What does...
Jubbergun wrote:
You and Mayo amuse me because while you sit there condemning certain religious practices as ignorant, foolish, and wrong, your rantings betray your ignorance of the practices you're attempting to decry, and only serve to prove that the only discernible difference between an atheist and any kind of theist are the subjects they choose to be an ignorant, pigheaded jackass about.
have to do with...
Mns wrote:
Yeah, because the whole forcing children to waste away for no reason isn't anything to get adamant about.
....?
Not wanting children to be abused/neglected isn't what makes you ignorant. You seem to be under the impression that Christians are somehow obligated to continue practices set forth under Old Testament law that are contradicted by Christ's teachings in the New Testament...like 'burning witches,' which is directly contradicted by, at the very least, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." While this is understandable given that you're under that impression because people who identify themselves as Christians make a big deal about those Old Testament laws, you're making the mistake of thinking that it's religion that makes people stupid, and not people being too stupid and/or ignorant of their own religion to get it right.
Dvergar and you both seem to be under the impression that Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because "God said so," despite having their reasoning for abstaining from the practice explained to you twice.
Mns wrote:
EDIT: I suppose you're still campaigning for that woman who drowned all of her kids because God told her to to be freed? I mean, her kids didn't have rights and she was practicing the first amendment.
So now your argument is that someone making a difficult moral decision is the same as someone who is most likely schizophrenic doing something abhorrent because they're mentally ill? I also did not say children had no rights, I said they had
limited rights, and that's a considerable distinction. There is also, as I think was stated at least once before, a very large difference between intentionally killing someone outright and allowing them to die of natural causes, and it's one that you've ignored in every scenario that you've suggested is morally equivalent to refusing medical services for a child. You've also gone out of your way to make every scenario you've suggest as extreme or insane as you possibly can imagine, which does little to lend any sort of credence to your position.
Maybe if we labeled deaths resulting from refusing medical services to children as "extremely late-term abortion," you wouldn't be so adamantly 'pro-life/anti-choice' (I can do ridiculously stupid and inflammatory arguments, too, since you seem to understand those so well).
Your Pal,
Jubber