This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

How to handle non-believers.

#61JonWood007Posted 1/13/2013 9:29:36 AM

I'm mostly against abortion because it violates other people's rights. Rights of humanity itself as it allows murder, rights of the father, rights of the people (in Canada, tax payers' money which don't even support abortion goes fully to paying for it etc.). Even before I was Christian, I was always completely against abortion and was fully capable of making arguements (it always has been #2 problem for me along with anti-religious people in #1). Also, no offense but to say that anyone would side with the pro-choice side if they are not religious is complete rubbish (they don't give better reasons, that at least is certain). I've crushed pretty much every arguement (with seminars, essays, reports, discussions, etc) when I was an atheist and I can argue even better now that I am Christian.


I never said everyone would be pro choice if they were not Christian. I said the case is weakened. Without relying on "herp derp the Bible told me so", the question of where "life" begins is a lot more murky, and a reasonable argument can be made, which many people would agree with, that we should not recognize it until later on in the pregnancy.

If you really must know, a major factor for what I am for it (and I made this conclusion before becoming an atheist), is that the situation is ambiguous and situational. It's better to give everyone the option to use as they need, than to force people into black and white legalistic scenarios in which people who should get abortions can't. A lot of the laws made here in the US in the last 2 years have been bat**** insane (like sticking probes inside for no valid medical reason at all), and have effectively turned me pro choice in their insanity. Better to leave the option on the table than to force government intrusion upon people. Remember, you can still be pro choice and still not be comfortable with abortion. The thing is, you're trying to shove your ideas down everyone's throats on this controversial issue.

Also, if your arguments as a Christian are better than they were as an atheist, you're screwed. No offense, but your arguments in this topic arent 1/10th as good as you think they are.

(Yes, I do know that there are circumstances that do qualify such as rape but there are also many other alternatives. Anyways, if they can't abolish it completely they should at the very least, regulate it more efficiently. There is a reason why many woman need help and guidance after they have an abortion because they know they murdered a child.)


Regulation forces black and white on grey issues. If anything from the last 2 years has taught me anything it's that the government can't regulate on this issue worth a **** (herp herp legitimate rape the body shuts that whole thing down). Why do you want people so ignorant making laws?

Also, there are also a lot of people who DON'T feel guilt. Yes, some people feel guilty, but ask around parts of reddit, like r/atheism and r/childfree, you'll likely see a much different picture.

Look, no one is talking about forcing abortion. You can CHOOSE. That's what the right to CHOICE is. People who are morally opposed to it can CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE ONE.

More in the next post.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#62JonWood007Posted 1/13/2013 9:47:29 AM
Gay marriage is actually more than the ick factor involved. When there are teachers teaching that it is okay for gay marriage to happen which they also attack religion of the child when they try to disrupt it (heard this when a friend's children (more than once) had been complaining and even crying when the teacher had attacked them so hard that religion is garbage and attacked it severly which is just causing problems for families everywhere as it harms the children's perspective and teaches them hate).


If the teacher actually legitimately attacked religion in the sense of saying "your Christian beliefs are garbage", you may have a lawsuit on your hands, since I'd argue that violates first amendment rights and is the equivalent of prostelityzing.

Now, if we're saying that gay marriage in itself merely undermines religious beliefs, boo hoo. So does critical thinking skills to an extent. Should we not teach them? Or evolution? We shouldnt not teach kids things simply because it undermines your religion. We should stop people from overtly attacking religion and making kids feel like crap, but we should still teach stuff that may conflict with it. If you want to teach your kids only Christian things, send them to private school if you can afford it.

No, it might not happen all the time but it will most definetly happen. Not to mention that it goes against nature itself, the fact that there is a declining birthrate in the United States, there is no credible scientific proof for the support of homosexuals and that it creates a ton of hate if a group does not support it for any reason (even more (debatable) on atheists).


The "not natural" argument is pretty much irrelevant. Medicine, unless we're talking herbal remedies, are "not natural". Most technology is "not natural". Eye glasses are "not natural". So the heck what? We should stop people from doing something because it goes against your concept of what's "natural"? I see the natural argument as similar to the icky argument.

Also, you wanna talk about hate....ok, let's talk Westboro Baptist Church and all the hate crimes against gay people. Any anger that comes out of the LGBT community is pretty much justified considering how we have so many jerks trying to stop gay people from doing what they want (which harms no one btw) because it's against their religion, or they don't think it's natural. You're turning a bunch of people against your religion in doing so, congratulations. I know gay people who are anti religious mainly because of the hate they get from religious people.

Also, declining birthrate? You do realize that may be a good thing. If you've read Malthus at all, you'll know population growth, if unsustainable, is bad, since it can lead to starvation. The world can only support so many people, if there are more people than the earth can support, we starve.

Not to mention immigration is offsetting a relatively low birthrate.

More next post...
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#63JonWood007Posted 1/13/2013 9:55:56 AM
Creationism and other theories should be there to teach about the thoughts of others. Is it not more reasonable if a person gets different thoughts about how the world was created? It will teach children to think and decide on which theory is right for them (not to mention open minded instead of geting only one way). Even the science theory about evolution and the Big Bang are not the only theories that there are for science for the origin so they can't be said that they are absolute (just look at the history of science and the theories that were thought to be true on scientific proof). Anyways, I'm saying that they should teach this but also, teach a short term (our teacher taught us over the course of three days the origin of the universe from the scientific (multiple ones), philisophical (not on science but what some people think about it), Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Aboriginal, etc *none including the scientific one were ever on the test* and that was the best science teacher I have ever seen. (Funny part was that she was agnostic).


Im all for teaching theories that have evidence. But what Christians often propose is wanting to shove flawed creation science down everyone's throat. I don't think religious views on the beginning of the universe are appropriate for science classrooms, although you may be able to squeak in an extremely generic/watered down version. School is a place where people learn facts, theories, etc. Most "theories" you propose are "myths". There's a difference.

*Christians fight very hard when it is a big rule that is being attacked and they should as there tends to be logical decisions backing them up as well and not only the Bible*


News flash, there aren;t many. There are some, but the other side generally outweighs the arguments you can make.

Lastly, for the persecution, I do not have a major persecution complex. One only needs to see the Holocaust and see what persecution can do. I simply am against anti-religious views and when you see people wasting their time mocking a group then you can only pity them. After all, persecution brings huge negative consequences to a society and to people everywhere who is caught up in it.


Right, because legitimate criticism is totally the same as throwing people in gas chambers /sarcasm.

Look, no one is promoting killing Christians, or even taking their rights away. There's a difference between stopping people from practicing their religion and persecuting them for it, and trying to use the government to shove it down everyone else's throat. You don't seem to know the difference. What if Muslims tried to legislate sharia law on everyone? I bet you wouldnt like that. Same thing here. Keep your Christian morals to yourself, mmkay?

I know you're not gonna respond (didnt see that until the end there...oh well, maybe this will convince the lurkers), but honestly, if this is the best you can debate, you can use improvement. The arguments you throw out there are like the ones I used in high school to defend christianity (some old timers might remember that).
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#64Heineken14Posted 1/13/2013 10:45:01 AM
From: JonWood007 | #062
The "not natural" argument is pretty much irrelevant. Medicine, unless we're talking herbal remedies, are "not natural". Most technology is "not natural". Eye glasses are "not natural". So the heck what? We should stop people from doing something because it goes against your concept of what's "natural"? I see the natural argument as similar to the icky argument.


Also not to mention homosexuality is found ALL OVER in nature. The "it's not natural!" is nothing but a load of bupkis.
---
Do you have anything flashier? I want something that says "I own this room. I own you."