Why do atheists only target Christians & Christianity? (anti-gay, Freemasons, Masons)

[RC01]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I'd say that what you have to say about Christians' treatment of LGBT is mostly BS but on the other hand, homosexuals are imprisoned or executed in some Muslim societies so why aren't you complaining about that? Why do you focus your hatred on Christians? I think that was the original question.

Where did I say anywhere that I hate Christians? Up until about three months ago, I was a Christian. I don't hate people having faith, but I do hate what religion (any religion) does to some people.

The main answer to your question is that I don't live in an Islamic dominant country. It's not any less wrong because they're Muslim. It's that what happens in Saudi Arabia doesn't really affect my gay Uncle who wants to get married, or the kid whose parents disowned him when he came out.

[nana053]

Originally Posted by daylux

I think this is just backward partisan thinking. Abortions are on demand now, legal everywhere. If you want to kill your kid before it's born, it's legal. I find that an odd argument though. Do you really need an abortion that badly where you feel the Christians are restricting your ability to have one?

Gay marriage is legal in 17 states, soon all 50. It wasn't the Christians who voted against it, but the majority of the population. We have a few radical judges put in place by our partisan administration, so like I said, it's on its way to being legal in all 50. If gays and lesbians slit their wrists, they have a problem coping. Blaming it on Christians is just downright insanity.

These points of yours are just so off the mark, I'm astounded!

The bolded is not true.

INTERACTIVE MAP: The Most Restrictive Abortion Measures In The States | ThinkProgress

– PERSONHOOD: Declares that life begins “at the moment of conception” and that zygotes have all the rights of citizens, effectively outlawing all abortions and even some methods of birth control.

Key Abortion Restrictions in the States | ThinkProgress

Alabama, Iowa, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia all have *personhood* laws which outlaw all abortions.

[daylux]

Originally Posted by nana053

The bolded is not true.

INTERACTIVE MAP: The Most Restrictive Abortion Measures In The States | ThinkProgress



Key Abortion Restrictions in the States | ThinkProgress

Alabama, Iowa, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia all have *personhood* laws which outlaw all abortions.

I'm just floored it's considered a right infringement not to be able to kill your own child. Is this really our world? The right to life used to be sacred and having a baby used to be something people were proud of and cherished.

Just go to another state for your abortion and stop using Christians as some sort of scapegoat for these ridiculous and manufactured grievances. Change the laws through our democratic processes to overturn the right to life if you're passionate about it.

The point is, you have the freedom to do these things. The idea that Christians are some sort of Taliban out to take peoples right's away is just ludicrous and absolutely laughable. We don't live in a theocracy, never have and never will thanks in part to living under Christian principles which the cornerstone is freedom of will, however ridiculous it gets like the freedom to kill your own child in the womb and the freedom to redefine marriage.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by daylux

I'm just floored it's considered a right infringement not to be able to kill your own child. Is this really our world? The right to life used to be sacred and having a baby used to be something people were proud of and cherished.

Just go to another state for your abortion and stop using Christians as some sort of scapegoat for these ridiculous and manufactured grievances. Change the laws through our democratic processes to overturn the right to life if you're passionate about it.

The point is, you have the freedom to do these things. The idea that Christians are some sort of Taliban out to take peoples right's away is just ludicrous and absolutely laughable. We don't live in a theocracy, never have and never will thanks in part to living under Christian principles which the cornerstone is freedom of will, however ridiculous it gets like the freedom to kill your own child in the womb and the freedom to redefine marriage.

Originally Posted by nana053

The bolded is not true.

INTERACTIVE MAP: The Most Restrictive Abortion Measures In The States | ThinkProgress



Key Abortion Restrictions in the States | ThinkProgress

Alabama, Iowa, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia all have *personhood* laws which outlaw all abortions.

This is off topic from the thread, but: Religion is not the only basis for opposition to abortion.
It's all a matter of intention. A woman who intends to have her child, but gets into an accident that causes her to miscarry...says, "her baby was killed by the accident". OTOH, the woman who aborts doesn't typically say she "went to the clinic and killed her baby".

Don't be surprised if in the near future, in the U.S. anyway...you see (based on the current science and discoveries in the field of genetics and embryology that have now determined and concluded that conception creates a new, separate, and distinct human being) the compulsion of a legal ruling that it is designated a human being from conception...and then follow that up with the mother being legally mandated to be responsible for providing the full care and protection (no abortion, or even smoking or boozing) as the law would require she provide for any child in her care and control.
As mentioned...there are jurisdictions that have already legally adopted the "human person from conception" designation.

As science figures out new things...laws change accordingly.
Many laws are "forced" into passage...that had they been left to the whims and caprice of voting public would never "pass muster".
I see it as just a matter of time.
Sort of like the new laws that have been enacted since the new scientific findings of the danger of "second hand smoke". The smokers protest the new "no smoking" laws even though they know that they are killing themselves and others...but given the "choice", they would subject others to the poisonous smoke anyway, even after knowing the danger it is to them. People want to do what they want to do, and they typically don't care what or who it harms as long as they are getting their way and doing what they want to do, and they will try to twist and spin it any way they can to achieve those wants.
But, public consensus or not, the laws eventually always acquiesce to the science...like the "no-smoking laws" I mentioned. The proscription for harming people while they are growing in the womb isn't long behind.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Don't be surprised if in the near future, in the U.S. anyway...you see (based on the current science and discoveries in the field of genetics and embryology that have now determined and concluded that conception creates a new, separate, and distinct human being)

For a cherry picked and contrived definition of "Human being" that is. As no science actually claims what you just claims it does. Science claims it creates a zygote. Your error is like saying trees produce trees. They do not. They produce seeds. Get your definitions right and do not cherry pick and contrive them to fit an agenda.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

As mentioned...there are jurisdictions that have already legally adopted the "human person from conception" designation.

Of course there is. The question would be what their reasoning for doing so was.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by daylux

Oh so some were appointed by Bush, a Christian? Well, there goes the argument that Christians are taking away gay rights. Thanks for pointing that out.

Originally Posted by daylux

I'm just floored it's considered a right infringement not to be able to kill your own child. Is this really our world? The right to life used to be sacred and having a baby used to be something people were proud of and cherished.

Just go to another state for your abortion and stop using Christians as some sort of scapegoat for these ridiculous and manufactured grievances. Change the laws through our democratic processes to overturn the right to life if you're passionate about it.

The point is, you have the freedom to do these things. The idea that Christians are some sort of Taliban out to take peoples right's away is just ludicrous and absolutely laughable. We don't live in a theocracy, never have and never will thanks in part to living under Christian principles which the cornerstone is freedom of will, however ridiculous it gets like the freedom to kill your own child in the womb and the freedom to redefine marriage.

I'm enjoying the dodging and distractions as extremist Christian political talking points run headlong into facts. But no, certain types of religions which put faith over reality aren't harmful at all. No, nothing bad could come from a group of people motivated by their religious leaders to believe stuff that's factually incorrect.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by daylux

I'm just floored it's considered a right infringement not to be able to kill your own child. Is this really our world? The right to life used to be sacred and having a baby used to be something people were proud of and cherished.

Sorry, but this is a load of utter and complete rubbish. The right to life is sacred, you say?

I call shenanigans on that. Know why?

Because the United States is the ONLY industrialized nation that does not have universal health care. Yeah, in THIS country, it's your money that decides if you have the right to life. If you don't have money and don't meet the stringent requirements to qualify for Medicaid, you're pretty much left with church basement clinics as your only option.

So while people such as yourself complain about the demise of clumps of cells that have no sentience or self-awareness, millions - TENS of millions - of people are suffering, in pain, and slowly dying of diseases and conditions that they can't afford to treat.

The right to life, my ass. And you know something else? Go look at a map showing which states voted to expand Medicaid for the poor and which did not. Hmm, gee whiz. You just might notices that the BIBLE BELT states are the ones which refused to expand government assistance so the poor can get some damned help. Christians south of the Mason-Dixon aren't any more Christian than a box of bricks. Oh, here, I'll help you see for yourself:

Originally Posted by daylux

The idea that Christians are some sort of Taliban out to take peoples right's away is just ludicrous and absolutely laughable.

Uh huh ... and where were YOU on the thread about the Alabama judge who claimed non-Christians have no Constitutional rights? Yeah, I know the drill. Those Christians who scream the loudest about not being fascists almost invariably turn out to be the fascists. Whenever a thread turns up where Christians like you have the chance to prove they are not enemies of freedom - they never do. They're either conspicuously absent from the discussion or they show up to DEFEND the fascism. Sorry bud, but you're just not scoring any points here. Get a new coach.

Originally Posted by daylux

We don't live in a theocracy, never have and never will thanks in part to living under Christian principles which the cornerstone is freedom of will, however ridiculous it gets like the freedom to kill your own child in the womb and the freedom to redefine marriage.

The cornerstone of free will, huh? Then I suppose you would have no objection to passing a federal law allowing gays to marry in all 50 states, right? Except wait! Over 30 states decided to BAN gay marriage because *ahem* apparently free will suddenly became a lot less important when given the chance to exert religious mandates upon the general population. Look, I have heard MANY Christians - especially in the south - who will happily admit that the Bible, and not the Constitution, is the supreme law of the land. If given even half the chance to use the government to enforce Biblical law, they would do it in less time than it takes the light from your monitor to hit your eyes.

Oh yeah ... note that all the states that have banned gay marriage - wow, they all just coincidentally happen to be in the Bible Belt, too. If free will was the cornerstone of Christian principles, they would have been the first states to allow gay marriage.

But nope.

The actions of your brethren do not seem to match the words you're typing. Like I said, get a better coach.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by RC01

Where did I say anywhere that I hate Christians? Up until about three months ago, I was a Christian. I don't hate people having faith, but I do hate what religion (any religion) does to some people.

You came off as hateful, but I see it's kind of a "hate the sin, love the sinner" sort of thing then.

The main answer to your question is that I don't live in an Islamic dominant country. It's not any less wrong because they're Muslim. It's that what happens in Saudi Arabia doesn't really affect my gay Uncle who wants to get married, or the kid whose parents disowned him when he came out.

So if I understand you correctly, you are only concerned when the impact is close to you. Things that happen to people that you don't know or that you can't relate to aren't a concern for you.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

For a cherry picked and contrived definition of "Human being" that is. As no science actually claims what you just claims it does. Science claims it creates a zygote. Your error is like saying trees produce trees. They do not. They produce seeds. Get your definitions right and do not cherry pick and contrive them to fit an agenda.
Of course there is. The question would be what their reasoning for doing so was.

That IS NOT what's based on current KNOWN science...for some years now. You need to educate yourself on the matter.
You can argue with that if you want...like those that argue against evolution...but that's what's current relative to the issue: A persons "life" begins at conception, it IS "human" life, and it IS unique and distinct from anyone else ever to exist, including the Mother & Father.
There may be a few "renegades" that claim otherwise, but the matter is very much settled in the overall scientific community.
That it isn't settled in YOUR OPINION, or anything you might know is on you...not the scientific FACTS.

MODERN TEACHING TEXTS ON EMBRYOLOGY
The Developing Human
"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
Medical Embryology
"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."

T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.
Before We Are Born
"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
Human Embryology and Teratology
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."

Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
Human Embryology
"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.
OLDER TEACHING TEXTS
Patten's Human Embryology
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Clark Edward Corliss, Patten's Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.
Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics
"The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops."

"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."

J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23.
Pathology of the Fetus and Infant
"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.
GENERAL AUDIENCE TEXTS ON PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT
Beginning Life
"Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother's egg... It is beautifully translucent and fragile and it encompasses the vital links in which life is carried from one generation to the next. Within this tiny sphere great events take place. When one of the father's sperm cells, like the ones gathered here around the egg, succeeds in penetrating the egg and becomes united with it, a new life can begin."

Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. p. 13.
PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT VIDEOS
The Biology of Prenatal Development
"Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization."

The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006.
In the Womb
"The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated."

In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005.
EXPERT TESTIMONY RELATING TO LIFE'S BEGINNING
In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

The American Medical Association (AMA) declared as far back as 1857 (referenced in the Roe. vs. Wade opinion) that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being” is a matter of objective science. They deplored the “popular ignorance...that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.”

Every abortion at every point in the pregnancy ends the life of a genetically-distinct human being...THAT is current scientific FACT.

[DauntlessDan]

Because the people that typically do this are "Tyrannical Cowards". They are the same type that would harass, belittle, critique police but would not to the same thing to let's say outlaw bikers or gang bangers, because the bikers/bangers would hand them their heads without blinking. Police have somewhat of a duty to obey the law. Bikers/bangers don't. You don't see these same yutzes going after Muslims do you? Or Jews. Or Buddhists. Their type detests authority (except their own) and authority figures. According to Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist theoretician and politician, the traditional family and religion (Christianity specifically) had to be disassembled and done away with before a society could usher in communism. Perhaps there is more to their continued ridicule and contempt than just hatred.