Making the case for atheism...can it be done?

Milo

luvs2fart;398853 wroteIt seems to me that god has left this thread along with our universe and nobody was able to step up to the plate and bat for him.

god damn it I declare this thread closed

PS: the co -author of the bible was attached

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2158[/ATTACH]

The Prophet 22;398857 wroteNot yours to declare now is it.

Prophet22

Yeah . . . who died and made you God?

DrTyore

The Prophet 22;398857 wroteNot yours to declare now is it.

Prophet22

Remind yourself of this next time abortion/gay marriage/ stem cell research / birth control / any number of things that the religious like to poke their noses into comes up.

Mark

Milo

DrTyore;398867 wroteRemind yourself of this next time abortion/gay marriage/ stem cell research / birth control / any number of things that the religious like to poke their noses into comes up.

Mark

Except that, as those issues tend to involve the laws of this country, and those are enacted by Parliament, yes he does. As do we all.

DrTyore

Milo;398869 wroteExcept that, as those issues tend to involve the laws of this country, and those are enacted by Parliament, yes he does. As do we all.

Nope.

Not from his jesus says point of view... nor yours.

Mark

Milo

So, religious folks aren't allowed to vote? How tolerant of you?

Milo

Here you go, Mark . . . something else for you to be exorcised about . . .

Ottawa’s biggest palliative care hospital says it won’t offer assisted dying | Ottawa Citizen

sard1010

luvs2fart;398853 wrotenobody was able to step up to the plate and bat for him.

If someone stepped up to bat would you even throw a proper pitch or would you be too busy ridiculing him for his beliefs and throwing the ball at him rather than to him? To play a proper game, we need to play by a proper set of rules. I've been trying to make this point or one's like it this whole time and you've seemingly been ignoring. You say we can't get off the ground well that's because if you can't treat your "opponent" like a respectable human being with a respectable mind of their own there's nothing left to debate.

If you'd like to continue to ridicule religion and God, don't expect me to be a batter in your baseball game. If you want to toss me a fair pitch, even if it is a wicked curveball that leaves me bewildered and rattled, please do and I will try not to strike out. Just not a fan of being made to be an idiot when I know for a fact that I'm not.

#ApologiesForStretchingTheBaseballMetaphorThinButOneNeedsToHaveHisFun

DrTyore

Milo;398872 wroteSo, religious folks aren't allowed to vote? How tolerant of you?

You can't be this fucking stupid. You're misinterpreting what I'm saying in order to pat yourself on the back at your cleverness.

Here's the difference...... my beliefs and the religious are not opposite. If I were opposite, I would be anti-procreation, likely having a stance where I feel "these people can breed, these people should not" - I think somewhere in history that was attempted - I want everyone to have the freedom to live their life. I want people to have options, to make decisions that they feel are the best for them, without infringing on others.

Since I know you're just aching to prove where I'm wrong about this, let me preempt your witty retort. I've discussed the guns thing in that thread (are they pretty? Don't have to work. Target shooting? Keep em at a club. etc etc etc) as to why people don't need to own guns. I'm sure you're going to have some scenario where I would be in a conundrum. That's an individual basis that *I* and my varied options would have to decide what's best, not what's best based on an ancient text with questionable status. The religious would seek to hinder my options in many moral dilemmas you could generate. I seek to maximize fact, truth, and honesty in my decisions, and that's not something religion much affords its adherents (and I will even add) IN MY OPINION to forestall a painful retort. (Seriously, don't say anything clever here, you're going to miss....)

I don't care for your input, and don't hinder my options.

Mark

Big Mike

DrTyore;398888 wrote I want everyone to have the freedom to live their life. I want people to have options, to make decisions that they feel are the best for them, without infringing on others.

Look, Mark and I are in perfect agreement!

Milo

DrTyore;398888 wroteattempted I want people to have options, to make decisions that they feel are the best for them, without infringing on others.

Mark

So, you're fine with this Hospitals decision? Because, if not, isn't that an infringement on their Rights? And that is the problem when the Rights of one person come into conflict with another. Especially when one of the groups tries to have the State enforce "their" rights over anothers.

DrTyore

I didn't read your linked article Milo

Mostly because you're not looking for my thoughts, you're looking to trap me into something you can be happy about. And, despite my statement that I want to give people their options as much as possible, I don't feel I need to be your avenue of self-worship.

I didn't read the article, but as for my stance on assisted suicide I'm sure it's blatantly obvious where I fall.

Fun side fact, Justin Trudeau has apparently made a motion for a formal posthumous pardon of the conviction of George Klippert. I didn't know anything about him, but on CBC they told a bit. Basically was arrested under suspicion of arson, admitted to having consensual gay sex with 3 other adult men, and was classified a dangerous sex offender. Supreme court of Canada (I'm guessing with their own version of Antonin Scalia on the panel) upheld the ruling, and he was placed in "preventative detention" (i.e. lockup with no set timeline). All of this is horrendous, and lead to Tommy Douglas (go NDP!) stating the next day this was dumb as shit (paraphrasing). Within 6 weeks the "Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (Bill C-150), an omnibus bill which, among other things, decriminalized homosexual acts between consenting adults. The law passed, and homosexuality was decriminalized in Canada in 1969" by a pre-PM Pierre Trudeau, and his lovely "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". Glad to see the neighbors to the south are also playing catch up :)

Mark

Milo

Screw it.

The Rights of one should not be used to compel another to compromise theirs.

Big Mike

Milo;398897 wroteScrew it.

The Rights of one should not be used to compel another to compromise theirs.

This moves well outside the topic of atheism/religion. Rights, properly understood, do not conflict and require no decisions (by the State or by anyone else) to determine their priority.

I think we have had this discussion before though, on facebook perhaps.

DrTyore

Milo;398897 wroteScrew it.

The Rights of one should not be used to compel another to compromise theirs.

So were you pro Kim Davis?

Mark

Milo

Kim Davis is entitled to her own beliefs. That being said, if she was TRUE to her principles, she should have resigned her post. That would have been staying "true" to her principles. But it would have kept her out of the spotlight, and cost her a bucketload of $$$.

So, I guess we know where she REALLY stood.

MickeyHoldem

Milo;398904 wroteKim Davis is entitled to her own beliefs. That being said, if she was TRUE to her principles she should have resigned her post. That would have been staying "true" to her principles.

do as I say, not as I do... lol

Milo

Big Mike;398899 wroteThis moves well outside the topic of atheism/religion. Rights, properly understood, do not conflict and require no decisions (by the State or by anyone else) to determine their priority.

I think we have had this discussion before though, on facebook perhaps.

Possibly. I guess I should have made a CLEARER distinction between Rights and "Rights", as in the inalienable Rights we all have versus Rights as delineated under Law.

DrTyore

Milo;398904 wroteKim Davis is entitled to her own beliefs. That being said, if she was TRUE to her principles, she should have resigned her post. That would have been staying "true" to her principles. But it would have kept her out of the spotlight, and cost her a bucketload of $$$.

So, I guess we know where she REALLY stood.

So would you likewise suggest these doctors resign from the college of medical practitioners (or whatever it is that they subscribe to)? Should they be required to renounce their faith? Or, should the church declare their actions unchristian and excommunicate them? And just for fun's sake, no you can't make the argument that "assisted death is against the Hippocratic oath" / popular morals. Let's just say that since it's now legal, the vast majority of people have deemed it to be less harm to in fact end suffering. (I am aware this is not the case in many people's eyes.. this is a "What if" if you need).

Mark

Ok, I perused the article.

Milo

Doctor's, if I remember how it is actually set up viz "Hospital privileges", are more akin to "independent contractors" as opposed to Employees of a given Hospital. But, to your question, I would say that a Doctor who was not willing to perform an assisted suicide, should seek privileges elsewhere, if the Hospital he was affiliated with decided that all Doctors should make themselves available.
In the case of the article, if there are Doctors on staff who are okay with carrying out the procedure, I imagine they might move, too.

I have a friend who is a thoracic surgeon in Alberta. The whole issue is a big topic of conversation as they are looking at being asked to go against everything they have been trained to fight against (death), and to change a culture ingrained in the profession from the very beginning (preservation of life).
Also interesting to know is how Health Professionals in general look after themselves in "end of life" situations. More often the choice is one of quality of life over prolonging their time before the end.

Milo

MickeyHoldem;398905 wrotedo as I say, not as I do... lol

Ms. Davis was hired to provide Marriage licenses to couples by the State. The State sanctions marriage between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Ms. Davis alleges her beliefs will not allow her to perform her job properly as defined by her Employer. She can either maintain her beliefs, or her job. Not both. The "right" thing to do would have been to resign in protest.

« Previous Page Next Page »