Far left publication comes out for impeachment

[Monostradamus]

Awww. Mono found a new schtick to run into the ground.

Aww,

Awww....

Aww,

Aww,

Aww,

Aww,

Aww,
The hatchling, desperate for a victory, begins to flap it’s wings furiously and cluck in a mocking fashion. However it’s unaware of it’s surroundings and slips & falls into the Pit of Self-Ownage. The hatchling struggles as it drowns in a puddle of irony, shrieking for it’s mother hen to come to it’s rescue...

[Blake]

Didnt say that. Said you're a massive bigot who doesnt do or add anything here but when it comes to bashing Christianity, you suddenly have thoughts.

You are what you are and you do you.

K, I'll make this easy.

true or false:

the Christian baker is a bigot because he denies the gays a wedding cake just because they're gays

[Spurtacular]

Re: 251

That spam sh** is lame when RandomCuck does it. :lol that you decided it was cool, Slob.

[TeyshaBlue]

There's not a single post in this thread that "bashes" anything in Christian scripture or claims that all Christians are bad.
Close enough.
"Not at all. Evangelicals have always been bad, IMO."...RG

[DMC]

I get a chuckle when I read "being a Christian is a choice". Is being atheist a choice? No. It's the default position based on what you are compelled to believe. If you can choose to believe something, you're likely delusional. I am atheist because it's what has developed from my experiences and rationalizations. Saying that's my choice is saying "I don't understand epistemology".

Religious persecution isn't choice persecution. There's a reason religion is protected. Pretending you can be prejudiced about religious folks because you're not religious doesn't make it true. It's just another form of bigotry.

When someone says "most Christians are like this.." odd that no one shows up and says "prove it". How the hell do you know how most Christians act? You can only say how most that you have encountered act. Painting everyone with the same brush is akin to being racist because you had bad experiences, or being sexist for the same reasons. Pretend it's not all you like.

[pgardn]

I get a chuckle when I read "being a Christian is a choice". Is being atheist a choice? No. It's the default position based on what you are compelled to believe. If you can choose to believe something, you're likely delusional. I am atheist because it's what has developed from my experiences and rationalizations. Saying that's my choice is saying "I don't understand epistemology".

Religious persecution isn't choice persecution. There's a reason religion is protected. Pretending you can be prejudiced about religious folks because you're not religious doesn't make it true. It's just another form of bigotry.

When someone says "most Christians are like this.." odd that no one shows up and says "prove it". How the hell do you know how most Christians act? You can only say how most that you have encountered act. Painting everyone with the same brush is akin to being racist because you had bad experiences, or being sexist for the same reasons. Pretend it's not all you like.

Oh good.

Now please lecture on free will.

[DMC]

Oh good.

Now please lecture on free will.

why?

[pgardn]

why?

Why not?

You want to go into choice making.
Fire away professor.

[DMC]

Why not?

You want to go into choice making.
Fire away professor.

The difference between personal secularity and sexual orientation is not that one is a choice and the other isn't, because both have causal factors that eliminate choice. The difference is that sexual orientation is determined almost entirely by biology, whereas religious disbelief is much more a combination of biology and environment. But in both cases, there's really no choice.

What other non value added dingleberry would you like to shit onto the forum?

[pgardn]

The difference between personal secularity and sexual orientation is not that one is a choice and the other isn't, because both have causal factors that eliminate choice. The difference is that sexual orientation is determined almost entirely by biology, whereas religious disbelief is much more a combination of biology and environment. But in both cases, there's really no choice.

What other non value added dingleberry would you like to shit onto the forum?

BS on both bolded.

You skipped free will.

[DMC]

BS on both bolded.

You skipped free will.

:lol You're arguing with Psychology Today.

[pgardn]

:lol You're arguing with Psychology Today.

Great. I am more than willing to state:

It is ridiculous to say sexual orientation is almost entirely determined by biology.

And religious disbelief has is a combination biological and environmental factors.
Wtf do biological factors have to do with religious disbelief? Explain.

[Blake]

I get a chuckle when I read "being a Christian is a choice". Is being atheist a choice? No. It's the default position based on what you are compelled to believe. If you can choose to believe something, you're likely delusional. I am atheist because it's what has developed from my experiences and rationalizations. Saying that's my choice is saying "I don't understand epistemology".

Religious persecution isn't choice persecution. There's a reason religion is protected. Pretending you can be prejudiced about religious folks because you're not religious doesn't make it true. It's just another form of bigotry.

When someone says "most Christians are like this.." odd that no one shows up and says "prove it". How the hell do you know how most Christians act? You can only say how most that you have encountered act. Painting everyone with the same brush is akin to being racist because you had bad experiences, or being sexist for the same reasons. Pretend it's not all you like.

https://thelogicofscience.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/strawman.png?w=428

[DMC]

Great. I am more than willing to state:

It is ridiculous to say sexual orientation is almost entirely determined by biology.

And religious disbelief has is a combination biological and environmental factors.
Wtf do biological factors have to do with religious disbelief? Explain.

Sexual orientation is a natural part of who you are — it’s not a choice. Your sexual orientation can change over your lifetime.

What causes sexual orientation?
It’s not completely known why someone might be lesbian, gay, straight, or bisexual. But research shows that sexual orientation is likely caused partly by biological factors that start before birth. -Planned parenthood

Abstract
Sexual orientation is one of the largest sex differences in humans. The vast majority of the population is heterosexual, that is, they are attracted to members of the opposite sex. However, a small but significant proportion of people are bisexual or homosexual and experience attraction to members of the same sex. The origins of the phenomenon have long been the subject of scientific study. In this chapter, we will review the evidence that sexual orientation has biological underpinnings and consider the involvement of epigenetic mechanisms. We will first discuss studies that show that sexual orientation has a genetic component. These studies show that sexual orientation is more concordant in monozygotic twins than in dizygotic ones and that male sexual orientation is linked to several regions of the genome. -National Institute of Health

:lol pgardn.. know-it-all.

[DMC]

But this does not mean that today's religious skeptics choose not to believe. Instead, we can see that personal secularity is primarily the result of brain function combined with access to knowledge, information, and a social setting allowing disbelief. Given the right conditions, the result will be an individual who does not accept supernatural explanations.

"Wtf do biological factors have to do with religious disbelief? Explain."

Low IQ folks are more likely to be theists. You won't find many low IQ atheists.

[pgardn]

Sexual orientation is a natural part of who you are — it’s not a choice. Your sexual orientation can change over your lifetime.

What causes sexual orientation?
It’s not completely known why someone might be lesbian, gay, straight, or bisexual. But research shows that sexual orientation is likely caused partly by biological factors that start before birth. -Planned parenthood

Abstract
Sexual orientation is one of the largest sex differences in humans. The vast majority of the population is heterosexual, that is, they are attracted to members of the opposite sex. However, a small but significant proportion of people are bisexual or homosexual and experience attraction to members of the same sex. The origins of the phenomenon have long been the subject of scientific study. In this chapter, we will review the evidence that sexual orientation has biological underpinnings and consider the involvement of epigenetic mechanisms. We will first discuss studies that show that sexual orientation has a genetic component. These studies show that sexual orientation is more concordant in monozygotic twins than in dizygotic ones and that male sexual orientation is linked to several regions of the genome. -National Institute of Health

:lol pgardn.. know-it-all.

And there are studies that roundly refute the idea that sexual orientation is mostly genetic.
To say that upbringing has nothing to do with sexual orientation is pure BS. If it is purely genetic what genes on the sex chromosomes control this.
This not even close to some final work. If this study was considered the classic on this subject it would be read in textbooks it has now been determined that sexual orientation is vastly a genetic controlled behavior, not an environmentally controlled behavior. You read one article out of a Psychology magazine and call it? Thats BS science.

And again:

And religious disbelief has is a combination biological and environmental factors.
Wtf do biological factors have to do with religious disbelief? Explain.
You are basically saying the ability to rely on evidence is a genetic factor. That is also a stunning statement.


Im not an expert. But I certainly know enough to say it has not been determined how much of sexual orientation is controlled by genetic factors.

[DMC]

And there are studies that roundly refute the idea that sexual orientation is mostly genetic.
To say that upbringing has nothing to do with sexual orientation is pure BS. If it is purely genetic what genes on the sex chromosomes control this.
This not even close to some final work. If this study was considered the classic on this subject it would be read in textbooks it has now been determined that sexual orientation is vastly a genetic controlled behavior, not an environmentally controlled behavior. You read one article out of a Psychology magazine and call it? Thats BS science.

And again:

And religious disbelief has is a combination biological and environmental factors.
Wtf do biological factors have to do with religious disbelief? Explain.

I answered that already



Im not an expert. But I certainly know enough to say it has not been determined how much of sexual orientation is controlled by genetic factors.

:lol do tell

[pgardn]

I answered that already

Yes so did I. Wait for it, Wait for it...

:lol do tell

Tell what?

To say that most human behavior is vastly genetic takes proof that we dont have the ability to say with any degree of certainty yet.
Its that simple.

To say that blue eyes is a largely genetic trait is much more straightforward.
What do you want? Alcoholism, addictive behavior, many behaviors we are interested in definitely have a genetic component. But to say its vastly genetic is insane.
Is this understandable?

[DMC]

Tell what?

To say that most human behavior is vastly genetic takes proof that we dont have the ability to say with any degree of certainty yet.
Its that simple.

To say that blue eyes is a largely genetic trait is much more straightforward.
What do you want? Alcoholism, addictive behavior, many behaviors we are interested in definitely have a genetic component. But to say its vastly genetic is insane.
Is this understandable?

You're arguing against the authorities and added "I'm no expert".

You also fucked up your quote tags.

[pgardn]

You're arguing against the authorities and added "I'm no expert".

You also fucked up your quote tags.

The authorities...
You dont know enough to know what I have stated is the authoritative state of the situation.
And I messed up my quote tags... The OCD is getting worse?

[DMC]

The authorities...
You dont know enough to know what I have stated is the authoritative state of the situation.
And I messed up my quote tags... The OCD is getting worse?

You're disagreeing without any stated reason, with well established authorities on the subject, and you expect to have an audience? You just decided to chime in and stepped into water deeper than you expected, now you're struggling to recover. You said you're not the expert.

Yes, fix your quote tags. Don't attribute words to me I didn't say.

[DMC]

Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are favored by scientists. These factors, which may be related to the development of a sexual orientation, include genes, the early uterine environment (such as prenatal hormones), and brain structure.

[Blake]

Dmc avoiding his claim backing duties here using diversion tactics

[DMC]

Dmc avoiding his claim backing duties here using diversion tactics

What claim did I make to you?

[pgardn]

Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are favored by scientists. These factors, which may be related to the development of a sexual orientation, include genes, the early uterine environment (such as prenatal hormones), and brain structure.

Favor?
Favor?

You said ALMOST ENTIRELY.
That is a huge jump.
ALMOST ENTIRELY means environment has almost zero influence.
That is absolutely not the state of affairs as we know it currently.

Btw uterine environment is.... unbelievably enough, environment.

[pgardn]

The difference between personal secularity and sexual orientation is not that one is a choice and the other isn't, because both have causal factors that eliminate choice. The difference is that sexual orientation is determined almost entirely by biology, whereas religious disbelief is much more a combination of biology and environment. But in both cases, there's really no choice.

What other non value added dingleberry would you like to shit onto the forum?

Again.
This is not current thinking.

[DMC]

Again.
This is not current thinking.

You're confusing biology with purely genetic. There are biological factors that don't include genetics.

[DMC]

Favor?
Favor?

You said ALMOST ENTIRELY.
That is a huge jump.
ALMOST ENTIRELY means environment has almost zero influence.
That is absolutely not the state of affairs as we know it currently.

Btw uterine environment is.... unbelievably enough, environment.

:lol, no

Uterine environment in this case is biological. Prenatal hormones are environmental? That's biological, not environmental. Nature vs nurture. You're looking for an escape hatch.



Are you saying a person can be made Gay by how they are raised? Can they be made straight? :lol

[Blake]

I can support my claims. Can't you?


You hate bad people.

Bad people are sometimes Christians

You hate Christians

You continually remind everyone how you hate Christians

You don't hate other religions, just Christianity.

No bad people exist in other religions.


What claim did I make to you?

The bolded parts. Get cracking

[Blake]

Do you want to start a thread about the historicity of Jesus or perhaps rehash the ontological argument? Of course not, you want to semen shield for a poster with a 10 year axe to grind who selectively chooses one religion to chastise. While many here would agree that the actual practices of many followers of the religion don't seem to fit the narrative of the tenets, it's not the religion that's being discussed. Blake isn't concerned about people not being good Christians. He just hates Christianity as a whole. You're part of the rapid response semen shielding team for your side but plenty of your compadres have pointed this out to Blake in the past. Some of you have selective recall.

Who pointed out what exactly.

Chop chop

[ElNono]

I get a chuckle when I read "being a Christian is a choice". Is being atheist a choice? No. It's the default position based on what you are compelled to believe. If you can choose to believe something, you're likely delusional. I am atheist because it's what has developed from my experiences and rationalizations. Saying that's my choice is saying "I don't understand epistemology".

Hmmm, nice topic. Really debatable that’s a choice or not in epistemological terms, and certainly is a choice in psychological terms. My understanding with philosophy is that the moment you made an active assertion (ie: I’m atheist), it implicitly means you actively made a choice not to be part of any of the other options.
That itself is a choice (or choices). I would put your construction in logical terms: if you’re not part of any distinctive group, then by default you fall into the no-group category.


When someone says "most Christians are like this.." odd that no one shows up and says "prove it". How the hell do you know how most Christians act? You can only say how most that you have encountered act. Painting everyone with the same brush is akin to being racist because you had bad experiences, or being sexist for the same reasons. Pretend it's not all you like.

I agree that generalizations are for the most part misapplied, but your claim is falsifiable. “Most Christians believe in Jesus” is a claim I can make with a degree of certainty that it will be right, without having to go around asking every Christian about it.

[pgardn]

:lol, no

Uterine environment in this case is biological. Prenatal hormones are environmental? That's biological, not environmental. Nature vs nurture. You're looking for an escape hatch.



Are you saying a person can be made Gay by how they are raised? Can they be made straight? :lol

Its the environment of the Uterus.
Biology must mean genetics in this context. Otherwise environment factors (surroundings) that effect the brain are BIOLOGICAL. Then everything becomes biological. I could make this argument very easily and it’s stupid.

The current belief is that genetics is NOT overriding in most human behavior. The propensity to act a certain way is clearly there and genetic. But will that propensity meet the correct environment to activate is the real question. This is an incredibly difficult topic and to say some behavior is almost inevitable due to genetics is just flat out wrong given today’s knowledge.

You are trying to play silly games yet again.
And you don’t know biology, this is very clear to me. Or you do and really don’t think about the subject except in passing.

[DMC]

The bolded parts. Get cracking


Go to first new post Join the million Christian petition against Netflix now cuz gay Jesus comedy special!
Blake, 2 Weeks Ago 07:52 PM
123
Replies: 53
Views: 1,397
Last Post: 1 Day Ago 04:49 PM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Go to first new post Christians just can't help themselves huh
Blake, 1 Week Ago 11:27 PM
1234
Replies: 95
Views: 2,346
Last Post: 1 Day Ago 03:17 PM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
A #metoo wave is coming for the Christian church
Blake, 06-27-2018 08:29 AM
Replies: 15
Views: 358
Last Post: 08-21-2019 02:07 PM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Real Christian work, tbh no joke
Blake, 08-07-2018 09:57 AM
12
Replies: 32
Views: 304
Last Post: 08-09-2018 08:23 AM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Schools in Florida receiving public funds teaching crazy Christian stuff
Blake, 07-16-2018 08:50 AM
123
Replies: 61
Views: 573
Last Post: 07-17-2018 09:23 AM
by Blake Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Christians flooding state legislatures with bs bills: "Project Blitz"
Blake, 06-11-2018 08:34 AM
Replies: 1
Views: 144
Last Post: 06-11-2018 09:02 AM
by spurraider21 Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Christianity under attack in foreign land
Blake, 06-06-2018 08:06 AM
Replies: 9
Views: 238
Last Post: 06-07-2018 04:32 PM
by Pavlov Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
I stumbled onto this awesome angry Christian oped piece on Fox News website
Blake, 03-20-2018 08:47 AM
12
Replies: 29
Views: 792
Last Post: 04-12-2018 09:37 AM
by Blake Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Hey kids, let me show you proof that God's real

Rockets: now you too can play in Jesus' name


My buddies at freedom from religion
Blake, 03-07-2018 11:43 AM
Replies: 3
Views: 277
Last Post: 07-26-2019 01:44 AM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Freedom From Religion Foundation doing the Lord's work
Blake, 10-27-2015 03:58 PM
12
Replies: 43
Views: 1,956
Last Post: 07-19-2017 03:26 PM
by Pavlov Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Freedom From Religion (FFR) news
Blake, 01-15-2016 11:48 AM
12
Replies: 46
Views: 1,678
Last Post: 03-23-2016 11:49 AM
by boutons_deux Go to last post
Forum:
The Club
and the fastest growing religion in the world is.........
Blake, 04-03-2015 10:30 PM
12345...6
Replies: 148
Views: 5,753
Last Post: 04-09-2015 05:57 PM
by Avante Go to last post
Forum:
The Club
bomber in airport.....of course his religion is...
Blake, 03-24-2015 01:24 PM
Replies: 5
Views: 647
Last Post: 03-26-2015 09:08 AM
by DarrinS Go to last post
Forum:
The Club
What is the best.......
Blake, 08-11-2012 08:31 AM
12345...6
Replies: 130
Views: 5,573
Last Post: 08-15-2012 07:40 AM
by Blake Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Survey: Americans don't know much about religion


"Bring Your Quran to School Day"


You think having threads chastising Christians is OK because they do things that bring us down as a society

But when there's a thread criticizing Muslims because they do things that bring us down as a society, you get defensive with "why are you blaming Islam" or "what's the point"


So you blame the very large group collectively for the crimes of a few?


alarmsim and tinfoil hats aside, there definitely has been some level of desensitization

and there definitely are people like blake who call anybody an islamophobe if they criticize islam, but then goes out of his way to criticize other religions

Don't break your back holding the weight of this evidence. :lol

[DMC]

Its the environment of the Uterus.
Biology must mean genetics in this context. Otherwise environment factors (surroundings) that effect the brain are BIOLOGICAL. Then everything becomes biological. I could make this argument very easily and it’s stupid.

The current belief is that genetics is NOT overriding in most human behavior. The propensity to act a certain way is clearly there and genetic. But will that propensity meet the correct environment to activate is the real question. This is an incredibly difficult topic and to say some behavior is almost inevitable due to genetics is just flat out wrong given today’s knowledge.

You are trying to play silly games yet again.
And you don’t know biology, this is very clear to me. Or you do and really don’t think about the subject except in passing.

Don't be dense. Biological factors mean "nature". Environmental factors mean "nurture". You don't get to redefine terms to suit the corner you've painted yourself into.

[clambake]

Go to first new post Join the million Christian petition against Netflix now cuz gay Jesus comedy special!
Blake, 2 Weeks Ago 07:52 PM
123
Replies: 53
Views: 1,397
Last Post: 1 Day Ago 04:49 PM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Go to first new post Christians just can't help themselves huh
Blake, 1 Week Ago 11:27 PM
1234
Replies: 95
Views: 2,346
Last Post: 1 Day Ago 03:17 PM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
A #metoo wave is coming for the Christian church
Blake, 06-27-2018 08:29 AM
Replies: 15
Views: 358
Last Post: 08-21-2019 02:07 PM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Real Christian work, tbh no joke
Blake, 08-07-2018 09:57 AM
12
Replies: 32
Views: 304
Last Post: 08-09-2018 08:23 AM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Schools in Florida receiving public funds teaching crazy Christian stuff
Blake, 07-16-2018 08:50 AM
123
Replies: 61
Views: 573
Last Post: 07-17-2018 09:23 AM
by Blake Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Christians flooding state legislatures with bs bills: "Project Blitz"
Blake, 06-11-2018 08:34 AM
Replies: 1
Views: 144
Last Post: 06-11-2018 09:02 AM
by spurraider21 Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Christianity under attack in foreign land
Blake, 06-06-2018 08:06 AM
Replies: 9
Views: 238
Last Post: 06-07-2018 04:32 PM
by Pavlov Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
I stumbled onto this awesome angry Christian oped piece on Fox News website
Blake, 03-20-2018 08:47 AM
12
Replies: 29
Views: 792
Last Post: 04-12-2018 09:37 AM
by Blake Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Hey kids, let me show you proof that God's real

Rockets: now you too can play in Jesus' name


My buddies at freedom from religion
Blake, 03-07-2018 11:43 AM
Replies: 3
Views: 277
Last Post: 07-26-2019 01:44 AM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Freedom From Religion Foundation doing the Lord's work
Blake, 10-27-2015 03:58 PM
12
Replies: 43
Views: 1,956
Last Post: 07-19-2017 03:26 PM
by Pavlov Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Freedom From Religion (FFR) news
Blake, 01-15-2016 11:48 AM
12
Replies: 46
Views: 1,678
Last Post: 03-23-2016 11:49 AM
by boutons_deux Go to last post
Forum:
The Club
and the fastest growing religion in the world is.........
Blake, 04-03-2015 10:30 PM
12345...6
Replies: 148
Views: 5,753
Last Post: 04-09-2015 05:57 PM
by Avante Go to last post
Forum:
The Club
bomber in airport.....of course his religion is...
Blake, 03-24-2015 01:24 PM
Replies: 5
Views: 647
Last Post: 03-26-2015 09:08 AM
by DarrinS Go to last post
Forum:
The Club
What is the best.......
Blake, 08-11-2012 08:31 AM
12345...6
Replies: 130
Views: 5,573
Last Post: 08-15-2012 07:40 AM
by Blake Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Survey: Americans don't know much about religion


"Bring Your Quran to School Day"







Don't break your back holding the weight of this evidence. :lol

i don't think I've seen obsession like this before

thanks

[DMC]

Hmmm, nice topic. Really debatable that’s a choice or not in epistemological terms, and certainly is a choice in psychological terms. My understanding with philosophy is that the moment you made an active assertion (ie: I’m atheist), it implicitly means you actively made a choice not to be part of any of the other options.
That itself is a choice (or choices). I would put your construction in logical terms: if you’re not part of any distinctive group, then by default you fall into the no-group category.

When you say "I am hungry" are you making the choice to be hungry? There really are no other options. You're either theist or you aren't. The term "agnostic" is just a more PC way of being atheist. Saying "I don't know" doesn't change anything. You're either theist or not theist. No one knows, theist or atheist. Claim of belief /= belief. You cannot choose to not believe just as you cannot choose to not believe the US is North of Mexico. You cannot choose to believe just as you cannot choose to believe the Pacific ocean is made of chocolate milk.

Every psychology article I've read supports that. Choosing to call yourself something isn't the same as choosing to actually be something. Theist or atheist isn't a claim, it's a god belief status.




I agree that generalizations are for the most part misapplied, but your claim is falsifiable. “Most Christians believe in Jesus” is a claim I can make with a degree of certainty that it will be right, without having to go around asking every Christian about it.

But I didn't make such a claim about belief. You cannot say "most Christians don't actually believe in Jesus" without doing what you just suggested. Of course I can say "most people who claim to believe in X actually believe in X". That doesn't need to be supported, since the term "Christian" by nature means they believe in Jesus.

[Blake]

Go to first new post Join the million Christian petition against Netflix now cuz gay Jesus comedy special!
Blake, 2 Weeks Ago 07:52 PM
123
Replies: 53
Views: 1,397
Last Post: 1 Day Ago 04:49 PM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Go to first new post Christians just can't help themselves huh
Blake, 1 Week Ago 11:27 PM
1234
Replies: 95
Views: 2,346
Last Post: 1 Day Ago 03:17 PM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
A #metoo wave is coming for the Christian church
Blake, 06-27-2018 08:29 AM
Replies: 15
Views: 358
Last Post: 08-21-2019 02:07 PM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Real Christian work, tbh no joke
Blake, 08-07-2018 09:57 AM
12
Replies: 32
Views: 304
Last Post: 08-09-2018 08:23 AM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Schools in Florida receiving public funds teaching crazy Christian stuff
Blake, 07-16-2018 08:50 AM
123
Replies: 61
Views: 573
Last Post: 07-17-2018 09:23 AM
by Blake Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Christians flooding state legislatures with bs bills: "Project Blitz"
Blake, 06-11-2018 08:34 AM
Replies: 1
Views: 144
Last Post: 06-11-2018 09:02 AM
by spurraider21 Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Christianity under attack in foreign land
Blake, 06-06-2018 08:06 AM
Replies: 9
Views: 238
Last Post: 06-07-2018 04:32 PM
by Pavlov Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
I stumbled onto this awesome angry Christian oped piece on Fox News website
Blake, 03-20-2018 08:47 AM
12
Replies: 29
Views: 792
Last Post: 04-12-2018 09:37 AM
by Blake Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Hey kids, let me show you proof that God's real

Rockets: now you too can play in Jesus' name


My buddies at freedom from religion
Blake, 03-07-2018 11:43 AM
Replies: 3
Views: 277
Last Post: 07-26-2019 01:44 AM
by Spurtacular Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Freedom From Religion Foundation doing the Lord's work
Blake, 10-27-2015 03:58 PM
12
Replies: 43
Views: 1,956
Last Post: 07-19-2017 03:26 PM
by Pavlov Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Freedom From Religion (FFR) news
Blake, 01-15-2016 11:48 AM
12
Replies: 46
Views: 1,678
Last Post: 03-23-2016 11:49 AM
by boutons_deux Go to last post
Forum:
The Club
and the fastest growing religion in the world is.........
Blake, 04-03-2015 10:30 PM
12345...6
Replies: 148
Views: 5,753
Last Post: 04-09-2015 05:57 PM
by Avante Go to last post
Forum:
The Club
bomber in airport.....of course his religion is...
Blake, 03-24-2015 01:24 PM
Replies: 5
Views: 647
Last Post: 03-26-2015 09:08 AM
by DarrinS Go to last post
Forum:
The Club
What is the best.......
Blake, 08-11-2012 08:31 AM
12345...6
Replies: 130
Views: 5,573
Last Post: 08-15-2012 07:40 AM
by Blake Go to last post
Forum:
Political Forum
Survey: Americans don't know much about religion


"Bring Your Quran to School Day"







Don't break your back holding the weight of this evidence. :lol

Nowhere in there do I say I hate all Christians or Christianity as a whole. The assumption is all yours. You failed.

[DMC]

Nowhere in there do I say I hate all Christians or Christianity as a whole. The assumption is all yours. You failed.

Pretty sure the evidence strongly supports it. I didn't claim you ever said it.

[clambake]

Nowhere in there do I say I hate all Christians. You failed.

you went through all that........line for line?

i don't think I've seen obsession like this before

thanks

[Blake]

i don't think I've seen obsession like this before

thanks

You haven't seen the 100+ page thread with my name in the title?

[Blake]

you went through all that........line for line?

i don't think I've seen obsession like this before

thanks

Of course I didn't. I don't have to. I've never said it.

[DMC]

You haven't seen the 100+ page thread with my name in the title?

You followed me around for days demanding I back up the claim that you hate Christians. I just did.

[DMC]

Of course I didn't. I don't have to. I've never said it.

So you couldn't determine a racist or homophobe (or islamophobe) unless they explicitly identified as one? :lol

[Blake]

Pretty sure the evidence strongly supports it. I didn't claim you ever said it.

Then there's no hard evidence I hate all Christians. In fact, there's evidence in this very thread to the contrary.

You're making silly assumptions. You failed.

The stupid thing about it is all you have to do is ask me directly.

[DMC]

Then there's no hard evidence I hate all Christians. In fact, there's evidence in this very thread to the contrary.

You're making silly assumptions. You failed.

The stupid thing about it is all you have to do is ask me directly.
Sure thing Blake :lol

I don't need to ask you. It's recorded history here. I don't trust you to be honest.

[Blake]

So you couldn't determine a racist or homophobe (or islamophobe) unless they explicitly identified as one? :lol

I won't claim as fact on a message board who is and who isn't. I can only guess. Like you.

But you were the one that stated you can back ALL of your claims.

[Blake]

Sure thing Blake :lol

I don't need to ask you. It's recorded history here. I don't trust you to be honest.

Lol DMC calling out anyone else on their honesty.

Like I said, there's evidence refuting your assertion that I hate all Christians right here in this thread. It's now recorded history.

[DMC]

I won't claim as fact on a message board who is and who isn't. I can only guess. Like you.

But you were the one that stated you can back ALL of your claims.

"I said you are an islamophobe, I didn't say it was a fact" - Blake

I have. You're not the arbiter of whether or not I have.

[DMC]

Lol DMC calling out anyone else on their honesty.

Like I said, there's evidence refuting your assertion that I hate all Christians right here in this thread. It's now recorded history.

I said you hate Christians. I didn't say you hate all Christians.

Blake :lol

You keep moving the goalpost, adding and removing words to suit your needs.

I didn't call out your honesty. I said I don't trust you to be honest. I never said you're dishonest.

[Blake]

"I said you are an islamophobe, I didn't say it was a fact" - Blake

I have. You're not the arbiter of whether or not I have.

the evidence of you being wrong is right here in this thread for anyone to see. I gave props to the Christian editor for standing his ground. It's right here.

But the great thing about this place is that all you have to do win the internets is simply declare victory and run away.

[Blake]

I said you hate Christians. I didn't say you hate all Christians.

Blake :lol

You keep moving the goalpost, adding and removing words to suit your needs.

I didn't call out your honesty. I said I don't trust you to be honest. I never said you're dishonest.

:lol and right away DMC goes into dishonest mode.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol DMCemantics

[DMC]

^Here comes dipshit hoping for some company

[pgardn]

Don't be dense. Biological factors mean "nature". Environmental factors mean "nurture". You don't get to redefine terms to suit the corner you've painted yourself into.

These are very old terms and in today’s understanding of living things nature is clearly GENETIC factors and nurture is ENVIRONMENTAL factors.

You don’t know what the fck you are talking about.

The environment of the first cell (zygote) in what is to become a rat, elephant, cricket, or human being are all the chemical and physical factors that play a role in the development of the zygote. The genetic factor is DNA. The way the environment effects the DNA is hugely important. Moving further along in development, a mother may behave a certain way towards a child that cues hormonal biological changes in the brain. This hormonal change is an Environmental influence even if it involves biological mechanisms, which all of behavior does as it involves the firing of neurons in a specific manner based on environmental input. Your use of the word environment means absoLutely nothing while EVERYTHING is biological as it pertains to living things.

So thanks for your meaningless input.
You should stop.
Now.

[pgardn]

Don't be dense. Biological factors mean "nature". Environmental factors mean "nurture". You don't get to redefine terms to suit the corner you've painted yourself into.

These are very old terms and in today’s understanding of living things nature is clearly GENETIC factors and nurture is ENVIRONMENTAL factors.

You don’t know what the fck you are talking about.

The environment of the first cell (zygote) in what is to become a rat, elephant, cricket, or human being are all the chemical and physical factors that play a role in the development of the zygote. The genetic factor is DNA. The way the environment effects the DNA is hugely important. Moving further along in development, a mother may behave a certain way towards a child that cues hormonal biological changes in the brain. This hormonal change is an Environmental influence even if it involves biological mechanisms, which all of behavior does as it involves the firing of neurons in a specific manner based on environmental input. Your use of the word environment means absoLutely nothing while EVERYTHING is biological as it pertains to living things.

So thanks for your meaningless input.
You should stop.
Now.


Hell I’ll say it twice.

[ChumpDumper]

^Here comes dipshit hoping for some company:lol I'm enjoying watching you get shat upon so thoroughly, but please -- by all means, try to distract from it by lashing out at me.




















:lol

[Chucho]

:lol "coloreds" tho

Where did that come from? Are you 80?

What? Like that isn't in the parlance of our times. It's as popular as dames, pals, fellas, jalopy, neat-o, incel and cuck.

[boutons_deux]

A neuroscientist explains why Christian evangelicals are wired to believe Donald Trump’s gaslighting lies

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Jesus-camp.jpg

many psychologists have pointed out that he is constantly gaslighting his base (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201808/trump-is-gaslighting-america-again-here-s-how-fight-it)—a term that refers to a strategic attempt to get others to question their direct experience of reality.

fact of the matter is there are many who swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

Most of his fervent supporters are convinced that Trump is the harbinger of truth when it comes to important issues like climate change (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement)—

which is really just a “hoax perpetrated by the Chinese government”.

a basic fact about the brain:

it takes more mental effort to reject an idea as false than to accept it as true.

In other words, it’s easier to believe than to not.

does it explain why conservatives, specifically evangelicals, are so easily duped by Donald Trump?

For Christian fundamentalists,

being taught to suppress critical thinking begins at a very early age.

It is the combination of the brain’s vulnerability to believing unsupported facts and aggressive indoctrination that create the perfect storm for gullibility.

Due to the brain’s neuroplasticity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity), or ability to be sculpted by lived experiences,

evangelicals literally become hardwired to believe far-fetched statements.

first taught to accept Biblical stories not as metaphors for living life practically and purposefully,

but as objective truth.

Mystical explanations for natural events train young minds to not demand evidence for beliefs.

As a result, the neural pathways that promote healthy skepticism and rational thought are not properly developed.

This inevitably leads to a greater susceptibility to lying and gaslighting by manipulative politicians,

and greater suggestibility in general.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/a-neuroscientist-explains-why-christian-evangelicals-are-wired-to-believe-donald-trumps-gaslighting-lies/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3334 (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/a-neuroscientist-explains-why-christian-evangelicals-are-wired-to-believe-donald-trumps-gaslighting-lies/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3334)

understanding science is much harder than just saying "fuck it, it's bullshit"

The oligarchy loves evangelicals because they are stupidly suggestible, gullible about eg, climate science, environmental pollution and destruction, all of which allows the oligarchy to amass Capital by exploiting the carbon economy and overriding environmental regulations.

iow

ignorant, gullible evangelicals are a huge reason why

America is fucked and unfuckable.

[Winehole23]

I wouldn't write off evangelicals as being just one thing, viz., the much bandied about CT oped about Trump.

I'm also inclined to point out lefty evo psych being used as a fig leaf for bigotry. Put down evangelicals as dumber claiming science backs you up. I wonder.

[Winehole23]

angle of the dangle

1210748554458759170

[pgardn]

I wouldn't write off evangelicals as being just one thing, viz., the much bandied about CT oped about Trump.

I'm also inclined to point out lefty evo psych being used as a fig leaf for bigotry. Put down evangelicals as dumber claiming science backs you up. I wonder.

The bolded is BS.

[ElNono]

When you say "I am hungry" are you making the choice to be hungry? There really are no other options. You're either theist or you aren't. The term "agnostic" is just a more PC way of being atheist. Saying "I don't know" doesn't change anything. You're either theist or not theist. No one knows, theist or atheist. Claim of belief /= belief. You cannot choose to not believe just as you cannot choose to not believe the US is North of Mexico. You cannot choose to believe just as you cannot choose to believe the Pacific ocean is made of chocolate milk.

Every psychology article I've read supports that. Choosing to call yourself something isn't the same as choosing to actually be something. Theist or atheist isn't a claim, it's a god belief status.

The bolded is exactly what I mean, and it works both ways. Being hungry is one thing, actually making the assertion “I’m hungry” is not the same thing. Your stomach might be empty and growling, but at the point you had to communicate what your status is, you chose an option between ‘full, ok, hungry, etc’. You could also be lying, that’s a choice too.

Let’s add another very typical example: 7 year old kid is asked what religion he/she identifies with. Clearly a kid at that age is intellectually incapable of dissecting religion in full. Yet most of them will choose (most commonly the same religion as their parents or siblings). Is it a lie? Very likely. Was it a choice at that moment? Sure was. (Side note: this takes us to tribalism and other sociology branches on why a kid does that, all interesting on their own).


But I didn't make such a claim about belief. You cannot say "most Christians don't actually believe in Jesus" without doing what you just suggested. Of course I can say "most people who claim to believe in X actually believe in X". That doesn't need to be supported, since the term "Christian" by nature means they believe in Jesus.

What I was addressing is that there’s nothing necessarily wrong about making generalized claims, as long as those claims are largely plausible. A claim of “Most Muslims are terrorists” is clearly false, and we don’t have to go ask every Muslim about it.

Expanding on my previous claim, I don’t know I would feel comfortable stating that “Every Christian believes in Jesus”. That’s much more debatable and at least a degree less plausible that using ‘Most’. I would actually be skeptic of the ‘Every’ claim, unless we obviously survey every Christian and we get our answer.

[Chucho]

A neuroscientist explains why Christian evangelicals are wired to believe Donald Trump’s gaslighting lies

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Jesus-camp.jpg

many psychologists have pointed out that he is constantly gaslighting his base (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201808/trump-is-gaslighting-america-again-here-s-how-fight-it)—a term that refers to a strategic attempt to get others to question their direct experience of reality.

fact of the matter is there are many who swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

Most of his fervent supporters are convinced that Trump is the harbinger of truth when it comes to important issues like climate change (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement)—

which is really just a “hoax perpetrated by the Chinese government”.

a basic fact about the brain:

it takes more mental effort to reject an idea as false than to accept it as true.

In other words, it’s easier to believe than to not.

does it explain why conservatives, specifically evangelicals, are so easily duped by Donald Trump?

For Christian fundamentalists,

being taught to suppress critical thinking begins at a very early age.

It is the combination of the brain’s vulnerability to believing unsupported facts and aggressive indoctrination that create the perfect storm for gullibility.

Due to the brain’s neuroplasticity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity), or ability to be sculpted by lived experiences,

evangelicals literally become hardwired to believe far-fetched statements.

first taught to accept Biblical stories not as metaphors for living life practically and purposefully,

but as objective truth.

Mystical explanations for natural events train young minds to not demand evidence for beliefs.

As a result, the neural pathways that promote healthy skepticism and rational thought are not properly developed.

This inevitably leads to a greater susceptibility to lying and gaslighting by manipulative politicians,

and greater suggestibility in general.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/a-neuroscientist-explains-why-christian-evangelicals-are-wired-to-believe-donald-trumps-gaslighting-lies/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3334 (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/a-neuroscientist-explains-why-christian-evangelicals-are-wired-to-believe-donald-trumps-gaslighting-lies/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3334)

understanding science is much harder than just saying "fuck it, it's bullshit"

The oligarchy loves evangelicals because they are stupidly suggestible, gullible about eg, climate science, environmental pollution and destruction, all of which allows the oligarchy to amass Capital by exploiting the carbon economy and overriding environmental regulations.

iow

ignorant, gullible evangelicals are a huge reason why

America is fucked and unfuckable.







Yeah...not that it's not known, but you're a run-of-the-mill bigot. A PERFECT Democrat. Words and actions are two separate ethea to you and, being the flea-bitten dog you are, are all bark and no bite. You're basically the methed version of that Jew-hating faggot...


...Hitler.

[DMC]

The bolded is exactly what I mean, and it works both ways. Being hungry is one thing, actually making the assertion “I’m hungry” is not the same thing. Your stomach might be empty and growling, but at the point you had to communicate what your status is, you chose an option between ‘full, ok, hungry, etc’. You could also be lying, that’s a choice too.

Let’s add another very typical example: 7 year old kid is asked what religion he/she identifies with. Clearly a kid at that age is intellectually incapable of dissecting religion in full. Yet most of them will choose (most commonly the same religion as their parents or siblings). Is it a lie? Very likely. Was it a choice at that moment? Sure was. (Side note: this takes us to tribalism and other sociology branches on why a kid does that, all interesting on their own).



What I was addressing is that there’s nothing necessarily wrong about making generalized claims, as long as those claims are largely plausible. A claim of “Most Muslims are terrorists” is clearly false, and we don’t have to go ask every Muslim about it.

Expanding on my previous claim, I don’t know I would feel comfortable stating that “Every Christian believes in Jesus”. That’s much more debatable and at least a degree less plausible that using ‘Most’. I would actually be skeptic of the ‘Every’ claim, unless we obviously survey every Christian and we get our answer.

Making the assertion that you are Christian is one thing. Believing the God exists is quite another. Same is true for atheism. There are those who profess atheism but hedge their bets by calling themselves agnostic atheists, in hopes of appearing more honest and open minded.

So you either believe a god exists or you do not. If you can believe because you choose to, you are basically delusional. I knew a woman who was delusional, convinced herself that she didn't have terminal cancer. She didn't continue treatment and was shocked when someone told her the reason she was 90lbs and had a urine output half a normal person (and 3rd spacing fluids) was because she was dying of cancer. That's what "choosing to believe" is. It's not a normal belief mechanism.

Would you feel comfortable saying most Christians don't believe in Jesus?

[DMC]

The bolded is BS.

Because you say so. You're now the arbiter of truth, no explanation needed.

[DMC]

:lol I'm enjoying watching you get shat upon so thoroughly, but please -- by all means, try to distract from it by lashing out at me.




















:lol

:lol interjects in an A-B discussion
:lol projects when called out

:lol Today's Chumpdumper (same as yesterday's Chumpdumper)

[Chucho]

Making the assertion that you are Christian is one thing. Believing the God exists is quite another. Same is true for atheism. There are those who profess atheism but hedge their bets by calling themselves agnostic atheists, in hopes of appearing more honest and open minded.

So you either believe a god exists or you do not. If you can believe because you choose to, you are basically delusional. I knew a woman who was delusional, convinced herself that she didn't have terminal cancer. She didn't continue treatment and was shocked when someone told her the reason she was 90lbs and had a urine output half a normal person (and 3rd spacing fluids) was because she was dying of cancer. That's what "choosing to believe" is. It's not a normal belief mechanism.

Would you feel comfortable saying most Christians don't believe in Jesus?



There's over a billion. I know a few dozen. I can make gross stereotypes and condemnations upon the entire sect because a few have irritated me and/or I found a few fringe articles to shame them from. I PROMISE I'm not a bigot.

[boutons_deux]

evangelicals, white identity voters, love Trash's racism and brutal, inhumane immigration crimes,

because Christ would love Trash and love Trash's hate of non-whites, too

One surprisingly simple reason evangelicals love Trump

It’s his immigration policy.

asked about 60,000 participants a host of questions on a range of issues.

On immigration, respondents were asked five different questions:

whether they supported withholding federal funds from sanctuary states and cities;

increasing border funding by $25 billion;

detaining those who cross the border without authorization multiple times;

ending a visa lottery program and family-based immigration, both of which have been the subject of President Donald Trump’s ire (https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-chain-migration-immigrants-melania-1291210); and

rolling back the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has offered deportation protection and work permits to over 700,000 young unauthorized immigrants since 2012.

Burge’s analysis (https://religioninpublic.blog/2019/12/26/just-how-far-are-white-evangelicals-out-of-the-mainstream-a-case-study-of-immigration-and-abortion/), published Thursday, finds that on issues ranging from border security to immigration detention,

white evangelicals —

a group that includes dozens of individual denominations, from the Southern Baptist Convention to the Pentecostal movement —
are substantially more conservative than the average American and even the next most conservative religious group.

He calculated the share of white evangelicals who supported the policies, the share of the next most conservative religious group who supported the policies, and the share of all respondents who supported the policies.

Evangelicals were consistently the most conservative by a wide margin.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/naFYM_HPu0bWhIh3ugh3MWl6rbo=/0x0:3000x1715/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:3000x1715):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19554902/burge_immigratoin.png


On four of the five policies, evangelicals were at least 20 percent more conservative compared to the average American.

evangelical support for Trump continues to remain high largely because they like the policy outcomes of the Trump era — particularly on immigration.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/27/21038031/white-evangelicals-trump-immigration-election-2020 (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/27/21038031/white-evangelicals-trump-immigration-election-2020)

No doubt, evangelicals a White Christian Nationalists who discriminate against all non-whites.

Wonderful, Christ-loving people, these evangelicals, their fictional Christ was north west European white, not black, not yellow, no brown

[DMC]

These are very old terms and in today’s understanding of living things nature is clearly GENETIC factors and nurture is ENVIRONMENTAL factors.

You don’t know what the fck you are talking about.

The environment of the first cell (zygote) in what is to become a rat, elephant, cricket, or human being are all the chemical and physical factors that play a role in the development of the zygote. The genetic factor is DNA. The way the environment effects the DNA is hugely important. Moving further along in development, a mother may behave a certain way towards a child that cues hormonal biological changes in the brain. This hormonal change is an Environmental influence even if it involves biological mechanisms, which all of behavior does as it involves the firing of neurons in a specific manner based on environmental input. Your use of the word environment means absoLutely nothing while EVERYTHING is biological as it pertains to living things.

So thanks for your meaningless input.
You should stop.
Now.


Hell I’ll say it twice.

Welcome to 8th grade biology.

The concept of nature vs nurture in the topic we are discussing is about prenatal conditions and genetics vs experiences and upbringing. You're inserting some nebulous bullshit into it to try to salvage a win here then trying to slam the door with your silly little exit line, but you're simply wrong. You know damn well that "biology' in the comments I posted don't refer to purely genetics but also epigenetics. Your attempt at infinite regression by calling environment of the gene "environmental" misses the mark. It's indeed a biological effect.

From another website:

The Biological Perspective in Psychology
This field of psychology is often referred to as biopsychology or physiological psychology. This branch of psychology has grown tremendously in recent years and is linked to other areas of science including biology, neurology, and genetics.

The study of physiology and biological processes has played a significant role in psychology since its earliest beginnings. It was Charles Darwin who first introduced the idea that evolution and genetics play a role in human behavior. Natural selection influences whether certain behavior patterns are passed down to future generations. Behaviors that aid in survival are more likely to be passed down while those that prove dangerous are less likely to be inherited.

The biological perspective is essentially a way of looking at human problems and actions. Consider an issue like aggression, for example. Someone using the psychoanalytic perspective might view aggression as the result of childhood experiences and unconscious urges. Another person might take a behavioral perspective and consider how the behavior was shaped by association, reinforcement, and punishment. A psychologist with a social perspective might look at the group dynamics and pressures that contribute to such behavior.

The biological viewpoint, on the other hand, would involve looking at the biological roots that lie behind aggressive behaviors. Someone who takes the biological perspective might consider how certain types of brain injury might lead to aggressive actions. Or they might consider genetic factors that can contribute to such displays of behavior.

Here you can clearly see things other than DNA code can be considered "biological factors".

Why you're focused on this is a mystery. You seem to be interested in distracting instead of dissecting.

[DMC]

evangelicals, white identity voters, love Trash's racism and brutal, inhumane immigration crimes, because Christ would love Trash, too

One surprisingly simple reason evangelicals love Trump

It’s his immigration policy.

asked about 60,000 participants a host of questions on a range of issues.

On immigration, respondents were asked five different questions:

whether they supported withholding federal funds from sanctuary states and cities (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/8/17091984/sanctuary-cities-city-state-illegal-immigration-sessions);

increasing border funding by $25 billion;

detaining those who cross the border without authorization multiple times;

ending a visa lottery program and family-based immigration, both of which have been the subject of President Donald Trump’s ire (https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-chain-migration-immigrants-melania-1291210); and

rolling back the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has offered deportation protection and work permits to over 700,000 young unauthorized immigrants since 2012.

Burge’s analysis (https://religioninpublic.blog/2019/12/26/just-how-far-are-white-evangelicals-out-of-the-mainstream-a-case-study-of-immigration-and-abortion/), published Thursday, finds that on issues ranging from border security to immigration detention,

white evangelicals —

a group that includes dozens of individual denominations, from the Southern Baptist Convention to the Pentecostal movement —

are substantially more conservative than the average American and even the next most conservative religious group.

He calculated the share of white evangelicals who supported the policies, the share of the next most conservative religious group who supported the policies, and the share of all respondents who supported the policies.

Evangelicals were consistently the most conservative by a wide margin.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/naFYM_HPu0bWhIh3ugh3MWl6rbo=/0x0:3000x1715/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:3000x1715):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19554902/burge_immigratoin.png


On four of the five policies, evangelicals were at least 20 percent more conservative compared to the average American.

evangelical support for Trump continues to remain high largely because they like the policy outcomes of the Trump era — particularly on immigration.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/27/21038031/white-evangelicals-trump-immigration-election-2020 (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/27/21038031/white-evangelicals-trump-immigration-election-2020)

No doubt, evangelicals a White Christian Nationalists who discriminate against all non-whites.

Wonderful, Christ-loving people, these evangelicals, their fictional Christ was north west European white, not black, not yellow, no brown





Fuck off, moron

[Chucho]

evangelicals, white identity voters, love Trash's racism and brutal, inhumane immigration crimes, because Christ would love Trash, too

One surprisingly simple reason evangelicals love Trump

It’s his immigration policy.

asked about 60,000 participants a host of questions on a range of issues.

On immigration, respondents were asked five different questions:

whether they supported withholding federal funds from sanctuary states and cities (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/8/17091984/sanctuary-cities-city-state-illegal-immigration-sessions);

increasing border funding by $25 billion;

detaining those who cross the border without authorization multiple times;

ending a visa lottery program and family-based immigration, both of which have been the subject of President Donald Trump’s ire (https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-chain-migration-immigrants-melania-1291210); and

rolling back the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has offered deportation protection and work permits to over 700,000 young unauthorized immigrants since 2012.

Burge’s analysis (https://religioninpublic.blog/2019/12/26/just-how-far-are-white-evangelicals-out-of-the-mainstream-a-case-study-of-immigration-and-abortion/), published Thursday, finds that on issues ranging from border security to immigration detention,

white evangelicals —

a group that includes dozens of individual denominations, from the Southern Baptist Convention to the Pentecostal movement —

are substantially more conservative than the average American and even the next most conservative religious group.

He calculated the share of white evangelicals who supported the policies, the share of the next most conservative religious group who supported the policies, and the share of all respondents who supported the policies.

Evangelicals were consistently the most conservative by a wide margin.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/naFYM_HPu0bWhIh3ugh3MWl6rbo=/0x0:3000x1715/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:3000x1715):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19554902/burge_immigratoin.png


On four of the five policies, evangelicals were at least 20 percent more conservative compared to the average American.

evangelical support for Trump continues to remain high largely because they like the policy outcomes of the Trump era — particularly on immigration.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/27/21038031/white-evangelicals-trump-immigration-election-2020 (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/27/21038031/white-evangelicals-trump-immigration-election-2020)

No doubt, evangelicals a White Christian Nationalists who discriminate against all non-whites.

Wonderful, Christ-loving people, these evangelicals, their fictional Christ was north west European white, not black, not yellow, no brown






Evangelicals make up less than a quarter of all US Christians. It's ok to hate, deride and shame an entire sect based on what equates to a fringe minority overall? Or, as is already known, you're a piece of dumb shit that just hates what he's commanded to hate?


I know you already hate and despise the "knitters" (you fucking pussy won't even use the words you want, dont understand what face there's left to save), but based on your train of thought, it's OK to hate an entire group of people based on minorty statistics. 30% of black males are felons. Should I treat ALL black people with such disdain and hatred that you treat all Christians? I have an undisputable figure and an irrefutable history of felonious behaviors from the blacks. What's the difference? Choice? Racist white democrats like you putting the steel toes to the darkies your ancestors worked so hard to keep in binds?

[RandomGuy]

You also ignored the reason they aren't different. That's the deal with ignorance and bigotry.

You took me to task for not saying how they were different, so I explained how they were different.

So how are they the same? In your words. or fold. again.

[RandomGuy]

You don't bother making substantive claims about the topics being discussed. That is an easy claim for me to make, and support. You haven't made any nontrivial claims here, and I would be shocked if you did anything other than personal attacks.

The few times you have bothered in the past, you sucked at rational discourse, so I can see why you stick to personal attacks, although you aren't much better at that than you are at attempting to rub two thoughts together.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Go back over this thread and post your BEST, most meaningful commentary on the topic at hand. Wow the classroom, professor.


Pearls Before Swine with you lot. Most of you have to be hand held down the path of logic but you still get lost.

So you respond to "you don't make substantive claims about topics" by not making a substantive claim about the topic. :lol

A less salty koriwhat/derptactular.

If you can lead anybody down the "path of logic", I have yet to see any evidence of it, and at this point, doubt I ever will.

Personally, I think you are lying here about why you don't bother, both to me, and to yourself. Your prerogative I guess.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol interjects in an A-B discussion
:lol projects when called out

:lol Today's Chumpdumper (same as yesterday's Chumpdumper)

DMC still lashing out. Same insecure little twat you've always been.:lol

[Spurminator]

LOL. It's not just this thread, please stop trying to minimalize this. It happens here, alot. Period.

You're the one up in arms about me pointing this out. If you're a Christian, why does me calling this pattern out bother you so much?

I don't see a pattern of lumping all Christians together on this forum. I don't see it as a personal attack if someone calls Christians bigots or homophobic because I'm not personally either of those things. Unfortunately, though, I know the numbers and I have plenty of lifetime experience in churches where this is the case. Christians have unfortunately been way behind the times when it comes to civil rights in this country and there's no reason for it other than bigotry.

So I'm less concerned by blanket statements by non-Christians than I am by the behavior of Christians I've grown up with, and the leaders of this country who promote Christian tribalism to forward an un-Christian agenda.

[ElNono]

Making the assertion that you are Christian is one thing. Believing the God exists is quite another. Same is true for atheism. There are those who profess atheism but hedge their bets by calling themselves agnostic atheists, in hopes of appearing more honest and open minded.

So you either believe a god exists or you do not. If you can believe because you choose to, you are basically delusional. I knew a woman who was delusional, convinced herself that she didn't have terminal cancer. She didn't continue treatment and was shocked when someone told her the reason she was 90lbs and had a urine output half a normal person (and 3rd spacing fluids) was because she was dying of cancer. That's what "choosing to believe" is. It's not a normal belief mechanism.

Would you feel comfortable saying most Christians don't believe in Jesus?

I largely agree with this post. However, I would note that delusion (both self or externally inflicted) is extremely common. Isn’t that central to the fake news debate, for example?

Faith in general is delusion (here I go generalizing). But it can also have a utilitarian value. We discussed this before, and it’s mainly why, unlike Blake, I don’t dismiss religion outright. If the delusion helps some people and don’t directly affect me, then my position is that fighting it is just being an ass.

To answer your question, I wouldn’t feel comfortable, because I think it’s less plausible than the opposite claim.

[Spurminator]

Close enough.
"Not at all. Evangelicals have always been bad, IMO."...RG

:lol

Evangelicalism is a specific subset of Christianity. Fundamental to its belief is that they are among the select few who get to go to Heaven after their death, and everyone else is an inferior who will spend eternity being tortured in the fires of hell. Not only this, but they deserve such a fate for rejecting (or lacking exposure to) Christianity.

And Evangelicals believe that they are the ones who must expose the savage unbelievers to the Word of God so they have a chance to be saved from such a terrible eternity.

It's certainly reasonable for a non-Christian to say this doctrine is bad. Especially when that doctrine influences national policy that impacts people who don't share those beliefs.

[DMC]

I largely agree with this post. However, I would note that delusion (both self or externally inflicted) is extremely common. Isn’t that central to the fake news debate, for example?

Faith in general is delusion (here I go generalizing). But it can also have a utilitarian value. We discussed this before, and it’s mainly why, unlike Blake, I don’t dismiss religion outright. If the delusion helps some people and don’t directly affect me, then my position is that fighting it is just being an ass.

To answer your question, I wouldn’t feel comfortable, because I think it’s less plausible than the opposite claim.

I think confirmation bias is more to blame than delusion for accepting fake news. I am talking about being clinically diagnosed as delusional, or demented. I think delusional people can convince themselves of things they otherwise know to be false. The people you are referring to are quick to accept things as true that fall in line with the currently held beliefs. Superstitious people are likely more easily compelled to believe based on a lower evidence requirement. Either way, I don't think the person chooses to believe it. Otherwise you could simply choose to believe something before you are even made aware of the claim. I have an envelope with a claim inside - will you believe it or not? Decide now. If you could choose, you wouldn't need to know what the claim actually states.

[boutons_deux]

Like everything else in religion, very fuzzy, variations, schisms, disagreements, even violence

Evangelicalism, evangelical Christianity, or evangelical Protestantism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

[DMC]

:lol

Evangelicalism is a specific subset of Christianity. Fundamental to its belief is that they are among the select few who get to go to Heaven after their death, and everyone else is an inferior who will spend eternity being tortured in the fires of hell. Not only this, but they deserve such a fate for rejecting (or lacking exposure to) Christianity.

And Evangelicals believe that they are the ones who must expose the savage unbelievers to the Word of God so they have a chance to be saved from such a terrible eternity.

It's certainly reasonable for a non-Christian to say this doctrine is bad. Especially when that doctrine influences national policy that impacts people who don't share those beliefs.

Whatever the doctrine states, there are many people who don't share the beliefs of the people who created the doctrine. There's always some underlying belief system causing people to act. Religious people advertise theirs. Others may not even be aware of the dogma they rely on to make decisions. These are always made on an "ought to" system of some sort.

[DMC]

I don't see a pattern of lumping all Christians together on this forum. I don't see it as a personal attack if someone calls Christians bigots or homophobic because I'm not personally either of those things. Unfortunately, though, I know the numbers and I have plenty of lifetime experience in churches where this is the case. Christians have unfortunately been way behind the times when it comes to civil rights in this country and there's no reason for it other than bigotry.

So I'm less concerned by blanket statements by non-Christians than I am by the behavior of Christians I've grown up with, and the leaders of this country who promote Christian tribalism to forward an un-Christian agenda.

Religions across the world have a long history of being behind the times of more secular human rights movements. Christianity isn't alone. It just seems to get more airtime here. Blake likes to semen shield for Allah though. We know the Muslims are at the "cutting edge" of human rights, human heads, human limbs, etc...

[RandomGuy]

I largely agree with this post. However, I would note that delusion (both self or externally inflicted) is extremely common. Isn’t that central to the fake news debate, for example?

Faith in general is delusion (here I go generalizing). But it can also have a utilitarian value. We discussed this before, and it’s mainly why, unlike Blake, I don’t dismiss religion outright. If the delusion helps some people and don’t directly affect me, then my position is that fighting it is just being an ass.

To answer your question, I wouldn’t feel comfortable, because I think it’s less plausible than the opposite claim.

How do you know, or will you know, specifically when it will affect you?

What one believes to be true guides just about every action we take.

Should we wait until some faith-based position leads lawmakers to pass a law mandating school prayers?

Dunno. Most people aren't really all that push about it, but the ones that are the most pushy seem to be the ones who are most motivated to become lawmakers. THAT worries me.

[Spurminator]

Religions across the world have a long history of being behind the times of more secular human rights movements. Christianity isn't alone. It just seems to get more airtime here. Blake likes to semen shield for Allah though. We know the Muslims are at the "cutting edge" of human rights, human heads, human limbs, etc...

See, here you're circling back to whataboutism. We've covered this already. You object to criticism of domestic religious practices because it's not globally inclusive enough.

Blake is an American, thus it makes sense for him to focus criticism on the most powerful religion in America. Commentary on foreign religious theocracies and civil rights crimes is not required to do so. I've yet to see him or anyone else condone or "semen shield" for the Taliban or any other radical Islamist group. There's an entire, multi-hundred page thread about radical Islam and, if we want to play the whataboutism game, I don't see you or anyone else suggesting that thread isn't inclusive enough of other religions. And you shouldn't.

[DMC]

See, here you're circling back to whataboutism. We've covered this already. You object to criticism of domestic religious practices because it's not globally inclusive enough.

Blake is an American, thus it makes sense for him to focus criticism on the most powerful religion in America. Commentary on foreign religious theocracies and civil rights crimes is not required to do so. I've yet to see him or anyone else condone or "semen shield" for the Taliban or any other radical Islamist group.

Meanwhile there's an entire, multi-hundred page thread about radical Islam and I don't see you or anyone else suggesting that thread isn't inclusive enough of other religions. And you shouldn't.

It makes sense for Blake to semen shield for Islam because he's an American? Blake is on that other thread defending his little heart out.

[DMC]

How do you know, or will you know, specifically when it will affect you?

What one believes to be true guides just about every action we take.

Should we wait until some faith-based position leads lawmakers to pass a law mandating school prayers?

Dunno. Most people aren't really all that push about it, but the ones that are the most pushy seem to be the ones who are most motivated to become lawmakers. THAT worries me.

So you're saying that you're not as motivated to be a decision maker as someone else is who you disagree with, and that worries you?

[Spurminator]

It makes sense for Blake to semen shield for Islam because he's an American? Blake is on that other thread defending his little heart out.

I don't follow every Blake post but I don't recall seeing him defend Islamic Theocracy. You seem to want equal time directed towards a powerless American religious minority as the dominant domestic religion. That's silly. No one should have to say "Sharia Law bad" in order to say "Christians impose too much of their religious views on American legislation."

[Blake]

Because you say so. You're now the arbiter of truth, no explanation needed.

So it's truth because you post it. Because you always back up your claims.

[Blake]

It makes sense for Blake to semen shield for Islam because he's an American? Blake is on that other thread defending his little heart out.

I've never shielded Islam other than ask what you want to do about it here in America since you think it's bad. Your only move is to go ad hominem and run away.

[ElNono]

I think confirmation bias is more to blame than delusion for accepting fake news. I am talking about being clinically diagnosed as delusional, or demented. I think delusional people can convince themselves of things they otherwise know to be false. The people you are referring to are quick to accept things as true that fall in line with the currently held beliefs. Superstitious people are likely more easily compelled to believe based on a lower evidence requirement. Either way, I don't think the person chooses to believe it. Otherwise you could simply choose to believe something before you are even made aware of the claim. I have an envelope with a claim inside - will you believe it or not? Decide now. If you could choose, you wouldn't need to know what the claim actually states.

Confirmation bias goes more towards cheerleading, but it’s actually all too common lately (as seen numerous times here, for example) of people taking claims at face value based on who makes the claim as opposed to actually evaluating the claim itself. Isn’t that in a nutshell choosing regardless of what’s inside the envelope? That’s delusion, plain and simple.

This phenomenon is far away from critical thinking skills, and points directly towards full fledged ignorance. I think a lot of that is borne out of the psychological fear most people tend to have of the unknown or unexplained, which is a perfectly logical and fine position to have.

[ElNono]

How do you know, or will you know, specifically when it will affect you?

What one believes to be true guides just about every action we take.

Should we wait until some faith-based position leads lawmakers to pass a law mandating school prayers?

Dunno. Most people aren't really all that push about it, but the ones that are the most pushy seem to be the ones who are most motivated to become lawmakers. THAT worries me.

How do you know you have a cold? There are symptoms that come around and affect you in ways you detect, and then act accordingly. That there’s a church out there and people congregate peacefully doesn’t affect me one bit. A lawmaker trying to pass legislation based on his religious moral guides do affect me. It really isn’t that complicated to tell.

[RandomGuy]

should we wait until some faith-based position leads lawmakers to pass a law mandating school prayers?

Dunno. Most people aren't really all that push about it, but the ones that are the most pushy seem to be the ones who are most motivated to become lawmakers. THAT worries me.


So you're saying that you're not as motivated to be a decision maker as someone else is who you disagree with, and that worries you?

Not at all.

What worries me is that people sunk into highly delusional belief systems tend to be the ones that want to control the government most.

Good evidence-based policymaking rarely results from delusional worldviews.

[RandomGuy]

Whatever the doctrine states, there are many people who don't share the beliefs of the people who created the doctrine. There's always some underlying belief system causing people to act. Religious people advertise theirs. Others may not even be aware of the dogma they rely on to make decisions. These are always made on an "ought to" system of some sort.

All moral systems can be boiled down to "ought to" systems.

Does that necessarily mean they are dogmatic?

How does one tell the difference between dogmatic, and non-dogmatic systems, if at all?