[The gay] agenda includes
… redefining the family to represent “any circle of people who love each other.”
- James Dobson
Oh hey, non-Jews everywhere! Please do me a favor: if you are adamantly opposed to circumcision, please do not comment on how “barbaric” or whatever it is that Jewish law dictates that…
What? What did I say? I simply pointed out the history of Jewish and Christian practices of circumcision is rooted in a story where a man loads a zoo onto a boat. If there’s anything that’s nonsense or crap, it’s the Bible.
Well, I don’t know why I bother, but… even if you really, truly believe that that’s the literal origin of circumcision,
Oh, I’m so sorry, Liberal Christian, I forgot that in your view, you get to be the arbiter of what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts are not.
THAT’S NOT A LOGICAL REASON TO BE OPPOSED TO IT.
Who said anything about opposition? Not supporting a thing isn’t opposing it. Just like not having a belief in a thing isn’t asserting it isn’t real.
It’s an ad-hominem fallacy.
Actually, it’s not. But in a stunning Shyamalanian twist, you’re going to commit this very fallacy at the end of this post.
If someone told me that we brush our teeth because a magical fairy will pull them out if they’re not clean enough, that does indeed qualify as ‘silly’, but it doesn’t imply that brushing my teeth is a bad decision.
A…..HA! So, you admit that the ends justify the means? Your implication is that people are stupid and incapable of rational behavior and need a myth to guide them. You’re also implying that it’s OK to teach proper social, moral, hygienic, or any other behavior through fear, even if the manifestation of that fear isn’t really there to begin with. This comment really exposes a fundamental flaw with the way you’ve been taught to think, LC.
What you’re really saying is, ‘I think Christianity/Judaism is stupid and therefore circumcision is bad.’ That’s. called. illogical.
And there’s your ad hom.
There are actual issues and questions about circumcision that could be addressed.
The conversation started out with some insolent ninny insisting that any of your “actual questions about circumcision that could be addressed” were to be precluded by a discussion of the claimant being an anti-Semite for even broaching the subject.
If you can’t address them, then you’re every bit as ignorant and irrational as people who claim it must be done because the bible says so. (I.E. It must NOT be done because the bible says so)
Uh, why should I have to defend why manipulating an infant’s genitalia is stupid? Shouldn’t the people who do it (and sometimes suck the blood out with their filthy, bacteria trap mouths (that’s not anti-Semitic, by the way, every living creatures mouth is a filthy, bacteria trap I wouldn’t put on an open wound).
And then there’s the fact that you’re misrepresenting the story of the ark, and the covenant with God, etc etc… but that’s really too obvious to even debate.
I’m sorry, it’s true that Noah promised the all powerful creator of all things that he would chop off part of his wingdangdoodle before the all powerful creator of all things found no other way to correct what he perceived as naughty behavior by the people he created besides drowning most of them.
I guess he had a moral beef with a bunch of other animals too, because most of them got wiped out, not that there’s even a shred of evidence for a flood that matches that description or any logical way a 600-year-old man (pfft) living in his region of the world could possibly amass every other living animal on a ship, but it’s all vital we just accept the wonder and the magic of it because if we don’t we might get cavities. Right?
Fundamentalist Christian sister-in-law and her family are coming here tomorrow for the 4th of July. She’s… angry… with me and thinks I’m possessed by the devil or some such nonsense, so I felt the need to prepare my son this morning for any potential issues.
Me: Hey Alex? Pretend I’m someone else for a minute, k? I’m going to ask you some questions.
My son: Okay!
Me: Do you pray?
My son: Do I play what?
Me: No, do you pray? Do you talk to god?
My son: No… do you talk to god?
Me: Of course I talk to god! I talk to god every day.
My son: What do you talk about?
Me: HA! That was awesome. Okay, do you believe in Jesus?
My son: Mmmm… not really.
Me: Why don’t you believe in Jesus? Didn’t your mom tell you about Jesus?
My son: Oh! Sure, she told me about him. He’s a character in the Bible.
Me: He is in the Bible! And you know you have to believe in him to go to heaven, right?
My son: How do you know heaven is real?
Me: Because it’s in the Bible, of course.
My son: How do you know the Bible is true?
Me: Because it is God’s word.
My son: How do you know it’s God’s word?
Me (grinning): Okay, I’m me again. You know what kid? You deserve a massive high five.
My son: I know.
Questions, people. We don’t need to know or have all the answers… we just need to be able to ask questions. ~JJ
In which a 7-year-old schools the majority of Americans on simple logical fallacies.
not only is this grossly slut-shame-y and heteronormative, but it’s so insulting to the people who have lost their homes and the lives that were taken. Focus on the Family can’t get much lower in my book. This is so disgusting. Though it is interesting that CitizenLink deleted the original article…
And I wish that this article had actually done more to counter the ridiculous statements made, with more sources and facts, instead of gifs and jokes.
That’s what happens to a perfectly good human brain when it’s taught from childhood that the Bible is actually real.
I’ve stated this before and I’ll state it again, I dislike atheists. I have nothing wrong with Atheism, I have a problem with a lot of its followers.
Well, atheism isn’t a belief system that has tenets and there are no “followers” of atheism, so right off the bat the thing you’re saying is nonsense. Atheism is a position on one single issue, a response to the question: Are you convinced a god exists. If the answer is no, you’re called an atheist. That’s all there is to it, brah.
Why is it that most Atheists have to come off as smug, intolerant assholes?
You must think everyone who’s thought an issue through and can clearly explain their position is a smug, intolerant asshole.
Not everyone is like this, but there is definitely a vocal minority/majority that get a lot of attention.
You expose how little you know what you’re talking about when you don’t even have an idea as to whether you’re talking about the majority or the minority. Is there any chance you’re making this up in your imagination? Sounds a lot like prejudice to me.
Why can’t they sell their beliefs without insulting everyone?
There are no beliefs in atheism, atheism is not a system of beliefs, it’s a stance on one issue. I know I said it already, but you seem like the type that needs things explained again and again.
Why do they have to mock people of faith and view them as intellectually inferior for believing in a higher power?
Because it is intellectually inferior and it demonstrably leads to harm and social ills. Religion is a scam. Would you defend the conmen behind a pyramid scheme and say “why does consumer reports have to expose the fraud of scam artists? Why can’t we just let them live, maaaannn!?”
To me, mocking someone for their beliefs is akin to Antisemitism or Islamophobia. It does not lead down a good path…
Well, that’s bullshit because anti-Semitism and Islamophobia involves the systematic, institutionalized legal and social suppression of individuals based on their heritage and/or religious beliefs. That’s certainly not what I’m advocating and while there is no tenets to atheism (so I can’t speak for any other atheists) many of the atheists I know who have an interest in social justice issues make a clear distinction between targeting an oppressive system like Islam and bigotry against individuals. Individuals deserve the same treatment under the law, but religious organizations which take advantage of individuals (which is all of them) do not. While people always ought to be free to choose to join a religious organization, I’m here to present good reasons why they ought not do so.
But here is the thing, if atheists are so drawn to logic and reason, they should be agnostic.
You don’t know what ‘agnostic’ means. You’ve accepted this Vatican-sponsored doublespeak idea that atheists assert there is no god, theists assert there is and agnostics are in the middle or are saying “I don’t know.” I know it’s hard to accept, but you’ve been duped, my friend. There is no such thing as an ‘agnostic.’ Gnosticism is a word that describes knowledge. It literally translates to “knowledge.” To call yourself an agnostic or gnostic is to answer the question whether or not you think you have knowledge of a god existing. An agnostic theist would say she doesn’t KNOW that there’s a god, like she doesn’t have hard evidence, but she’s convinced nonetheless. An agnostic atheist Also doesn’t know, has no direct evidence and thereby has admitted they are unable to form a belief around the thing they have no knowledge of. Theism, by the way, is a term that refers to belief. If you have a specific belief in a god, if you believe that god is a real thing and has at least one trait you can explain, you’re a theist, you are with belief. I don’t have that belief. That’s not to assert there is no god, that’s just to say, I don’t believe any things about a god.
I don’t know if “Schrödinger’s Cat” is an appropriate example or metaphor, but I think it is similar. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of something you cannot see.
Yeah, so like we were saying, there is no ‘disproving’ there is only accept of don’t accept. Look, do you believe in flavooglorps? You don’t know what a flavooglorp is, so you’re agnostic about it, you have no knowledge, but in addition, you don’t believe flavooglorps are real. You don’t say I made them up because a falvooglorp might be a new kind of moss growing in my yard I can show you and then you’ll say, ‘yes I believe it’s real.’ Until then, though, you’re an agnostic atheist in regards to flavooglorps.
Let me give you an example. There is a 100-square mile section of forest. Is there a bear in the woods? Finding a bear could prove to be difficult, and after a week of searching you find nothing. But does that mean there is no bear at all? Who knows? All you can say is that you could not find a bear, but you cannot say with 100% conviction that there is not a single bear in that entire forest. You will not know until you search every square inch of that forest.
Right, you don’t know, but do you believe it anyway?
You will not know if God exists until you die.
How do you know you’ll find out when you die? If there is no afterlife you wouldn’t find out and if there was how do you know that part of the afterlife is finding out if there’s a god. You’re operating under a whole host of false dichotomies. What if there is an afterlife, but you still don’t find out about god? What if there’s a god, but no afterlife? Why do you think you have some understanding of the nature of the afterlife?
To believe that strongly that God does not exist, you need to have the same faith and conviction a religious person needs to believe God exists. You are no better than any religious person.
That’s a real dick way to say it because it implies that atheists think “they’re better” than theists. Like as people. You understand that you’re the one being a dick here, right? You’re making presumptions and I don’t like to have presumptions made about me.
Furthermore, I don’t have faith there’s no god, I trust my ability to understand the world via the senses I have and if they’re not good enough than how would I even know?
Oh, you read books by Dawkins to get your world view? How is that different from reading the Tanakh, the Bible, the Koran, the Veda and Upanishads, the Zend Avesta, or the Tao-te Ching? Through self-reflection you came to this belief? How is that different from meditation or prayer?
uh, because all those books are fairly tales about make-believe characters from ancient mythology and only a child wouldn’t be able to see that’s obvious.
That is why I am agnostic. I have no idea if there is a God or an afterlife until I die, and I’m in no hurry to find out.
I’m confused about you because you think you’re so open to the idea of a god, but your descriptions of the god are very Christian-oriented. You say you have no idea, but you’ve presented tons of your ideas about the nature of god. I suggest you analyze where they come from, kid.
You have a right to believe there is no God. There is nothing wrong with that.
Oh, really, thanks for the fucking permission, I was waiting with baited breath for you to justify my worldview.
You are free to believe whatever you want. But you do not have a right to act smug and superior because of that belief.
Actually I do have the right to act that way. I have to specific right to be as much of a smug prick as I want to be and there’s nothing you can do about it. That right, by the way, is actually the very first right offered to Americans in the Bill of Rights. Are you an American? Do you live in a country with freedom of speech? That’s what a “right’ is, ya know, it refers to your relationship with the law. I have the right to act smug and superior because my
beliefs understanding of reality IS superior. What you don’t have the right to do is to swindle, scam and cheat people, commit acts of violence and limit people’s access to public and private services which is all shit religion does all the time. And, by the way, unlike you, when I use the word “the right” I’m actually referring to what that word means and not to your imagined idea of what’s like, polite or some shit.