Why Are Atheists So Obsessed With Christians?

[Winchester]

Bigot n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.

[KnightofChrist]

Bigot n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.

If that opinion is in favor of murdering in mass a group of people who are regarded in word or deed as non-persons, thus denying them basic fundamental rights, then yes indeed.

[Guest]

I think there is much merit in considering post birth infanticide.
When my wife was pregnant we had a scan performed. One of the things they check for is down syndrom. The scan isn't perfect but they give you a percentage risk. I would hate the thought of terminating a pregnancy only to find out that the fetus was fine.

So for "evil" people like myself whom might terminate a Downs fetus we might benefit from allowing the baby to be born first so that we can know 100% rather than have a 40% chance of killing a perfectly fine fetus.

But the danger in allowing the baby to be born is that other people see it and form an attachment. The father, the grand parents, the siblings, freinds of the family. So many people might get upset, it could cause people to get aggressive and to rebel against the parents choosing to kill a post born child.

But it seems people don't tend to get upset when a mother terminates her fetus. no-one attacks her violently. So it seems to me that society accepts abortions, thus we don't need government intervention.

Stevil I was following some of what you say til this post...lol This is just insane...Wow....

[stevil]

Stevil I was following some of what you say til this post...lol This is just insane...Wow....

I don't regard human life as sacred.
I certainly recognise that a human fetus is a human life.
What do you think would be my incentive to fight for the life of someone else's fetus?

[Guest]

I'm talking about killing a child once they are born because they have downs syndrome...

[stevil]

I'm talking about killing a child once they are born because they have downs syndrome...

I understand most people would be shocked at the suggestion.
Could I give a live baby a leathal injection to purposefully kill it? Probably not.

I'm just saying that there is merit in debating the posibility.
I only say that because there are certainly people whom want to have babies but are killing their fetus due to fetal scans they deem that the risk is too high that the baby will have Downs.

I totally understand that the Catholic position is to love the Downs child rather than to abort the fetus, but that is not my position, I had to consider this when my wife had a scan. It gives a sense of reality to the thought of abortion. We were fortunate enough not to have a Downs baby and the scan didn't show a high risk, but by chance the situation could have been very different. And as I have stated, I would want to be very sure it had Downs before deciding to abort.

[Socrates]

Some women chosing to terminate their own pregnancies will not result in the destruction of the human race. It won't even make a society unstable. Most people won't feel threatened by this. For example it is too late to abort me, I'm already born, so personally I am not worried about being aborted.

 

This stance is every bit as despicable as saying you support legalized murder of black persons, because since you're as lily-white as they come, you don't feel personally threatened by this law.  

(Or you can switch or substitute any colors/races or classes of human beings you like, the point stands.)

 

If you really can't see how such a stance is despicable and vile, then I'm afraid there's nothing to do but pray for your soul.  (Whether as an atheist you dig that or no.)

 

 

 

I agree it makes no sense to wipe out the black people. They will likely fight back, the hispanics will likely join their fight, also the chinese will join it, basically everyone that is not my race will fight back, even some people that are my race will fight me. It is not in my best interest or societies best interest to try and wipe out the blacks.
Allowing women to terminate their own pregnancy on the other hand incurs no fight, no social instability.

 

So in your world, the only reason not to allow killing of other groups of people is fear of retaliation and a purely selfish desire to protect your own fat self-centered little butt.

 

Truly inspiring.

 

The fact that you wish to allow unrestricted killing of those human beings too helpless to fight back makes your stance all the more sick and cowardly.

[Socrates]

I think there is much merit in considering post birth infanticide.
When my wife was pregnant we had a scan performed. One of the things they check for is down syndrom. The scan isn't perfect but they give you a percentage risk. I would hate the thought of terminating a pregnancy only to find out that the fetus was fine.

So for "evil" people like myself whom might terminate a Downs fetus we might benefit from allowing the baby to be born first so that we can know 100% rather than have a 40% chance of killing a perfectly fine fetus.

 

I understand most people would be shocked at the suggestion.
Could I give a live baby a leathal injection to purposefully kill it? Probably not.

I'm just saying that there is merit in debating the posibility.
I only say that because there are certainly people whom want to have babies but are killing their fetus due to fetal scans they deem that the risk is too high that the baby will have Downs.

I totally understand that the Catholic position is to love the Downs child rather than to abort the fetus, but that is not my position, I had to consider this when my wife had a scan. It gives a sense of reality to the thought of abortion. We were fortunate enough not to have a Downs baby and the scan didn't show a high risk, but by chance the situation could have been very different. And as I have stated, I would want to be very sure it had Downs before deciding to abort.

 

If you want to talk reality, I have an aunt with Downs syndrome, who died earlier this year in her late fifties.  She was a beloved member of the family, who, while taking care of her had its challenges, brought much love and joy to many through her years on this earth.  Although maybe not as smart or physically strong as others, she was a human being capable of thinking, feeling, working, playing, loving, and being loved, just like everyone else.

 

I find the thought of someone choosing to kill her (or any other person with Downs), either before or after birth, simply because she was not deemed physically perfect, absolutely abhorrent and vile.

 

For me, people with Downs are not an abstraction, but real persons and beloved family members, and it's wrong to decide that it is okay to kill them simply because they aren't up to some level of physical or mental perfection.

They are persons, not defective products to be eliminated.

 

And this raises the question: if it's fine to kill someone like that who lived a happy, and reasonably long and healthy life, where do we draw the line of where we consider a human being so "defective" as to deserve killing?  

Any line we draw will be ultimately arbitrary.  Should only "flawless" persons have the right to live?

 

 

 

 

But the danger in allowing the baby to be born is that other people see it and form an attachment. The father, the grand parents, the siblings, freinds of the family. So many people might get upset, it could cause people to get aggressive and to rebel against the parents choosing to kill a post born child.

 

Such a danger that people should actually love and form attachment to another human being, rather than kill him or her like decent people!

The horror!

 

But it seems people don't tend to get upset when a mother terminates her fetus. no-one attacks her violently. So it seems to me that society accepts abortions, thus we don't need government intervention.

 

 

Actually, people do get upset when unborn babies are aborted.  You may dismiss or deny it, but that's still true.  And ironically, if someone acted violently in response to abortion (such as killing  abortionists),  you'd likely just condemn those people as psychos.

 

And I suppose that as so long as "society" accepts something - slavery, racism, genocide, wife-burning child-rape, whatever, that makes it right, and it should not be opposed.

[Socrates]

You make atheists look really really bigoted and selfish. Knowing that is not the case, because not all of them are like you, do stop talking.

 

No, he should keep talking.  Maybe disgust at this godless view will lead some to reject atheism and turn to Christ.

[Socrates]

Bigot n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.

 

Yeah, belief that people have no right to life and that it's fine to kill them so long as they can't fight back is just another perfectly legitimate opinion.

 

 

At least it's not a truly unacceptable belief like "statism."

[stevil]

This stance is every bit as despicable as saying you support legalized murder of black persons, because since you're as lily-white as they come, you don't feel personally threatened by this law.
(Or you can switch or substitute any colors/races or classes of human beings you like, the point stands.)

If you really can't see how such a stance is despicable and vile, then I'm afraid there's nothing to do but pray for your soul. (Whether as an atheist you dig that or no.)

I can understand your anger, or opinion because you assume I should hold all human life as sacred.
I support people's choice to have abortions. If you think this stance makes me "despicable and vile" then you must consider that the majority of society are pro choice thus you must think the majority of society to be "dispicable and vile"

So in your world, the only reason not to allow killing of other groups of people is fear of retaliation and a purely selfish desire to protect your own fat self-centered little butt.

Yes, I am unashamedly selfish. I want a safe and stable society, I don't want to oppress people and thus create conflict and instability. In my selfish stance, I mind my own business. I don't take it upon myself to "save" other people from themselves. I don't look to force my beliefs on others.
I am a very tolerant person and recognise and cherish the diversity of beliefs, lack of beliefs cultures and viewpoints we have within society. I do not want everyone to conform to my viewpoint, but I certainly don't want to be forced to conform with someone else's viewpoint.

[stevil]

where do we draw the line of where we consider a human being so "defective" as to deserve killing?
Any line we draw will be ultimately arbitrary. Should only "flawless" persons have the right to live?

I'll leave that question upto the mother of the fetus. I will not give it to my government to decide.

[Chestertonian]

If you think this stance makes me "despicable and vile" then you must consider that the majority of society are pro choice thus you must think the majority of society to be "dispicable and vile"

 

 

If you think theists are delusional, then you must consider that the majority of society are theists thus you must think the majority of society to be delusional.

[stevil]

If you think theists are delusional, then you must consider that the majority of society are theists thus you must think the majority of society to be delusional.

I have never said that theists are delusional

[Winchester]

Yeah, belief that people have no right to life and that it's fine to kill them so long as they can't fight back is just another perfectly legitimate opinion.

 

 

At least it's not a truly unacceptable belief like "statism."

 

I don't think my words mean what you think they mean.