I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'wouldn't it be much worse if life *were* fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. – M. Cole
This is a response to an amazingly incompetent apologist, Mark Lanier, who supposedly is a “top” lawyer. If he is, I certainly wouldn’t want him to represent me. The poor dear has a new book, “Atheism on trial”. Well, I guess he couldn’t use “evidence that demands a verdict”. Here are excerpts from a podcast transcript from here.
This is the lawyer trying to excuse why his religion fails.
“Among those factors that I identify is the failure of Christians to be authentic, authentic in their walk, and authentic in the way they treat other people. I think Christians tend to fall easily into traps of making it about us and them, of trying to impose Christian morality upon the world. And in a sense, or at least the nation, confusing the kingdom of God with the kingdom of men. And thinking that the kingdom of God is is equal to things that are world political systems. I think that’s a real danger, because I think it causes people to want to distance themselves from what they think is not an authentic faith. I think that’s just one factor. I think another factor is Christians have been, with the best of intentions, have have misread so much of Scripture and read it out of context that it’s made a lot of people think they have to make a choice between faith and science, as if they’re opposite ends of a teeter totter. And people don’t understand that the true Christian view is that science is real. It’s legitimate. It is a tool that God gave us to combat the horrors of this fallen world. So, we can learn the science of fertilization, to use fertilizers to be able to grow more crops so we can feed more people and reduce hunger. There’s the science of medicine, where we’re able to treat disease more readily. And all of these consequences of sin, that burden society that destroy lives and families, we have tools to combat those. And those tools include science. And so, I think the failure of Christians to, to fairly assess scripture has set a lot of people thinking they have a choice between science or God. And they don’t understand that, that God is the God of science.”
I do love when Christians insist that they are the only TrueChristians(tm), and have no evidence for that at all. It’s even better when they try to lie about the sciences, sicne those sciences show that their bible is an incompetent set of myths written by humans.
hmm, and this god evidently said “screw you” to anyone born before it got around to supposedly “giving” human such things. His god is quite an idiot and it’s rather quaint to see christians trying to steal the honor and hard work of humans for their imaginary god. Alas, science shows that the myths of the bible are utter nonsense.
Then we get the attempts to appeal to emotions as evidence for this god.
“Why do we know there are black holes? Why do we know there are subatomic particles, not just the proof of the physical aspects, but the proof of the non-physical aspects, you know, love, honor, dignity, justice, fairness, these types of things need to be measured as well. And the arguments for these things need to be put into the scales as well. And when you do, frankly, I find atheism fails radically in that arena of proof.”
Well, considering that this god’s supposed actions, we can happily point out that it has nothing to do with justice or fairness. All of these things are from the brain, and gee, no god needed. We know that there are laws of physics and magic doesn’t happen, so we know that there are black holes, sub atomic particles, etc by evidence. We know that people have love, honor, etc, because we have them. Funny how the same doesn’t hold for this god’s existence.
Finally, “Yeah, one of the biggest failures in the realm of proof, to me is atheism cannot set up a value system that’s objective.”
Yup, that good ol’, always failing argument from morality.
hmmm, funny how Christianity hasn’t set up an objective value system either. Christians can’t agree on what morals their god wants, nor can convince each other of that, having no evidence for this god at all. You all make up a god that has the morals you want, in your image. Add this to the fact that many, if not all, christians excuse their god for doign things that they would, hopefully, be horrified if a human did the same. This makes christian morality entirely subject to who or what someone is, not the objective morality of an action.
“Now, we’re told that, but if atheism is true, and there is no God, then there is absolutely no basis for believing that some person is not genetically different than another,”
whut? Humans are genetically different from each other; science has demonstrated that. Here, poor lawyer tries to claim that atheism should lead to eugenics. Alas, since he’s an atheist too, one wonder how that works.
“And so if there’s no God to say, everybody is created equally and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, then why should there be equal rights? When people are not equal?”
God never said that. It’s not in the bible. Equality between humans never shows up, despite the claims of Christians. No one is ever equal to a Christian, the supposed “chosen” people. This god treats no one equally.
“. But he said, you know, we like to pretend that there is subjective morality, we atheists. But wink, wink, nod, nod. We know there’s not. But you can’t go telling everybody that because the solution to it is nihilism. Or it’s, you know, feast for yourself, otherwise, it’s the fittest that should be surviving.”
It’s also great to see him also lie about how atheists must be nihilists. Alas, for him, we don’t have to be what a demonstrated liar says. Funny how he can’t give a name for this supposed “atheist”. He also demonstrates the usual ignorance of evolutionary theory. Tsk.
Lanier fails in his “trial” of atheism. No surprise there at all. Apologetics are only for gullible and fearful christians.
Always fun to see Christian liars like Stephen Bernard come out with armchair psychology and fail as usual. Here’s what he claims:
“Before I was ever remotely interested in anything religious I noticed something about those I engaged with in the local pubs and clubs that confessed to being atheist. Most of them being atheist or agnostic were either of a wealthy privately educated background or had no father at all.”
No evidence for this, but the typical false claims.
“The former usually had poor relationships with their workaholic fathers who were never around while the latter never knew them. I noticed this even in working class families where the father was either abusive or the sons parents were divorced.”
and yet more baseless claims. I have a great relationship with my dad. Again, it seems that christians are desperate to invent any way they can to cast aspersions on atheists and try to gin up fear to try to dissuade their fellow theists from considering the facts.
“Either way a rupture in the family unit, abusive or absent father is a very common sight to see in atheistic communities. They’re acutely aware of this themselves so when I got a group of them together I asked them how their relationship with their father was going. They all became verbally abusive and refused to answer the question.”
Add this plus the common Christain idea of physical punishment for children, and Stephen’s claims seem quite unsupported.
Here is an interesting bit from a NIH paper that shows that the Christian need to keep claiming this nonsense is based on little but weakly supported claims that are contradicted.
“Although religiosity seems to have beneficial effects for adjustment in child maltreatment survivors, prior research has reported that individuals experiencing child maltreatment are less likely to practice religion. Such findings may be explained by the correspondence hypothesis (Granqvist & Dickie, 2005), which proposes that individuals who have experienced secure vs. insecure childhood attachments have established the foundations on which a corresponding relationship with God could be built. According to this view, maltreated individuals, who are more likely to have insecure attachment relationships with their primary attachment figures, are less likely to view God as loving and caring compared to nonmaltreated individuals. In contrast, the compensation hypothesis (Granqvist & Dickie, 2005) predicts that individuals with insecure childhood attachment may be more likely to seek God for compensatory attachment relationships. Consistent with the correspondence hypothesis, empirical studies have reported negative effects of child maltreatment on religiosity demonstrating that survivors of abuse tend to have more negative views on God (e.g., Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, & Smith, 1989; Kennedy & Drebing, 2002). In particular, Bierman (2005) examined the effects of physical and emotional abuse on religiosity among adults and found that abuse perpetrated by fathers during childhood was related to low levels of religiosity. It is plausible that the image of God as a father led survivors of abusive fathers to distance themselves from religion. However, there is also evidence that maltreated and nonmaltreated children did not differ in their view of God as kind and close, although maltreated children perceived their parents as less kind and more wrathful than did nonmaltreated children (Johnson & Eastburg, 1992). Work is needed to understand the unique role of religiosity in child maltreatment survivors.” Religiosity and Interpersonal Problems Explain Individual Differences in Self Esteem among Young Adults with Child Maltreatment ExperiencesJonathan C. Waldron,a,*Angela Scarpa,b and Jungmeen Kim-Spoonc
“They knew the reason for my question. It branded their conscience like a red hot iron. This isn’t a fine rule for every atheist, but usually the majority have had some sort of troubled upbringing in a fractured family.”
yep, we know why you claim such lies, dear, to do no more than try to cast aspersions and gin up fear for becoming an atheist. No iron was there, only Stephen’s delusion.
“What is the correlation between absentee father and atheism? I think a lot of it has to do with the idea of calling God, “Father”. When you’ve had a terrible relationship with your father or never had one around, there’s an anger present there that if someone should even mentions the word “Father” a strong aversion to the concept soon follows.”
funny how there is no “correlation” at all. Stephen has no evidence for his false claims at all.
“It’s the same with children from a divorced family. Any mention of a “Holy Family” referring to Jesus, Mary and Joseph tickles a part of their brain that makes them go wild. I’ve noticed this in Catholic converts to Protestantism by women. If you dig a little deeper you’ll often find such female converts have had a bad relationship with their mother. In Catholicism we refer to Mary as our Mother and Protestantism removes such a requirement from any convert having to do so.”
Here’s a slightly new twist, a claim that us gals have a bad relationship with their mothers. Alas, Stephen simply lies again. Happily, me and spouse also had/have good relationships with our mothers.
“In the end what Atheists crave is the very thing they have a strong aversion for, a loving earthly and heavenly family with God as their father. They don’t know it. . . well. . . maybe some do. . . but they’ll never admit that is what they subconsciously desire because that would wound their pride and force them to come out of hiding and admit God exists.”
ROFL, poor Stephen, trying to convince himself that he’s so special, and that us atheists “really” do want what he thinks he has. We don’t.
He’ll of course try to claim he wasn’t “really” talking about all atheists as a way to dodge his own false claims.
I’ve found a supposedly new and typically bad theodicy. This is “participation theodicy” by John Buck. I’ve snagged a copy of it here.
the abstract: “
Why does God allow gratuitous suffering to occur?
In this paper, the author puts forward a variation on the greater good theodicy, which rather than suggesting that every evil which occurs brings about some greater-good, the paper instead argues that for any great world God could have created by himself, God’s generosity would instead motivate him to allow creatures to participate in the bringing about of that great world. This scenario would require God to initially create a world that was ‘less-than as great as it could be’ (opening up the possibility for evils to occur), so that the creatures that would inhabit said world could causally contribute towards its achieving of greatness. Such a world would feature the goods of participation that would be lacking in a world God were to create by himself.”
So, it boils down to nothing new, but the old christian idea that it’s okay to hurt people as long as some are “taught” by that harm. I’m happy I’m not so selfish as so many christian.
a good post about how gods, especially the Christian god, has all of the marks of any abusive partner or parent.
The moral character of the Christian God is the question which eventually led me away from Christianity. After a decade of non-belief, I still can’t help but look back to the time when I was such a staunch Christian and ponder the effects it had on me, and the effects it is still having on billions of people around the world. Recently, I’ve become more aware of abusive relationships and the tactics abusers use on their victims, and I thought I’d take a look at the behavior of the Christian God as described in the Bible and by Christians themselves, as well as general observations about the world, to see if God’s relationship with humanity, and especially with His believers, is a healthy one.
For the purposes of this analysis, I’ll be going through this article on WebMD for how to recognize if you’re in an abusive relationship. Unless otherwise indicated, all quotes in this blog post will be quoting this WebMD article. Before we get into the list of things to watch out for, let’s first define what an abusive relationship is. According to WebMD:
An abusive relationship will involve one party using their power over the other party to prevent them from doing anything except what the abusive person wants.
So, if the Christian God is using His power to prevent people from doing anything except what He wants, the relationship is abusive. Anyone who has read much of the Bible may already be noticing a red flag here, as so much of it revolves around obedience to God. Still, let’s hold off our judgment for now. Let’s see how God stacks up against this list of warning signs that your partner might be abusive.
Well, let’s see what false things a Christian has come up with now. There is a rather nasty Catholic, Trent, who is on Youtube, who has no problem lying and failing in this video “5 Atheist Double Standards“. Again, this is pretty much a typing exercise for me, to waste some time at work since we’ve had a small covid outbreak here in the leadership, nothing to do (and my throat is feeling funny…..arrgh.)
First we have the false claim that Trent says he doesn’t bring this up to “pick on atheists”. He does do that, this being an attempt to cast himself as the innocent. He isn’t. he claims that atheists use “double standards” and “logical fallacies”. That some atheists think they need to apologize for more aggressive ones doesn’t mean that the aggressive ones are wrong.
There is nothing false about how Chrsitians worship a magical being that the bible claims to live in the sky aka “magical sky daddy”. It demands that humans call it father, too. Ridiculing false claims made by people who want to control others by what they claim this being says is deserved.
Trent uses bad arguments too, though he would like everyone to think his are not.
The first supposed double standard is what Trent calls the “ancient document” double standard, which is a common Christian claim that their bible should be considered an ancient document and treated like other ancient documents. Alas, for Trent, all ancient documents are considered “guilty” aka suspect, unless there is evidence to support the claims in those documents. If the claim is that someone was a general, or lost battle, we know that there are generals and battles so there is less reason to consider a document about them to be suspect. If the claims are about magic and gods, they are suspect since we have no evidence for such things.
The bible is under intense scrutiny since it has no evidence to support its essential claims, which include that magic happens, gods exist and one should live according to what ones finds in the bible. It is also under scrutiny since the authors are unknown in most cases, so the author’s intent, cultural background, etc are not known. There is also the problem of it having events that no one could have witnessed but we strangely have records of discussions, events, etc presented as truth.
One cannot use a claim to prove that claim. The bible is only a set of claims and those can’t be used to prove the bible’s claims are true. It’s rathe like saying the qu’ran is true because the qu’ran says it is true. A Christian wouldn’t accept that so there is no reason to accept their claim that the bible can be used as evidence for itself. There is no evidence the bible isn’t a human document.
One cannot use the bible to “prove mundane historical facts” since it is the only source of the claim that Jesus’ existence is a historical fact. Again, it is only the claim, not evidence for the claim. We have no evidence of either magic Jesus or delusional Jew Jesus. There is no evidence that the apostles existed or were martyrs. There is no evidence that anyone noticed Jesus at all as a faith healer, or as a fellow followed around by a literal Roman legion’s worth of men in Roman-occupied Palestine. There is no evidence of a cruxifiction, or of a day that there was a major earthquake, the sky darkening and Jewish dead wandering around Roman-occupied Jerusalem on a Passover. You’d think that maybe Caiaphas would have noticed that.
Yep, people claimed to see Jesus. People also claimed to have seen Elvis when he died too. Baseless claims are wortheless. Trent also has the problem that JC’s own people didn’t even recognize him, so claims of seeing Jesus are highly suspect.
Trent doesn’t want to have to show that Jesus rose without the bible since he can’t. All he has are baseless claims. Trent can use the bible as a starting point, as any historical scholar would, and then support the document with evidence. This is how any historical scholar goes about showing that Julius Caesar existed, that Alexander the Great existed, etc. Until the various books of theh bible are supported by evidence they are not historical documents, except for being a recording on what a certain group believed at a certain time, not that what they believed is true. The bible has no basic facts, they are, again, baseless claims, until evidence supports them.
So, atheists treat the bible as any other historical document and Trent has made a false accusation. We have given it a chance and it has been two thousand years of desperate looking by Christians that has failed to produce evidence to support their claims. Tacitus, Josephus, etc all present claims by believers which is no evidence that what they believed is true. If this is the case, then Trent must accept that any other writings about what believers of other gods believed makes those gods just as real as his. Of course, he won’t. He is as much of a liar about the actions of non Chrsitains as old Pope Leo. Other sources do mention miracles and neither historical scholars, or Christians like Trent, accept those claims as true. Tacitus claimed that a roman emperor did miracles just like jesus. I’m sure Trent doesn’t accept that as true and neither do historians. His bible is hearsay, nothing more. And people die for many stupid things, but Trent has the problem that there is no evidence that the apostles were martyrs, and anyone after then would have been believing nonsense, like any Muslim who blows themselves up.
trent has no “basic facts” more than there are in a spider-man comic book. Which leads into Trent’s next failure, his “spider-man objection”. Unfortunately, all Trent has is that it’s no problem that his bible contradicts itself, makes observable false claims, etc. He and only he knows what the “good” parts are. He doesn’t and again, has no evidence for his claims. He is simply one more Christian who picks and chooses his way though the bible, making what he wants up in his own image.
The writer of Acts, unknown, does get some places right. So? That doesn’t mean the rest of the nonsense is true. Trent uses the logical fallacy of composition here. Per Trent, the bible isn’t a human document, so why is it wrong in so many cases? The bible, and Christians, can show it is true, with evidence. If they can’t show any, then there is no reason to believe them or it. They claim it is true: it’s their burden of truth to demonstrate that, no one else’s.
Trent also claims that Josephus and Tacitus “missed important events”, when he can’t show that these events happened at all. He assumes the events happened when there is no evidence for them. Again, if Claudius expelled the Jews, and it was claimed in a document, that document would have to be supported by evidence since it is just the claim. It’s also hilarious to see Trent try to claim that since the authors of the bible said it was true, then it must be, showing he is right back to that circular argument he claimed failed earlier. He then tries to claim that absence of evidence supports his claims, that there weren’t as many people writing. No evidence of that. Like many Christians, Trent can’t decide if he wants Jesus to be well-known, or to be not known at all, and his arguments are not consistent when he wants to claim that no one noticed Jesus but then turns around and tries to claim gee, they really did notice him. He wasn’t just a “faith healer” as Trent tries to claim.
Jesus turns water into wine at the wedding in Cana
Jesus heals an official’s son at Capernaum in Galilee
Jesus drives out an evil spirit from a man in Capernaum
Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law sick with fever
Jesus heals many sick and oppressed at evening
First miraculous catch of fish on the Lake of Gennesaret
Jesus cleanses a man with leprosy
Jesus heals a centurion’s paralyzed servant in Capernaum
Jesus heals a paralytic who was let down from the roof
Jesus heals a man’s withered hand on the Sabbath
Jesus raises a widow’s son from the dead in Nain
Jesus calms a storm on the sea
Jesus casts demons into a herd of pigs
Jesus heals a woman in the crowd with an issue of blood
Jesus raises Jairus’ daughter back to life
Jesus heals two blind men
Jesus heals a man who was unable to speak
Jesus heals an invalid at Bethesda
Jesus feeds 5,000 plus women and children
Jesus walks on water
Jesus heals many sick in Gennesaret as they touch his garment
Jesus heals a gentile woman’s demon-possessed daughter
Jesus heals a deaf and dumb man
Jesus feeds 4,000 plus women and children
Jesus heals a blind man at Bethsaida
Jesus heals a man born blind by spitting in his eyes
Jesus heals a boy with an unclean spirit
Miraculous temple tax in a fish’s mouth
Jesus heals a blind, mute demoniac
Jesus heals a woman who had been crippled for 18 years
Jesus heals a man with dropsy on the sabbath
Jesus cleanses ten lepers on the way to Jerusalem
Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead in Bethany
Jesus restores sight to Bartimaeus in Jericho
Jesus withers the fig tree on the road from Bethany
Jesus heals a servant’s severed ear while he is being arrested
The second miraculous catch of fish at the Sea of Tiberias
Part 2 – Paul can’t even get his origin story straight and is terribly ignorant about Jesus so there is no reason to think that Jesus appeared to him, or existed.
Trent has number 3 as being that atheists claim that his god is evil but also claim evil doesn’t exist. Hmm, I do wonder where an atheist has that evil doesn’t exist. The silly satan doesn’t but I’m quite sure that evil exists, subjective as it may be. Trent then quotes Dawkins. Happily,atheists, at least me, don’t worship Dawkins. I don’t care what he says. In this case it is plausibly true that the Christian god is the most disgusting literary character ever. It is demonstrably all of the things listed. And Trent can’t show otherwise, unsurprisingly. The bible show quite a petty little god. Then Trent quotes Dawkins again, which has Dawkins saying that there is no morality innate to the universe, which isn’t saying that there is no evil. Evil is a human conception, what hurts us and others.
Of course, Trent tries the argument from morality to defend his god. Alas, not one Christian can show that this god exist or is moral. They all make up what they want to think it considers moral and immoral, and surprise! don’t agree at all. Morality is a human invention, likely starting from empathy, and ending up as laws in civilizations. The less helpful ones discarded, the helpful ones kept. I can happily judge Trent’s god as immoral since my morals indicate this and yep, they are subjective. I can know that I don’t want to be killed by genocide and can imagine another human might want the same thing.
Trent’s morality is also subjective, depending on who/what does an action, not that any action has an innate morality. So he has no problem when his god commits genocide, kills a child for someone else’s action, and tells slaves to never seek their freedom. There is no double standard, just a Christian who lies when he claims that his opinion is “objective morality”. I do love Trent’s attempt to excuse his god’s evident allowing of suffering and his need to be a thought police type. There is no need of teleology, only human desires since the universe isn’t a thing that can care. Happily, no one needs Trent or his god. His worldview is consistent for any sycophant to a petty tyrant, and his morality is nothing more than might equals right: “life i’m not the author of life like god is but god created the whole universe he created everyone and he has the right to give us as long or as little life as he desires because he is the author of life.”
So far, Trent has made quite a lot of hay from his strawmen versions of atheists. He also seems to think that all atheists must think the same. We don’t. Whatever Luke says isn’t necessarily what any other atheists believes. And atheists must provide evidence, just like anyone else. In my own experience, I’ve not run into any atheists who believe in moral objectivity. I’m sure some do. I don’t.
Number 3 supposed double standard is that how dare non-christians point out how many Christians are liars, failures, and generally nasty people and dare to think Christianity is harmful and false because of this. Well, Trent, it’s because your god does nothing to stop this and “once upon a time” it supposedly killed those who didn’t do what it said. It isn’t a comparison between good and bad Christian, it is an observation of your god’s impotence, thus demonstrating your religion and bible lie. Atheists don’t claim to believe the same things; Christians do. Atheists have one thing in common: a conclusion that there is not a god or gods. Trent is an atheist too, btw. Just not a pan-atheist like me. We all have different morals and worldview, and yep, there are some asshole atheists. Not because of atheism, because of them.
“i’ve never had to sign anything like [an anti-sexual harassment pledge} that at a christian conference” That’s because your conservative Christianity doesn’t care if women are sexually harassed or not, dear. Perhaps you shouldn’t have used that as an example.
As I noted before, there is no one Christian morality since Christians don’t agree, and they are all hypocrites when it comes to each other’s “truth”. His attempt to excuse his god’s failure by “there’s going to be bad people in every belief system” is just great since it shows that Christianity is nothing special, and just human invented like every other one.
Amusingly, Trent tries to claim that atheists go around saying “look at this brilliant atheistic scientist or look at this really reasonable atheistic philanthropist aren’t they great aren’tthey such great examples of reason unchained from religion” We don’t and this is why Trent has to claim that it’s “subtle” since he has no evidence for this at all. There are no “virtues” of atheism. Trent just made that up too in his attempt to pretend that everyone acts like ignorant Christians like himself. Happily we don’t.
As for Martin Luther King, he did some good and he was evidently a cheat too. Does Trent want to claim that for his Christianity? He picked and chose through his religion just like Trent.
Trent also tries to claim that if certain people had not become Christians their life would have been different, in evidently a bad way, which he has no evidence for either. Yep, if Christianity were true, and if Christians could agree on what their truth was, we should be able to expect coherence and better behavior than we see. WE don’t see this nor do we see any Christian able to do what Jesus promised, so no reason to believe this nonsense at all. It’s not a gotcha moment at all, just Christians having no evidence for their claims, and then whining when they are asked for some. We can’t identify Christians by their “fruits” at all. As for Trent’s promise of “other reasons”, funny how he doesn’t give them.
Number 4 is “ridiculing christian censorship but excommunicating atheistic heretics” sorry, Trent but we don’t’ have heretics and we don’t “excommunicate” them. That’s a catholic thing. Atheists have many worldviews, and not everyone agrees. So we all go our separate ways and have no problem criticizing each other. Stephen Woodford can keep his beliefs, no one else has to appreciate them or not contest them. He is responsible for his beliefs, no one else is nor does anyone have to respect them. Again, atheists only have one thing common. There is no atheist handbook. And yep, every choice has a consequence.
The point that Trent evidently is trying to make is that how dare atheists make fun of Christians who point fingers at each other and claim the Christians who don’t believe like they do are wrong. He evidently thinks that we shouldn’t be making fun of Christians having contradictory “truths”. Too bad, we will. I do love that he thinks that sex offenders shouldn’t be considered pariahs by atheists, and the only reason he would say that is that the Catholic Church has quite a problem with those. They didn’t consider sex offenders pariahs, so no one should?
what Trent forgets is that his church killed people for not agreeing with them, not only exiling them. We see that there is plenty of freedom of thought in Christianity, look at all of the sects that Trent thinks are wrong! But each sect doesn’t want any freedom of thought, and pretends that only their version is the right one, even the RCC which says that everyone but them has only “part” of the right answer.
Hmm, I do wonder what Trent thinks is “secular liberal dogma”. And where have atheists been “imposing” it? By giving people who aren’t Christians the right not to obey them? Hmm, the RCC and other Christian groups have spent millions in trying to get their imaginary nonsense into law so everyone must obey it.
Then poor Trent plays his last card: a baseless claim that atheists don’t criticize Muslims like they do Christians. He fails here too. Happily, I and other atheists, are quite equal opportunity criticizers. I have no problem telling Muslims they as ridiculous, violent and ignorant as Christians. The reason that Christians get criticized a lot is that they are constantly trying to force their lies on others here in the US. Muslims, not so much. From what Christians have done, we can see that yep, they do want to take over the US. They want people to obey old testament laws (funny how they want the first ten commandments up in courthouses and schools). In texas, we have idiots demanding that “In god we trust” be in every school. Christians have shown they want to make women second class citizens, removing their rights. No one needs an imagination, we see it right now. Trent is quite stupid if he thinks he can lie about this. He lies and claims that every Christian agrees with him and “just doesn’t want to be involved with evil”. Poor dear, other Christians think that what he calls evil isn’t evil at all, and poor Trent can’t show that it is evil. He only has a baseless opinion. Making a cake for a wedding isn’t being involved in it, just like making a cake for a baseball game isn’t being involved in the game. Only the doctor and woman are involved in an abortion, no Christians involved at all.
Funny how Christians don’t want to left alone nor do they want to leave anyone else alone. Currently there are Christians bothering people at the PP office just down the street. So much for Trent’s lies.
Where are the Muslims trying to impose their laws on people here in the US, dear Trent? And then tell me where Christians have tried to keep them out too, since they have. I have also ridiculed Muslims about how they treat people in their theocracies, theocracies that some Christians want too. I would not stand for that here in the US, and advocate for Muslim countries to not be traded with because of their ignorance and violence. Yep, a Handmaiden’s Tale is what they have in those countries and is what Christiansn like Trent want here. If a woman can’t make her own decisions, what does Trent think that is equal to?
In “very christian subcultures” in the US, you *do* have women and girls not having the same education and opportunities as men, with the fundamentalist Mormons, the amish, etc. In the US, Christianity is indeed the biggest threat to women, and other religions are in other countries with their ignorance and violence. Trent’s whataboutism doesn’t make Christianity any better. Christians and muslims have harmed non-christians and non-muslims purely because of their religion. He lies when he has said that Christianity has promoted the “natural right to religious freedom”. We got to see how that is a lie with how Catholics and other Christians tried to strip native peoples of their religion by the sword and by schools, and managed to kill lots, hiding the graves.
All in all, we have lies from Trent. No surprise at all. Good to know that Trent even acknowledges his god won’t protect him when he says he is afraid of criticizing Muslims.
Finally, I got a new job. The last in the green energy sector was a casualty of companies buying each other. This new one is for architects, and I get to write procedure manuals and do things with drawings. Hopefully, this will be the last job until I retire.
About time, I was really getting tired having little to do. Only so many times one can clean up the house and garden, and rip apart religious nonsense.
Unsurprisingly, we get to see yet one more Christian theocrat and her lies. Caroline has a problem. She claims “But many others believe every human being, born and unborn, has an intrinsic right to life that supersedes any declared right to abortion.”
Her god doesn’t share that belief at all. This god kills children and require that wombs be ripped open to destroy what is inside. We also have this god killing David’s son for no fault of his own.
CAroline also says “Without God, we have no unalienable rights by virtue of our humanity. All our rights are determined and given arbitrarily by those in power, and as such, are neither guaranteed nor irrevocable.”
Actually, per Christians like Caroline, we don’t have any rights when it comes to this god. She and others claim that this god can do whatever it wants because it is powerful aka God. Per Caroline’s belief, all rights are determined and given arbitrarily by those in power and as such are neither guaranteed nor irrevocable.
Funny how Caroline wants to take most of those rights above in that lovely lil’ meme away.
It’s a rights free-for-all these days. Rights are in conflict with other rights; rights are being conferred and rights are being confiscated. And a lot of folks are feeling fairly frantic about it.
Can a right be legitimately taken away? Yes, and no. It depends on what kind of right it is and how we obtained it. If you as a parent decide that your 16-year-old has the right to stay out till midnight then discover that he’s been getting into trouble, you have the right to revoke his right. Because you are the one who gave it to him.
But what about those “certain unalienable rights” referred to in our Declaration of Independence? Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. They are ours not by fiat but as fundamental to our humanity. Who gave them to us? Or did anyone?
Of course, if they were conferred on us by someone…