« Moonbats Go After Ann Coulter's Home | Main | Dems Divert Vet Benefits to Foreigners »

Great... another generation of arrogant, self-obsessed, morally vacant moonbats. This bodes well.

"human life is a random accident with no moral significance, and the universe is a vacuum devoid of meaning that created itself for no particular reason."

I prefer to believe this myself, because if there is a god, and he created all this, I wouldn't want my name put on the credits either, LOL.

LOL! DAMIAN? Did they check for the 666 birthmark?

It sounds like something that escaped from a Jack Chick comic.

It sounds like something that escaped from a Jack Chick comic.

Sadly, I have to agree. I don't particularly mind people who are atheists as long as they aren't froathing-at-the-mouth atheists. Believe whatever you like, but have some respect for my beliefs as well.

"I don't particularly mind people who are atheists as long as they aren't froathing-at-the-mouth atheists"

What about frothing-at-the-mouth Christian fundamentalists? Ever meet any of those?

It's astounding how easily this site can conflate atheism into abortion, homosexuality, buggering little children, the "iniquity of Caucasians" and a universe with "no moral significance." The leaps in logic are enough to make a theoritician's head spin.

"What about frothing-at-the-mouth Christian fundamentalists? Ever meet any of those?"

No. Have you ever met a foam-at-the-mouth MUSLIM? Oh of course you haven't, YOU'RE STILL ALIVE!!

To KHarn:

I take your point on the EXTREMIST Muslims. But then I wouldn't want to meet a "frothing-at-the-mouth" PCP user, either. I have Muslim friends who are as peaceful as the Christians and atheists I know. But I agree the extremist Muslims do want to harm us and anyone who is not of their faith, including each other.

But that's the point — extremists of ANY stripe are by definition extreme, and usually on the minority fringes. The rest of us are reasonable and make room for others. Some of the atheists I know are far more moral than some of the Christians — and it wasn't atheists buggering all those boys in the Catholic and Anglican schools.

I didn't mind atheism when it was "I don't believe in God," but when it turned into "I hate people who believe in God and I reserve the right to call them stupid with impunity and any public expression of faith offends me and should be banned," then it started to piss me off.

Great quote from AoSHQ on Euro-moonbattery that applies to American leftists as well. "Europeans, it seems, are willing to give up everything they don't particularly want -- diamonds, furs, children, a future presence on Earth -- and scold others for not doing otherwise to save the planet they soon won't inhabit. But when it comes to stuff they do want, suddenly they just say, 'That's not my problem, Old Man. Let the Africans figure their own shit out.'"

Extremist Christians picket homosexuals. Maybe one or two of whom become victims of hate crimes yearly.

Extremist Muslims nail-bomb kindergarten schoolbuses. They kill more than 4000 people yearly.

Completely middle-of-the-pack, average joe liberals support and practise abortion. They murder TENS OF MILLIONS of innocent babies EVERY YEAR.

Okay, atheists. I surrender, you win they doctrinal wars.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/Statistics/world_statistics.asp

What about frothing-at-the-mouth Christian fundamentalists? Ever meet any of those?

Yes I have and don't particularly care for them either, consideirng I'm a Deist and not a Christian. Most frothing-at-the-mouth religious people (and this includes Atheists) are assholes who feel its their right to impugn your character, intelligence, familial background and the like without even attempting to understand your point of view. Kind of how you seemed to left-handedly assume I was a Christian, right waynewrite?

Newsflash, not all of us who post here in support of Van Helsing are necessarily Christians and/or Conservatives. There are some here like me who are Libertarians who are very sympathetic. We don't particularly like what is happening to our country and the degradation of our most basic freedoms, including the Free Practice of Religion. Rabid Atheists have done a great deal to harm that free practice.

I'm a Christian, and I know a lot of very devout people, none of whom "who feel its their right to impugn your character, intelligence, familial background and the like without even attempting to understand your point of view." But that description would describe the majority of atheists/agnostics I have known.

Their is a need to enforce "humanistic" values on children of all cultural backgrounds. We wouldn't have extremists driving planes into buildings and/or the causes of such behavior if we all sat down and agreed on a few human/godly VALUES that we can ALL agree on. That includes dominating poor people through military or economic occupation. I think the term "atheistic" just gives fuel to the church/synagogue/mosque goers to say its devil worshiping or some similiar reaction.

"human life is a random accident with no moral significance, and the universe is a vacuum devoid of meaning that created itself for no particular reason."
Get an education and learn some simple physics and biology.
Or you can continue to believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree..."

That whole Jesus Zombie thing you all believe is just weird.

To brooklyn red:

I confess, I did make the erroneous assumption that you were a Christian. I am an agnostic, which I suppose puts me in the neighbourhood of Deism, if there's a chart on such things. My family are all devout Christians and we get along just fine.

To Scott, in spite of 9/11, Muslims by and large kill each other (Saddam, the Iran-Iraq war, etc.) in far greater numbers than they do Westerners. And Islam is a younger religion than Christianity, which has had its own go around at mass murder. Yes, Christians today, extreme or otherwise, don't normally kill too many other people, except for Bush's biggest "faith-based initiative", the Iraq invasion.

And the average-jane liberal, as I understand her, is not so much pro-abortion as pro-CHOICE. There is a difference. To set the record straight, I am personally anti-abortion except for serious medical reasons and in cases of rape or incest where the woman requests it. I am also anti-war and anti-death penalty. I am, I suppose, pro-life in the general, non-political sense and greatly in favour of the humanistic values invoked by Stan.

And the average-jane liberal, as I understand her, is not so much pro-abortion as pro-CHOICE. There is a difference.

So, you can be personally anti-driveby-shooting, but still support a gangbanger's CHOICE to open up with an AK on a street corner full of people, right?

"So, you can be personally anti-driveby-shooting, but still support a gangbanger's CHOICE to open up with an AK on a street corner full of people, right?"

Wow, now there's a leap fit for the Olympics. You can CHOOSE to do anything you please, but unfortunately some of your choices might be illegal. I support choice within the law. Last time I looked, drive-by shootings were illegal, but abortion wasn't. I can support a person's right to smoke but still hate cigarettes.

You want to fight to make abortion illegal then that is absolutely and unequivocally your right. You want to fight to make drive-by shootings legal, that's your right too. But I'm betting that most Americans recognize a difference, and a pretty major one at that, between the two.

Living in a democratic society is hard, sometimes harder than living in a dictatorship. It means you have to VOLUNTARILY put up with people and ideas that you disagree with, sometimes even detest, and work to change those things through democratic means instead of just shooting somebody.

I'm not talking legal differences. There are plenty of things that are legal, but immoral. Abortion is one of them. I think the "I hate abortion, but I support the right to CHOOSE" is a cop-out, because it side-steps the issue of whether a human life is being destroyed or not.

And the average-jane liberal, as I understand her, is not so much pro-abortion as pro-CHOICE.

Kind of how people in the US prior to the Civil War were Pro-Slavery or Pro-Choice? There isn't a distinction, truthfully, between "I support the institution of Slavery" and "I wouldn't practice it, but I don't feel I have a right to deny others their choice in the matter". Slavery was the moral abomination of our country in the 19th Century. Abortion was and still is the moral abomination of our country in the 20th Century.

Before you say squat about 'there is a difference', there is NOT a difference. Abortion treats developing human beings as chattel, which is no different than treating another human being as chattel. Human life, sadly, is cheap as we all know. The idea that leftists in our country sancitify life is absurd (note, I did not say Liberal, I said Leftist. A Liberal is someone who believes in Western Democratic Republican principles as envisioned by The Founding Fathers).

Abortion was and still is the moral abomination of our country in the 20th Century.

And 21st.

What bothers me is, we have established that partial birth abortion is okay, that killing the brain damaged (Terri Schaivo) is okay, and that using human embryos as medical commodities is okay.

So, if someone created a clone of herself (embryonic stem cell), gestated the fetus to a certain point then had it deliberately brain-damaged (partial birth abortion), and allowed it to grow as an organ bank, whose organs could be harvested for transplant (because killing the brain damaged is okay) ... there's nothing in liberal morality or law preventing someone from doing that.

Oh, and one more thing....

I am an agnostic, which I suppose puts me in the neighbourhood of Deism, if there's a chart on such things.

Deism isn't Agnosticism. Angnosticism is closer to Atheism. Deists believe in God, but not in Revealed Religion. That is not the same thing as saying 'Well, there might be a God, there might not be a God'. I believe Jesus was a good teacher, but I do not believe in the miracles, ressurection etc. Personally, God is unknowable since 'He' is the Infinite and we are the Finite. But this is hardly the place for a metaphysical discussion.

I agree there are all kinds of things that are legal but immoral, but what is immoral to me may not be immoral to you, and vice-versa. I don't think abortion per se is immoral, but is sometimes a very difficult solution to a very difficult problem (and please, don't someone post that I'm equating a fetus with a "problem" — just read my earlier post).

I don't know when a human life starts (and I'm betting that you don't either) and so I can't tell others when it starts or ends based on my morals alone. This is a weighty, complex issue that is very distressing to a lot of people — including liberals.

I don't know when a human life starts (and I'm betting that you don't either)

Yes, but my response is, given that uncertainty, I err on the side of preserving life, and you err on the side of destroying it.

Pregnancy is a temporary inconvenience. But a life, once aborted, can not be restored.

Also, the inconvenience of pregnancy can be avoided by not engaging in the act that results in pregnancy. But, heaven forbid we let morality stand in the way of hedonism.

I understand your position on erring on the side of life, but for some pregnancy may not be a temporary inconvenience. It may be a literal or psychological death sentence. I'm speaking of the victims of incest or violent rape, or those with serious medical issues. Do you really want to demand that they give birth whethere they want to or not?

And yeah, pregnancy can be avoided. But I wonder what you mean when you say "not engaging in the act?" It would be easy and simple if everyone waited until marriage to have sex, but that's both unreal and unreasonable to expect, for instance. But safe sex? That's more doable. But it takes a national and comprehensive sex education program, which many States and provinces in Canada are unwilling to offer. Instead of using abortion as a contraceptive, how about a real contraceptive?

Less than one percent of abortions are because of incest or rape. More than 99% are for birth control. Frequently for the minor partners of adult men... which is statutory rape Planned Parenthood steadfastly refuses to report.

I'll see your comprehensive sex education (provided its presented honestly) and raise you the elimination of commercialized sex in media. Reinstitute the Hayes Code. Outlaw p0rnography and criminally prosecute adult men who impregnate underage girls.

And I bring that up because that's the liberal response to tobacco use... ban tobacco, ban its advertisement, ban use of tobacco in film and on TV, criminally prosecute those who provide tobacco to minors.

Strange, you don't see liberals saying, "Teens are gonna smoke anyway, let's teach them to smoke more safely."

I doubt that you can teach someone to smoke safely unless, like a former president, they don't inhale.

That tobacco vs. sex thing could be turned around — "conservatives say let's hide sex because it's immoral but let's smoke and drink and shoot our guns off and make these things look powerful and glamorous." But these kinds of comparisons are useless exercises and just further polarize people.

Statutory rape IS a crime, is it not? I'll see your comprehensive and yes, honest — if by honest you mean fully informative and socially responsible (the moral aspect should come from the parents) — sex-ed and call you on it.

Like you, I have objections to the commercialization of sex, especially in advertising, but I have no objection to pornography, tobacco, alcohol or guns — for ADULTS, and in the proper environments. These are all products and as such can be regulated. And anyway, we're supposed to be adult enough to make our own choices.

Sex, however, is not a product, is impossible to regulate and is one powerful urge, especially in teens. Let's give them the knowledge and the tools to deal with it with some degree of responsibility and we just might see that 99%-plus number go down, maybe significantly.

And by the way, I never said I was "anti-abortion, but pro-choice." What I said was that many of the women picketing for abortion rights are not necessarily pro-abortion, which suggests they want abortions, but are instead pro-choice, which means they want the right to decide what happens with their bodies. I thought it was important to understand the distinction. My position is I'm pro-abortion in extreme circumstances.

And I think people who claim to be anti-abortion but pro-choice are full of sh!t.

How sad that you cannot follow the teachings of Jesus. Calling atheists "moonbats" and making extreme generalizations does nobody any good.

Jesus taught us to love one another, even our enemies. Clearly, you consider atheists your enemies.

I take the teachings of Jesus very seriously. He taught us to love one another, not to be divisive, sarcastic and hateful.

Janet