be

> reckless.  The law recongnizes that many people are too dumb to
> recongnize what is wrong or reckless for themselves.  But it presumes
> that even dumb people are aware when behavior is seen as bad by the
> vast majority of people.  So it's not appropriate to be so hostile
> towards those who bend rationality without intent or understanding of
> the danger.  Unfortunately, there is no consensus against doing this.
> As Jesus said, they know not what they do.
>
> So don't hate on them, try to educate them.  And don't tell them they
> have to become atheists to be moral, because they don't

>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 2:00 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > And again...
>
> > > A pedophile, by definition, wants to rape children.
> > > A racist, by definition, wants to harm people of a different race.
> > > There is nothing about belief in God, in and of itself, that requires
> > > or causes the believer to harm others.
>

> > > On Aug 12, 6:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > Uh-huh. And most pedophiles and racists don't kill people, so it's
> > > > okay to encourage both.
>

[rappoccio]

On Aug 13, 10:39 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Aug 13, 8:39 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 13, 4:01 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Believing that Canada exists does not imply not believing that the US
> > > exists.  Believing that something beyond Science exists does not imply
> > > not believing in Science.
>

> > <snip>
>
> > Failed analogy.
>
> > There has never been any evidence that a god (let alone many gods) has
> > ever existed.
> > There is plenty of evidence that the US exists.
>

> There is historical evidence that Jesus performed miracles.

No more historical evidence than that Julius Caesar was descended from
Mars and Venus.

[Walt]

Semantic game time. By group blame, I mean blaming a whole group for
harm done by some, not all, members. It's valid to blame a group for
harm done by all members. As I've noted, anti-theist can only blame
all theists for harmful theism using the weak slippery-slope/lends-
justification argument.

[rappoccio]

On Aug 13, 10:51 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 10:27 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Not true. Racism is simply thinking the race in question is inferior.
> > It has no requirement of harm.
>
> Debatable.

>
> > > There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in
> > > conflict with Science or secular morality.
>

> > Where the hell are all these "millions of Christians"? I don't see
> > them.
>

> Your dogmatism doesn't allow you to.

You're going to have to show what dogma I ascribe to, or admit you're
a lying fuck.

>
> > I'd say that almost every Christian in the world believes at least one
> > of these is true, which are all in opposition to secular morality:
>
> > -That women should be forced (yes, forced) to bear children they don't
> > want (this is self-explanatory).

> > -That birth control is evil (this belief leads to the spread of
> > STD's).

> > -That homosexuals do not have the right to get married (this belief is
> > obviously in opposition to their civil rights).

> > -That a three-day-old zygote is a person (which restricts potentially
> > life-saving research).

> > -That the above ideas are not immoral (they permit immoral action even
> > if they don't share them).
>

> Not accurate.  Not all denominations believe these things, and many
> people reject the cruel beliefs of their denomination even if they
> don't leave it.

Bring me a single one that doesn't believe in at least one of them.

> > >  For other Christians it's
> > > not a black/white thing.  Few Christians overtly reject Science or
> > > secular morality.
>

> > Liar. 50% of the Christians in the US reject science, because they do
> > not believe in evolution. Right there, there are ACTUALLY millions of
> > Christians who overtly reject science. So you're just bullshitting,
> > lying, and being your usual shitbag self.
>

> They don't reject science, they embrace Creation "Science" because
> they are ignorant and don't know what real science is.

That isn't science. They reject science. Regardless of what you say,
they reject it.

>
> > > And intent does matter.
>
> > So are you saying that we should permit people to drive SUV's and
> > waste the world's resources if they don't really INTEND to destroy the
> > environment? That we should just permit them to fuck the world up for
> > the rest of us just because they don't INTEND to do so?
>

> No you should try to educate them (rather than hate on them).  Any you
> shouldn't tell them they can't even ride a bicycle, because anything
> with a wheel lends justification to SUV ownership.

Who is saying that?

Man, you're fucking stupid.

>
> > In other words, intent does NOT matter, if the results are bad. We
> > should seek to reduce the bad behavior, even if the person in question
> > doesn't intend to do bad things.
>

> > > Our legal system says a person is responsible
> > > for caused harm if there was intent to do harm, or intent to be
> > > reckless.
>

> > Again with your straw man. No one is arguing that theists are legally
> > responsible for any atrocity they didn't actually commit. The rest is
> > bullshit based on this strawman.
>

> But you seem to hate theists for things they do without intent, hence
> the relevance.

I don't hate theists. So you're still bullshitting out of your ass
based on a strawman. I've explained this to you several times, but I
guess getting you to admit that would take a little honesty from you.
Too much to ask, I know.

[Dev]

Are you fucking serious? *sigh* This should be obvious. Just going
through the motions, refuting Walt...

On Aug 13, 12:10 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> snorted coke off an eight-

year-old's ass and wrote:
> That's fine, as long as I don't include anyone who doesn't perpetuate
> group blame in the group of people who perpetuate group blame.

I don't include anyone who doesn't perpetuate theism in the group of
people who perpetuate theism.

Anticipating your response that theism doesn't "always" kill people
(*ahneitherdoesAIDSracismpedophiliaem*), neither does--wait for it--
group blame.

You can't possibly think you have a point. You're just trolling.

[rappoccio]

On Aug 13, 10:52 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Aug 13, 10:09 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 1:24 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>

> > > On Aug 12, 7:00 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > And again...
>
> > > > A pedophile, by definition, wants to rape children.

> > > > A racist, by definition, wants to harm people of a different race.
> > > > There is nothing about belief in God, in and of itself, that requires
> > > > or causes the believer to harm others.
>
> > > LL: But religious people do such things all the time in the name of
> > > their religion. Remember that the people who bombed the WTC were all
> > > religious and were doing it for their religion. The Inquisition and
> > > the Crusades were done for religion.  Whether you like it or not
> > > religion drives a lot of horrible acts.
>
> > > I like the bumper sticker that says: There is a REASON atheists don't
> > > bomb buildings.
>
> > Exactly. This highlights the major point here. Walt continues to bring
> > up stupid hypothetical situations that would be stupid justifications
> > for doing bad actions. However, religion actually DOES these stupid
> > things in the name of their religion. So apparently it IS a problem,
> > and that's objectively true.
>
> Group blame is not right.  That's objectively true.

It is if the entire group does something wrong.

>
> > > > On Aug 12, 6:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > > > Uh-huh. And most pedophiles and racists don't kill people, so it's
> > > > > okay to encourage both.
>

[LL]

On Aug 13, 1:01 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Believing that Canada exists does not imply not believing that the US
> exists.  Believing that something beyond Science exists does not imply
> not believing in Science.

LL: But science does not require belief. If scientific evidence has
been shown, no belief is necessary. Belief is only "necessary" when
there is no evidence for the claim.

Believing that something beyond science exists is a belief and there
is nothing in science that would uphold that belief.

Belief in anything is not scientific.

>
> On Aug 13, 3:19 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> > > There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in
> > > conflict with Science or secular morality.
>

> > Really?  So the belief that a guy with non-functioning organs all over
> > his body (who is for all intents and purposes; dead) can walk around
> > like nothing happen and let people stick their dirty fingers in his
> > wounds, does not in any
> > way, conflict with what medical science would have us believe about
> > the
> > necessity of healthy functioning organs?
>

> > > There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in

> > > conflict with Science or secular morality.  For other Christians it's

> > > not a black/white thing.  Few Christians overtly reject Science or

> > > secular morality.  Rather, they use the Bible to "bend" them, to a
> > > slight or ridiculous degree.  For example, the Catholic Church, like
> > > Gahndi, is anti-sex,  This is not completely unjustifiable secularly.
> > > Sex does have a strong tendency to cause people to objectify other
> > > people.  Non-religious people generally feel this is trumphed by the
> > > suffering that is caused by excessive frustration of sexual impulses
> > > that can be expressed benignly.  Especially in the case of
> > > homosexuals, who cannot have procreative sex, which is the only type
> > > of sex Catholicism permits.
>

> > > And intent does matter.  Our legal system says a person is responsible

> > > for caused harm if there was intent to do harm, or intent to be

> > > reckless.  The law recongnizes that many people are too dumb to
> > > recongnize what is wrong or reckless for themselves.  But it presumes
> > > that even dumb people are aware when behavior is seen as bad by the
> > > vast majority of people.  So it's not appropriate to be so hostile
> > > towards those who bend rationality without intent or understanding of
> > > the danger.  Unfortunately, there is no consensus against doing this.
> > > As Jesus said, they know not what they do.
>
> > > So don't hate on them, try to educate them.  And don't tell them they
> > > have to become atheists to be moral, because they don't
>

> > > > On Aug 13, 2:00 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > And again...
>
> > > > > A pedophile, by definition, wants to rape children.
> > > > > A racist, by definition, wants to harm people of a different race.
> > > > > There is nothing about belief in God, in and of itself, that requires
> > > > > or causes the believer to harm others.
>

[rappoccio]

On Aug 13, 10:56 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 10:07 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Aug 12, 10:00 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > And again...
>
> > > A pedophile, by definition, wants to rape children.
> > > A racist, by definition, wants to harm people of a different race.
>

> > False. A racist may just think that they are inferior and cause them
>
> One hand clapping.  Irrelevant topic best left for discussion while
> high on acid.

I don't really give two shits what you think, you are redefining the
English language to suit your argument.

Man, you're fucking dishonest.

>
>
>
> > > There is nothing about belief in God, in and of itself, that requires
> > > or causes the believer to harm others.
>

> > However their belief lends justification to those that do. Someday
> > you'll get the argument right.
>
> > Somehow you think that we are saying that all theists are equally
> > responsible for all bad actions from theists. They aren't. We
> > recognize that. No one has ever suggested that. The fact that I have
> > to spell this out for you (again) just shows that you're either
> > dishonest, stupid, or both.
>
> > However, in the same way that we are all at fault for causing global
> > warming by driving cars, theists are all responsible for atrocities
> > committed in the name of dogmatic superstition, because their actions
> > lend them credibility in the same way that our actions contribute to
> > global warming. Now, are we going to put everyone in the planet in
> > jail, or abolish driving cars, because we all contribute to global
> > warming? Of course not. But that doesn't mean we can't seek to reduce
> > the carbon emissions of everyone on the planet. Same with religion. We
> > don't think they should all go to prison. We also don't hold them all
> > equally accountable for the atrocities committed in the name of
> > religion. Instead, we just want them to have a more evidence-based
> > outlook on life and come up with something better as justification for
> > their actions.
>
> > But of course, expecting you to understand this would require a little
> > honesty and not be so much of a crybaby. Too much to ask, I know.
>
> When I drive my car it puts carbon dioxide in the air.  It doesn't
> merely hypothetically lend justification to someone else putting
> carbon dioxide in the air.  Poor analogy.

No, it is not. Theism actually DOES bad things. So the analogy fits.

[rappoccio]

On Aug 13, 10:58 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 10:01 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ahhh, still making stupid analogies and beating on strawmen. Maybe you
> > could find a single post where anyone suggested *abolishing* religion,
> > or admit you're lying. I won't hold my breath, that would require you
> > to be a little honest.
>
> > What we have stated is that in this case, religion is the cause of
> > this child's death (absolute true fact). I don't seem to recall any
> > such incidents about potty training. However, just in the last year or
> > so, there have been several cases of children dying because of their
> > parents' religion. Directly. Mom drowns kid in tub because God tells
> > her to. Parents kill toddler for not saying "Amen". Parents refuse
> > life-saving treatments to child because of religion.
>
> > So instead of bringing out stupid hypotheticals, why not look at the
> > actual cases that are happening in front of your eyes?
>
> Maybe because I don't participate in the amoral group-blame?

Except against those bastard anti-theists, right?

Man, you're a fucking hypocrite.

> > On Aug 12, 9:53 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Suppose a mother kills her kid for crapping in his pants (Í'm sure
> > > it's happened).  Would that be a reason to abolish potty training?
>
> > > On Aug 12, 8:17 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Someday you'll learn that the cases are different:
>
> > > > Toddler dies because of religion. Fault lies with the religion.
>
> > > > Hitler likes cheese and is an aunicornist, but both are irrelevant
> > > > because neither contributed to his heinous acts. Never mind that
> > > > religion did, it's besides the point here.
>
> > > > I know it's hard for you to understand. But concentrate. Maybe you'll
> > > > learn something about logic.
>

[Keith MacNevins]

Another example of the effects of alcohol on an anti-theist who is, incidentally, over the hill.

[LL]

On Aug 13, 7:07 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

But that doesn't mean we can't seek to reduce
the carbon emissions of everyone on the planet. Same with religion.

LL: We ARE seeking to reduce religious emissions, more polluting than
carbon emissions; smellier and more toxic, too.

> On Aug 12, 10:00 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > And again...
>
> > A pedophile, by definition, wants to rape children.
> > A racist, by definition, wants to harm people of a different race.
>
> False. A racist may just think that they are inferior and cause them

> no harm whatsoever.

>
> > There is nothing about belief in God, in and of itself, that requires
> > or causes the believer to harm others.
>
> However their belief lends justification to those that do. Someday
> you'll get the argument right.
>
> Somehow you think that we are saying that all theists are equally
> responsible for all bad actions from theists. They aren't. We
> recognize that. No one has ever suggested that. The fact that I have
> to spell this out for you (again) just shows that you're either
> dishonest, stupid, or both.
>
> However, in the same way that we are all at fault for causing global
> warming by driving cars, theists are all responsible for atrocities
> committed in the name of dogmatic superstition, because their actions
> lend them credibility in the same way that our actions contribute to
> global warming. Now, are we going to put everyone in the planet in
> jail, or abolish driving cars, because we all contribute to global
> warming? Of course not. But that doesn't mean we can't seek to reduce
> the carbon emissions of everyone on the planet. Same with religion. We
> don't think they should all go to prison. We also don't hold them all
> equally accountable for the atrocities committed in the name of
> religion. Instead, we just want them to have a more evidence-based
> outlook on life and come up with something better as justification for
> their actions.
>
> But of course, expecting you to understand this would require a little
> honesty and not be so much of a crybaby. Too much to ask, I know.
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Aug 12, 6:47 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > > Uh-huh. And most pedophiles and racists don't kill people, so it's
> > > okay to encourage both.
>

[Keith MacNevins]

You must have been locked in a hermetically sealed room with a half a dozen Jehovah's Witnesses and six Mormons.

[rappoccio]

On Aug 13, 12:57 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
> On Aug 13, 10:27 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Aug 13, 3:09 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in
> > > conflict with Science or secular morality.
>

> > Where the hell are all these "millions of Christians"? I don't see
> > them.
>

> > I'd say that almost every Christian in the world believes at least one
> > of these is true, which are all in opposition to secular morality:
>
> > -That women should be forced (yes, forced) to bear children they don't
> > want (this is self-explanatory).
>

> This can be entirely justified as long as one simply holds that at
> some point before birth the foetus gains the rights of a human being.

And so therefore the rights of the child trump the rights of the
woman?

Still not right.

> This can be done for many reasons, including the best logical point
> that there is no difference developmentally between the foetus one
> minute before birth and the child one minute after, but the mother is
> not allowed the kill the child.

And not a single doctor on the planet would perform such an abortion,
since at that stage, it's called a "premature birth" and not an
abortion.

So let's focus on what actually happens most of the time: Abortions
occur in the first 10-12 weeks of pregnancy, well before the pregnancy
is viable and during the period of time when "God" apparently aborts
1/3 of all pregnancies anyway.

>
> Then it simply becomes a matter of WHEN we should stop allowing the
> killing.

A three-day-old zygote is not a person. It can BECOME a person. It can
also become a skin cell, or an arm, or a brain, or a mucus membrane.
So terminating it is not killing anything.

> > -That birth control is evil (this belief leads to the spread of
> > STD's).
>

> The belief is also coupled with the idea that sex should only be for
> reproduction,

This isn't justified by any argument aside from dogmatic assertion,
and since it affects those that don't share such neolithic sexually
repressed attitudes, it causes demonstrable harm. Therefore it is
evil.

> > -That homosexuals do not have the right to get married (this belief is
> > obviously in opposition to their civil rights).
>

> One can justify this secularly as well, by pointing out that the main
> social purpose of marriage is inheritance,

Again, not justified. And since it affects those that don't share such
neolithic sexually repressed attitudes, it causes demonstrable harm.
Therefore it is evil.

> > -That a three-day-old zygote is a person (which restricts potentially
> > life-saving research).
>

> See above.

Yes, please do.

> > -That the above ideas are not immoral (they permit immoral action even
> > if they don't share them).
>

> Even secularly, holding these ideas and acting on them yourself, and
> even teaching them to others, would not generally be considered
> immoral.  

I disagree.

> > In other words, intent does NOT matter, if the results are bad. We
> > should seek to reduce the bad behavior, even if the person in question
> > doesn't intend to do bad things.
>

> You do not understand intentionalism.  If someone is negligent, their
> intent is to be negligent, and that can be criticized.  However, if
> you have someone who has, say, 6 children and finds SUVs provide the
> best way to transport them to what they need to do -- try not driving
> in very small villages, for example -- with the minimum amount of fuel
> used, are they still bad?

Technically, yes, actually. Not as bad, but still bad. We have to be
realistic, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't develop machinery to
eliminate the carbon footprint of people. Same with religion. Not all
religious people are equally responsible for the evils perpetrated by
religion. That doesn't mean we can't seek to get people to develop a
more rational outlook on life.

>  What about someone who, say, buys a truck
> because they tend to use it to haul things to their house, but know
> that they still drive at least 50% less than anyone else, and so their
> little extra gas usage still leaves them far below the average?  Are
> they bad?
>
>
>

> > > Our legal system says a person is responsible
> > > for caused harm if there was intent to do harm, or intent to be
> > > reckless.
>

> > Again with your straw man. No one is arguing that theists are legally
> > responsible for any atrocity they didn't actually commit. The rest is
> > bullshit based on this strawman.
>

> Then how ARE we responsible for those atrocities?

By giving credence to the justification for those atrocities, since
your beliefs don't have any better justification.

[Keith MacNevins]

You describe yourself, demon. In posts from the past few months you seem to be obsessed with necrophilia and pedophilia.

On 8/13/08, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

--
Ambassador From Hell

[rappoccio]

On Aug 13, 2:04 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think we all need to stop demonizing each other over the abortion
> issue.

I think you need to stop demonizing us over the anti-theism issue.

> It's hard to objectively define what makes human life more
> valuable than cattle life without excluding newborn babies or mentally
> handicapped people from humaness.

It isn't if you actually think about it for a second.

Three-day-old pile of cells: Not a human.

Three-day-old child: Human.

Why is this fucking hard?

>  Whether God or evolution-given, we
> have an emotional revulsion to the idea of killing a member of the
> human species.  The best standard I can think of is that, if its OK to
> turn off like support for a brain-dead person, it's OK to abort a
> fetus that isn't yet "brain-alive".  But I'm not sure that's much less
> arbitrary than saying a human is a human from the moment of
> conception.

Except for the fact that one has a rational justification. The other
doesn't. Therefore the first is better, and the second is stupid.

[rappoccio]

But that's not what you're doing. You already assume that:

-Anti-theists want to abolish religion (in this thread).
-Anti-theists hate theists (in this thread).

So you're just a fucking hypocrite.

[LL]

On Aug 13, 9:57 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

One can justify this secularly as well, by pointing out that the main
social purpose of marriage is inheritance, which implies children,
which implies reproduction, which homosexuals cannot do. There is no
benefit to the government to extend it to them, then, and marriage is
only recognized by governments because of the benefits (they have no
reason to do so otherwise, and there is nothing that says that a
government must recognize it). Thus, since they are not equivalently
positioned to fit the purpose of the recognition, it would not
violate
their rights to exclude them.

LL: Then heterosexual couples who are too old to bear children or who
don't want to have children should be barred from marriage on the same
grounds. And people who have had children and are now too old to have
any more should have their marriages annulled, by your reasoning.

AC: In addition, many states and countries can charge someone with

> manslaughter who deliberately forces a miscarriage. Since the only
> difference between that action and an abortion is if the mother wants
> the child, and since her wants in no way affect the rights of the
> foetus/child, the implication then is that whether or not she is the
> one doing it should not determine if a charge is laid.

LL:You are leaving out the mother's rights to her body. If she wants
to gestate the child, it's for her to decide and if someone takes that
choice away from her it should be a chargeable offense. People can
kill themselves, too, but it doesn't mean someone else should be able
to do it with impunity.

> On Aug 13, 10:27 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 13, 3:09 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > There are millions of Christians who hold no belief that is in
> > > conflict with Science or secular morality.
>
> > Where the hell are all these "millions of Christians"? I don't see
> > them.
>
> > I'd say that almost every Christian in the world believes at least one
> > of these is true, which are all in opposition to secular morality:
>
> > -That women should be forced (yes, forced) to bear children they don't
> > want (this is self-explanatory).
>
> This can be entirely justified as long as one simply holds that at
> some point before birth the foetus gains the rights of a human being.
> This can be done for many reasons, including the best logical point
> that there is no difference developmentally between the foetus one
> minute before birth and the child one minute after, but the mother is
> not allowed the kill the child.
>

> Then it simply becomes a matter of WHEN we should stop allowing the
> killing.
>
> In addition, many states and countries can charge someone with
> manslaughter who deliberately forces a miscarriage.  Since the only
> difference between that action and an abortion is if the mother wants
> the child, and since her wants in no way affect the rights of the
> foetus/child, the implication then is that whether or not she is the
> one doing it should not determine if a charge is laid.
>
> Then we can get into her rights versus its and actually have an
> interesting discussion on that ...
>
> > -That birth control is evil (this belief leads to the spread of
> > STD's).
>
> The belief is also coupled with the idea that sex should only be for
> reproduction, and thus it can be argued that this is derived from that
> one.  There would be far more limited spread of STDs if the original
> belief was held, and there are indeed secular reasons to hold that, as
> many quite secular philosophies would lean towards it (the limitation
> of pleasures, for example).
>

> > -That homosexuals do not have the right to get married (this belief is
> > obviously in opposition to their civil rights).
>
> One can justify this secularly as well, by pointing out that the main
> social purpose of marriage is inheritance, which implies children,
> which implies reproduction, which homosexuals cannot do.  There is no
> benefit to the government to extend it to them, then, and marriage is
> only recognized by governments because of the benefits (they have no
> reason to do so otherwise, and there is nothing that says that a
> government must recognize it).  Thus, since they are not equivalently
> positioned to fit the purpose of the recognition, it would not violate
> their rights to exclude them.
>

[rappoccio]

On Aug 13, 2:44 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 7:07 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  But that doesn't mean we can't seek to reduce
> the carbon emissions of everyone on the planet. Same with religion.
>
> LL: We ARE seeking to reduce religious emissions, more polluting than
> carbon emissions; smellier and more toxic, too.

Exactly. Walt sees this as a bad thing somehow.

[LL]

On Aug 13, 11:22 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:

"There has never been any evidence that Jesus was resurrected.
There is plenty of evidence that the US exists."

LL: Actually, neither one exists as a physical entity. They both exist
only in documentation and in people's minds. There is nothing about
the land those countries occupy that you can point to that shows one
is Canada and one is the United States. Both are, physically, just a
land mass (actually, the same land mass). That we embue them with
governments and definitions of area and borders and who those areas
"belong" to, is still only in the minds of people; they are not
physical entities.

[Dev]

Since 44% of the US evidently thinks Jesus is probably or definitely
coming back in the next fifty years, and are looking forward to it
(many of them are deliberately working towards it)...would it _really_
be a stretch to throw irresponsible long-term economic and
environmental policies on the list with racism, sexism, child abuse,
homophobia, slavery, genocide, etc. as things that theism exacerbates?
Funny, perpetuating any of these things can be considered immoral, but
perpetuating something that exacerbates all of them cannot...

> No, it is not. Theism actually DOES bad things. So the analogy fits.- Hide quoted text -

[Answer_42]

On Aug 13, 3:07 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

> "There has never been any evidence that Jesus was resurrected.
> There is plenty of evidence that the US exists."
>
> LL: Actually, neither one exists as a physical entity. They both exist
> only in documentation and in people's minds. There is nothing about
> the land those countries occupy that you can point to that shows one
> is Canada and one is the United States. Both are, physically, just a
> land mass (actually, the same land mass). That we embue them with
> governments and definitions of area and borders and who those areas
> "belong" to, is still only in the minds of people; they are not
> physical entities.

I agree, but I was just using the same terms Walt used.

I guess I could have clarified that I was referring to "political"
entities or some such notion.

__________________________

[LL]

On Aug 13, 11:46 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You must have been locked in a hermetically sealed room with a half a dozen
> Jehovah's Witnesses and six Mormons.

LL: No, it doesn't take that much. I only takes talking to one
irrational theist.

> --
> Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

On Aug 13, 12:37 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Semantic game time.

Since I refuted you, I don't have to play.

> By group blame, I mean blaming a whole group for
> harm done by some, not all, members.

What's the harm caused by group blame? Does it, I don't know, lead to
actions or something like theism does--is that what you're saying?
You've lost this round, Walt.

> It's valid to blame a group for
> harm done by all members.

And if all members perpetuated an evil group, they all did harm. If
someone gives money to Al-Qaeda, they are partially responsible for
what Al-Qaeda does. You are a moron.

> As I've noted, anti-theist can only blame
> all theists for harmful theism using the weak slippery-slope/lends-
> justification argument.

As you've noted, you don't see anything wrong with promoting something
that kills children unnecessarily because you're a child-raping
necrophile.

[Drafterman]

On Aug 13, 1:54 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The happiness has to be balanced against the harm.  The real harm, not
> the false group-blame-and/or-slippery-slope-implied harm.

Ok, balance the happiness and harm for this situation. I'd like to see
this process in action.

>
> On Aug 12, 9:42 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > According to your logic, as long as the people that did this gain some
> > happiness from it, it isn't bad and we're not allowed to criticize it.
>
> > And thinking that makes you a worthless piece of shit of a human
> > being.

[Dev]

The fact that he isn't aware of it should disqualify him from human
rights. People are supposed to be aware of shit.

[Walt]

On Aug 13, 2:54 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2:04 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think we all need to stop demonizing each other over the abortion
> > issue.
>
> I think you need to stop demonizing us over the anti-theism issue.
>
> > It's hard to objectively define what makes human life more
> > valuable than cattle life without excluding newborn babies or mentally
> > handicapped people from humaness.
>
> It isn't if you actually think about it for a second.
>
> Three-day-old pile of cells: Not a human.
>
> Three-day-old child: Human.
>
> Why is this fucking hard?

No, it's not hard to make assertions with no supporting arguments.
Making valid supporting arguments can be hard. For those who know
what a valid supporting argument is.

[Drafterman]

On Aug 13, 2:04 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think we all need to stop demonizing each other over the abortion

> issue.  It's hard to objectively define what makes human life more
> valuable than cattle life without excluding newborn babies or mentally

> handicapped people from humaness.  Whether God or evolution-given, we

> have an emotional revulsion to the idea of killing a member of the
> human species.  The best standard I can think of is that, if its OK to
> turn off like support for a brain-dead person, it's OK to abort a
> fetus that isn't yet "brain-alive".  But I'm not sure that's much less
> arbitrary than saying a human is a human from the moment of
> conception.

You can't avoid arbitrarity (arbitrariness?). There is a spectrum
between non-life and life. There is a spectrum between different life
forms. There is a spectrum from birth to death of a single life form.
And since each life-forum is unique it is impossible to generate a
completely non-arbitrary objective dilineation between stages of life,
between different life forms, between life and non-life.

However, to say that because we cannot generate a completely non-
arbitrary objective dilineation we cannot create ANY dilineation is to
inhibit education.

The issue here really is not about life. It really isn't. It's about
consciousness. The difference between a blastocyst and, say, a
malignant tumor, is that the cluster of cells for the blastocyst could
potentially become a conscious being while the malignant tumor will
not.

But consciousness is even a more ethereal concept than life and harder
to put a point on. But a line has to be drawn.

Now, theists may thing they avoid problems by not drawing a line
(conception = life) but what they don't understand is that they are
drawing a line and are not applying the underlying logic consistently.

Each egg and each sperm has the potential to create a life. Using
their logic, to waste a single egg or sperm is tantamount to abortion
and, thus, tantamount to murder. Having a period = murder. Yet they do
not pursue this line of reasoning because they understand it is
absurd, despite the fact it is a natural extension of the logic that
abortion = murder.

Unless having a period = murder, then their logic is disproved via
reductio ad absurdum.

> > > Then how ARE we responsible for those atrocities?- Hide quoted text -

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Aug 12, 9:00 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A pedophile, by definition, wants to rape children.

That's like saying that a married person, by definition, wants to
commit adultery. A pedophile is one who is sexually aroused by
children. He/she doesn't necessarily want to rape them and if he/she
is determined to keep his/her inclinations in check, he/she doesn't
want to seduce them either.

[Dev]

Sam Harris should have effectively ended the stem cell "debate":

"What is a three day old human embryo? It is a collection of a hundred
and fifty cells. That may sound like a lot of cells; to lay people it
does. But there are a hundred thousand cells in the brain of a fly.
Now it seems to me, if our concern is about suffering in this
universe, it is rather obvious that we should be more concerned about
killing flies than about killing three-day-old human embryos. This may
sound like a very provocative claim; I would argue that it shouldn't,
if you look at the details.

Now many people of course will argue that the difference between a fly
and a three-day-old human embryo is that a three-day-old human embryo
is a potential human being. This runs into problems. Every cell in
your body, given the right manipulations -- every cell with a nucleus
-- is now a potential human being. Literally, every time you scratch
your nose, you have committed a holocaust of potential human beings.
So the argument for a cell's potential doesn't get you anywhere.

But let's take this a little bit further. Let's say we grant it that
every three-day-old human embryo has a soul worthy of our moral
concern. There are other problems that await this description. First
of all, embryos at this stage can split into what we call identical
twins. Is this a case of one soul splitting into two souls? Embryos at
this stage can fuse into what we call a chimera. Many people in this
room could have developed in this way. Now I suspect that there are
theologians trying to figure out what has happened to the extra human
soul in such a case.

It's time we realize that this arithmetic of souls doesn't make any
sense. It's intellectually indefensible, but it's morally indefensible
given that these notions really are prolonging the scarcely endurable
misery of tens of millions of human beings. And because of the respect
we accord religious faith -- not even just people of faith, even
advocates of stem cell research accord this faith respect -- we can't
have this dialogue in the way that we should.

So I submit to you that if you think that the interests of the
blastocyst -- a three-day-old human embryo -- may trump the interests
of a little girl with spinal cord injury, or a person with full body
burns, your moral intuitions have been obscured by religious
metaphysics. And this is a kind of blindness that is very well
subscribed in our society, and is a blindness that goes by another
name: it goes by the name of religious faith. And we have been cowed
into respecting it."

http://www.machineslikeus.com/cms/stem-cells-and-morality.html

> your beliefs don't have any better justification.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

Actually that is the logic you presented (not assertion Jesus'
miracles did not happen is the same as asserting they did happen). And
I simply pointed out that this is a logical fallacy. So, thank you for
agreeing with me.

On Aug 13, 2:08 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rappoccio Fallacy (not invalidate is the same as validate).
>
> On Aug 13, 1:55 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Except I'm going by the characterization YOU presented ("But history
> > does not assert that the miracles of Jesus DID NOT happen.  So it is
> > not going against any rational conclusion to believe in the miracles
> > of Jesus.")
>
> > So any issues with it are issues you created. If you do not like the
> > characterization, you are welcome to change it.
>
> > On Aug 13, 1:45 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > If I take what you said literally, it's just deceitful
> > > mischaracterization of religious belief, not worthy of a response.
>
> > > On Aug 13, 12:35 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 13, 11:16 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > So if you see your child as being special, even if others see you
> > > > > child as being generally average and ordinary, that mean you're
> > > > > lending justification to someone flying a plane into an occupied
> > > > > building?
>
> > > > No, I didn't say that, I said:
>
> > > > "Since concluding something is true based on a mere lack of disproof
> > > > is a logical fallacy, then yes, it does go against rational conclusion
> > > > to believe in the miracles of Jesus."
>
> > > > Read. Comprehend. THEN respond.
>
> > > > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > On Aug 13, 10:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 13, 10:39 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 13, 8:39 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 4:01 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Believing that Canada exists does not imply not believing that the US
> > > > > > > > > exists.  Believing that something beyond Science exists does not imply
> > > > > > > > > not believing in Science.
>

> > > > > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > Failed analogy.
>
> > > > > > > > There has never been any evidence that a god (let alone many gods) has
> > > > > > > > ever existed.

> > > > > > > > There is plenty of evidence that the US exists.
>

> > > > > > > There is historical evidence that Jesus performed miracles.  But the
> > > > > > > sources are either biased Christian sources or Jewish sources that may
> > > > > > > have been relying on Christian primary sources.  So the miracles of
> > > > > > > Jesus are not considered established historical fact by true
> > > > > > > historians.  But history does not assert that the miracles of Jesus
> > > > > > > DID NOT happen.  So it is not going against any rational conclusion to
> > > > > > > believe in the miracles of Jesus.  It's just answering a question with
> > > > > > > intuition that reason and objective observation cannot answer.
>
> > > > > > Since concluding something is true based on a mere lack of disproof is
> > > > > > a logical fallacy, then yes, it does go against rational conclusion to
> > > > > > believe in the miracles of Jesus.- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

OK, once again I'll give you the remedial version:

Harmless theism OK.
Harmful theism bad.
Harmless racism (if there is such a thing) OK.
Harmful racism bad.

Or in general:

Harmless X OK.
Harmful X bad.

Substitute X of your choice.

On Aug 13, 2:39 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Are you fucking serious? *sigh* This should be obvious. Just going
> through the motions, refuting Walt...
>
> On Aug 13, 12:10 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> snorted coke off an eight-

>
> year-old's ass and wrote:
> > That's fine, as long as I don't include anyone who doesn't perpetuate
> > group blame in the group of people who perpetuate group blame.
>

> I don't include anyone who doesn't perpetuate theism in the group of
> people who perpetuate theism.
>
> Anticipating your response that theism doesn't "always" kill people
> (*ahneitherdoesAIDSracismpedophiliaem*), neither does--wait for it--
> group blame.
>
> You can't possibly think you have a point. You're just trolling.

[Walt]

You can have the argument between Drafterman and Walt-in-Drafterman's-
delusion all by yourself. No need or use posting it here.