Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, I haven’t seen any of those here. You can not believe in religion and even dislike religion, but certainly still be an American who values the Constitution and the right to worship as you wish.

Or not.

I sure have seen anti-theistic posts here. And I’ve seen people who disparage religious people as bigots be just as bigoted about religion, without one ounce of self-awareness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, I haven’t seen any of those here. You can not believe in religion and even dislike religion, but certainly still be an American who values the Constitution and the right to worship as you wish.

Or not.

I sure have seen anti-theistic posts here. And I’ve seen people who disparage religious people as bigots be just as bigoted about religion, without one ounce of self-awareness.

People telling you to stop shoving your religion in their face and up their vagina absolutely do support the Constitution. In fact, we just want our personal liberty back.

Freedom of religion- nobody is shoving their religion “in your face.” How would a religious person be shoving their religion in your face?

No one is shoving their religion in anyone’s vagina. That’s a hysterical, crude, and disgusting statement, completely without merit. It’s inflammatory and ridiculous rhetoric that people use to justify killing innocent babies, while painting themselves as victims.
The victims are the babies whose lives and bodies are destroyed for the sake of convenience.

You are absolutely shoving your religion in my face and up my vagina. If you want to believe that a clump of cells is a “baby” and women have no personal liberty, then you believe that in your house with consenting adults. You can’t force your extremist religious beliefs on others.

Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

The right to live doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

It is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.

You are welcome to have your religious beliefs around personhood. But you don’t get to define it and force it on everyone else.

Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive. An embryo/fetus is not equal to a living, breathing woman.

Keep your religion to yourself and stay out of my vagina. Thanks.

A child’s “breathing,” her intake of oxygen, begins long before birth.

Someone’s helplessness or dependency should motivate us to protect her, not to destroy her.

The point of viability changes because it depends on technology, not the unborn herself. Eventually babies may be viable from the point of conception.

In a broad sense, many born people are not viable because they are incapable of surviving without depending on others.

An embryo/fetus absorbing oxygen via the umbilical cord is not equal to a living, breathing woman.

Woman are people who have autonomy over their body. Your religion says otherwise.

Keep your religion out of my body. You are infringing on my rights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, I haven’t seen any of those here. You can not believe in religion and even dislike religion, but certainly still be an American who values the Constitution and the right to worship as you wish.

Or not.

I sure have seen anti-theistic posts here. And I’ve seen people who disparage religious people as bigots be just as bigoted about religion, without one ounce of self-awareness.

People telling you to stop shoving your religion in their face and up their vagina absolutely do support the Constitution. In fact, we just want our personal liberty back.

Freedom of religion- nobody is shoving their religion “in your face.” How would a religious person be shoving their religion in your face?

No one is shoving their religion in anyone’s vagina. That’s a hysterical, crude, and disgusting statement, completely without merit. It’s inflammatory and ridiculous rhetoric that people use to justify killing innocent babies, while painting themselves as victims.
The victims are the babies whose lives and bodies are destroyed for the sake of convenience.

You are absolutely shoving your religion in my face and up my vagina. If you want to believe that a clump of cells is a “baby” and women have no personal liberty, then you believe that in your house with consenting adults. You can’t force your extremist religious beliefs on others.

Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

The right to live doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

It is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.

You are welcome to have your religious beliefs around personhood. But you don’t get to define it and force it on everyone else.

Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive. An embryo/fetus is not equal to a living, breathing woman.

Keep your religion to yourself and stay out of my vagina. Thanks.

A child’s “breathing,” her intake of oxygen, begins long before birth.

Someone’s helplessness or dependency should motivate us to protect her, not to destroy her.

The point of viability changes because it depends on technology, not the unborn herself. Eventually babies may be viable from the point of conception.

In a broad sense, many born people are not viable because they are incapable of surviving without depending on others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, I haven’t seen any of those here. You can not believe in religion and even dislike religion, but certainly still be an American who values the Constitution and the right to worship as you wish.

Or not.

I sure have seen anti-theistic posts here. And I’ve seen people who disparage religious people as bigots be just as bigoted about religion, without one ounce of self-awareness.

People telling you to stop shoving your religion in their face and up their vagina absolutely do support the Constitution. In fact, we just want our personal liberty back.

Freedom of religion- nobody is shoving their religion “in your face.” How would a religious person be shoving their religion in your face?

No one is shoving their religion in anyone’s vagina. That’s a hysterical, crude, and disgusting statement, completely without merit. It’s inflammatory and ridiculous rhetoric that people use to justify killing innocent babies, while painting themselves as victims.
The victims are the babies whose lives and bodies are destroyed for the sake of convenience.

You are absolutely shoving your religion in my face and up my vagina. If you want to believe that a clump of cells is a “baby” and women have no personal liberty, then you believe that in your house with consenting adults. You can’t force your extremist religious beliefs on others.

Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

The right to live doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

It is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.

You are welcome to have your religious beliefs around personhood. But you don’t get to define it and force it on everyone else.

Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive. An embryo/fetus is not equal to a living, breathing woman.

Keep your religion to yourself and stay out of my vagina. Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, I haven’t seen any of those here. You can not believe in religion and even dislike religion, but certainly still be an American who values the Constitution and the right to worship as you wish.

Or not.

I sure have seen anti-theistic posts here. And I’ve seen people who disparage religious people as bigots be just as bigoted about religion, without one ounce of self-awareness.

People telling you to stop shoving your religion in their face and up their vagina absolutely do support the Constitution. In fact, we just want our personal liberty back.

Freedom of religion- nobody is shoving their religion “in your face.” How would a religious person be shoving their religion in your face?

No one is shoving their religion in anyone’s vagina. That’s a hysterical, crude, and disgusting statement, completely without merit. It’s inflammatory and ridiculous rhetoric that people use to justify killing innocent babies, while painting themselves as victims.
The victims are the babies whose lives and bodies are destroyed for the sake of convenience.

You are absolutely shoving your religion in my face and up my vagina. If you want to believe that a clump of cells is a “baby” and women have no personal liberty, then you believe that in your house with consenting adults. You can’t force your extremist religious beliefs on others.

Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

The right to live doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

It is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, I haven’t seen any of those here. You can not believe in religion and even dislike religion, but certainly still be an American who values the Constitution and the right to worship as you wish.

Or not.

I sure have seen anti-theistic posts here. And I’ve seen people who disparage religious people as bigots be just as bigoted about religion, without one ounce of self-awareness.

People telling you to stop shoving your religion in their face and up their vagina absolutely do support the Constitution. In fact, we just want our personal liberty back.

Freedom of religion- nobody is shoving their religion “in your face.” How would a religious person be shoving their religion in your face?

No one is shoving their religion in anyone’s vagina. That’s a hysterical, crude, and disgusting statement, completely without merit. It’s inflammatory and ridiculous rhetoric that people use to justify killing innocent babies, while painting themselves as victims.
The victims are the babies whose lives and bodies are destroyed for the sake of convenience.

You are absolutely shoving your religion in my face and up my vagina. If you want to believe that a clump of cells is a “baby” and women have no personal liberty, then you believe that in your house with consenting adults. You can’t force your extremist religious beliefs on others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

That is not a fairytale. That is mythology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, I haven’t seen any of those here. You can not believe in religion and even dislike religion, but certainly still be an American who values the Constitution and the right to worship as you wish.

Or not.

I sure have seen anti-theistic posts here. And I’ve seen people who disparage religious people as bigots be just as bigoted about religion, without one ounce of self-awareness.

People telling you to stop shoving your religion in their face and up their vagina absolutely do support the Constitution. In fact, we just want our personal liberty back.

Freedom of religion- nobody is shoving their religion “in your face.” How would a religious person be shoving their religion in your face?

No one is shoving their religion in anyone’s vagina. That’s a hysterical, crude, and disgusting statement, completely without merit. It’s inflammatory and ridiculous rhetoric that people use to justify killing innocent babies, while painting themselves as victims.
The victims are the babies whose lives and bodies are destroyed for the sake of convenience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

Some Atheists say they know there is no Creator, Agnostics say they don’t know.

We were talking about how the universe was formed.

We don’t know definitively how it was formed. Specifically, which natural forces were at play. Just because there is uncertainty doesn’t open the door to supernatural forces.

Unless maybe if you’re uncomfortable with uncertainty.

I would say agnostics are not uncomfortable with assuming uncertainty. Try again.

Being uncertain doesn't mean assuming supernaturalism.

You can't say that you don't know and then go on to define what you don't know.

We can certainly say “I don’t know the mechanism in this natural world that formed our universe”.

That’s just how science works. We don’t know but we investigate and learn - within the natural world. Just because something is unknown doesn’t mean we have to jump to supernatural.

How did my shoes end up in the family room? Oh, must be Zeus.

We're not talking about shoes in your living room, that's a straw man. We're talking about how the universe began. If you're talking about science, of course science doesn't presuppose the existence or absence of a deity. It's neutral in that regard, and limited by human perception.

It was a joke. Chill.

Yes, some of us look to science for explanations in our natural world. We know it’s not perfect and it’s confusing to evolve over time. Sometimes there is no answer - yet. That doesn’t mean we jump to supernatural beliefs.

Science deals with only what we can perceive. Science doesn't search for meaning. Religion does. Maybe you're confusing the two?

Again, we are talking about how the universe was formed. Maybe you personally look for some meaning in that but for many people it’s just another scientific theory to possibly explain our world.

Scientific observation doesn't presuppose the existence or the absence of a god, but in your previous post you were discussing science as though it is in opposition to religious faith. It's not the role of science to "jump to supernatural beliefs" but to theorize about the natural world, so the point of your post was unclear. Science and theology are separate disciplines and not mutually exclusive.

I’ve been trying to tie back to my earlier question:
“Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? “

Maybe I should have been more specific:
Do believers use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? Do they use “creator” to explain the unknown bits?

NP
I use logic.
I will go with the scientific explanation up to the Big Bang.
There is no better explanation for me than the Creator beyond creation, space time is the cause of it.

The giant flaw in your thinking:

There is no evidence of anything “up to” the Big Bang, therefore no reason to presume something was there.

None.

So, you are saying something came from nothing ?

I am saying there is no evidence of a before for something to come from. I am saying you don’t even know what nothing is or what it means. I am saying that you presume there was something eternal prior and that presupposition is the flaw in your thinking.

You have to step out of our universe to get into complete nothingness.
There you will find no matter , energy or low of physics.
But, here we are in this universe as the work of the creator (statement of faith).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, I haven’t seen any of those here. You can not believe in religion and even dislike religion, but certainly still be an American who values the Constitution and the right to worship as you wish.

Or not.

I sure have seen anti-theistic posts here. And I’ve seen people who disparage religious people as bigots be just as bigoted about religion, without one ounce of self-awareness.

People telling you to stop shoving your religion in their face and up their vagina absolutely do support the Constitution. In fact, we just want our personal liberty back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, I haven’t seen any of those here. You can not believe in religion and even dislike religion, but certainly still be an American who values the Constitution and the right to worship as you wish.

Or not.

I sure have seen anti-theistic posts here. And I’ve seen people who disparage religious people as bigots be just as bigoted about religion, without one ounce of self-awareness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

Some Atheists say they know there is no Creator, Agnostics say they don’t know.

We were talking about how the universe was formed.

We don’t know definitively how it was formed. Specifically, which natural forces were at play. Just because there is uncertainty doesn’t open the door to supernatural forces.

Unless maybe if you’re uncomfortable with uncertainty.

I would say agnostics are not uncomfortable with assuming uncertainty. Try again.

Being uncertain doesn't mean assuming supernaturalism.

You can't say that you don't know and then go on to define what you don't know.

We can certainly say “I don’t know the mechanism in this natural world that formed our universe”.

That’s just how science works. We don’t know but we investigate and learn - within the natural world. Just because something is unknown doesn’t mean we have to jump to supernatural.

How did my shoes end up in the family room? Oh, must be Zeus.

We're not talking about shoes in your living room, that's a straw man. We're talking about how the universe began. If you're talking about science, of course science doesn't presuppose the existence or absence of a deity. It's neutral in that regard, and limited by human perception.

It was a joke. Chill.

Yes, some of us look to science for explanations in our natural world. We know it’s not perfect and it’s confusing to evolve over time. Sometimes there is no answer - yet. That doesn’t mean we jump to supernatural beliefs.

Science deals with only what we can perceive. Science doesn't search for meaning. Religion does. Maybe you're confusing the two?

Again, we are talking about how the universe was formed. Maybe you personally look for some meaning in that but for many people it’s just another scientific theory to possibly explain our world.

Scientific observation doesn't presuppose the existence or the absence of a god, but in your previous post you were discussing science as though it is in opposition to religious faith. It's not the role of science to "jump to supernatural beliefs" but to theorize about the natural world, so the point of your post was unclear. Science and theology are separate disciplines and not mutually exclusive.

I’ve been trying to tie back to my earlier question:
“Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? “

Maybe I should have been more specific:
Do believers use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? Do they use “creator” to explain the unknown bits?

NP
I use logic.
I will go with the scientific explanation up to the Big Bang.
There is no better explanation for me than the Creator beyond creation, space time is the cause of it.

The giant flaw in your thinking:

There is no evidence of anything “up to” the Big Bang, therefore no reason to presume something was there.

None.

So, you are saying something came from nothing ?

I am saying there is no evidence of a before for something to come from. I am saying you don’t even know what nothing is or what it means. I am saying that you presume there was something eternal prior and that presupposition is the flaw in your thinking.

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, I haven’t seen any of those here. You can not believe in religion and even dislike religion, but certainly still be an American who values the Constitution and the right to worship as you wish.

Or not.