50k Challenge reopened with higher stakes

DougShrapnel · #1 12-23-2006, 02:05 PM

David has closed down his 50k challenge. Some religous persons felt insulted by his challenge. I want to believe that a specific although incoorect view of david's challenge and freerolll is correct, that people who hold ridiculous beliefs can not be smart enough to build weapons capable of mass destruction. Unfortunatly, we all make this wager every day. To a greater or lessor extent when we refuse to challenge these illogical acts of faith. The stakes when we let assinine beliefs be immune to rational skepticism, under the banner of faith and consolation are much greater than a paltry 50k. At stake is nothing less then the survival, and freedom of the human species.

A group of a couple hundred cells to be giving the same rights and consideration as a human. It is claimed that we should respect the religous view over the scientific view. In making this claim, and kowtowing to great number of people suffering from a specific well recieved delusion we are accepting David's Challenge and his freeroll. But it's not a freeroll. Real human suffering is at stake.

To allow the church to proclaim that condom use in Africa is unethical, is nothing short of criminal genocide. I hope that the wrong interpration of david's challenge, the interpratation that those capable of mental laziness that allow for 3 Gods in 1 God, aren't smart. That they aren't smart enough to bring about the end times. That they aren't smart enough to build a nuke and whipe out a large portion of the population while mantianing the preposterous notion that in doing so seventy some odd virgins await him.

I can mention many different forms of this wager that we accept everyday, everytime we allow those who hold positions arrived at thru means other than reason to speak with the same authority as the scientific community. I don't mean to be insuting to anyone. In fact the main view about relgious behavior, perhaps the only problem with faith based views is Unswayvering adhernece to a belief with limited evidence in face of a contradictory mountain of evidence.

One day I will actually title my posts correctly. The 50k challenge isn't reopened. The wager that we make when we allow those who hold faith over reason to continue unabashed in their evanglizing, preaching, and manipualtion of realty is only slighty better defined, I hope.

BluffTHIS! · #2 12-23-2006, 02:15 PM

What do you mean in your drunken ramblings by the use of the word "allow"? Do you suggest that religion be outlawed and the church as an organization or the individual members of it not have free speech in a democracy when others do? Or that they not be allowed to vote their religious values when you are free to vote your emotion based PC relativistic value culture of death beliefs?

DougShrapnel · #3 12-23-2006, 02:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean in your drunken ramblings by the use of the word "allow"? Do you suggest that religion be outlawed and the church as an organization or the individual members of it not have free speech in a democracy when others do? Or that they not be allowed to vote their religious values when you are free to vote your emotion based PC relativistic value culture of death beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]Of course I don't want to outlaw the church, I want the church held accoutnable for it's misdeeds. The genocide that it spreads. The human suffering that it promotes. The evil that it propagates. Free speech is a wonderful concept but we do limit it. The most used example is shouting fire in a crowded theater. Well, it's akin to shouting that stem cell research is murder.

Emotion based PC is the opposite of what I am advocating in this piece. What is culture of death?

bills217 · #4 12-23-2006, 02:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To allow the church to proclaim that condom use in Africa is unethical, is nothing short of criminal genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

This in the SAME POST as an unabashed defense of abortion on demand?

Blasting a non-violent organization that ultimately has no real authority and relies on voluntary contributions to subsist, while blindly defending violent, coercive organizations that rely on theft to subsist?

To borrow from Borodog: It's like a black fly in your chardonnay!

BluffTHIS! · #5 12-23-2006, 02:36 PM

How do you expect that the church should "be held accountable" for what you preceive as its misdeeds without suppressing it or its followers' freedoms to express and encourage their values? This isn't the middle ages and the churches don't run the civil government and can't force political policy. They can only encourage their members to vote their moral values.

And you totally make yourself look like a kook by using the term "genocide". If you want to use that term, then apply it to the millions of aborted babies.

Emotion based PC is exactly what you are advocating. The church has different values than you do which you find offensive, and you seek to curtail their rights, although you use the term "hold accountable"

And the "culture of death" is the opposite of culture of life, which is the protection of human life from natural conception to natural death (i.e. opposed to abortion and the death penalty).

Finally let's look at the 'condoms in africa thing'. The church opposes birth control anywhere, not just there and for moral reasons. And those are objective always apply moral reasons that can't be overturned by the unfortunate consequences many face from unprotected outside of marriage sex in areas known to have an epidemic of AIDS. Especially when abstinence before marriage and fidelity within it, will usually avoid any such diseases.

Plus you have to face the fact that many who have an agenda of promoting "family planning" and condom for disease prevention use in africa, also have a racist agenda of controlling the population of minorities in the world. And if you don't believe that, then study up on the "hero" and founder of planned parenthood, Margaret Sanger, who was provably a racist with such objectives.

DougShrapnel · #6 12-23-2006, 02:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This in the SAME POST as an unabashed defense of abortion on demand?

[/ QUOTE ] I made no mention of abortion in this post. However, I could have. The scientific view of when life begins is better than the biblical view of at conception. It's appaling that the ridiculous biblical notion is, in the name of tolernace, given the same wieght and consideration as those that have studied life in greater detail.

[ QUOTE ]
non-violent organization that ultimately has no real authority and relies on voluntary contributions to subsist

[/ QUOTE ] If only this was true.

luckyme · #7 12-23-2006, 02:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
non-violent organization that ultimately has no real authority and relies on voluntary contributions to subsist

[/ QUOTE ] If only this was true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was tapping his ruby slippers together when he typed that..on the belief that saying 'non-violent' while tapping makes it true.

luckyme

IronUnkind · #8 12-23-2006, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The most used example is shouting fire in a crowded theater. Well, it's akin to shouting that stem cell research is murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL (literally this time). This is an incredibly stupid statement.

[ QUOTE ]
Emotion based PC is the opposite of what I am advocating in this piece.

[/ QUOTE ]

Emotion based PC is not the opposite of mental retardation.

IronUnkind · #9 12-23-2006, 03:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And you totally make yourself look like a kook by using the term "genocide". If you want to use that term, then apply it to the millions of aborted babies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither one of you are using the term genocide correctly. It is equally kooky to apply it to the discussion of abortion.

DougShrapnel · #10 12-23-2006, 03:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How do you expect that the church should "be held accountable" for what you preceive as its misdeeds without suppressing it or its followers' freedoms to express and encourage their values? This isn't the middle ages and the churches don't run the civil government and can't force political policy. They can only encourage their members to vote their moral values.

[/ QUOTE ] Can I take this to mean that you believe that religous orginaztion should not be held accountable to any regulation. Should we encourage churches to stone members to death that work on the sabbath?

[ QUOTE ]
And you totally make yourself look like a kook by using the term "genocide". If you want to use that term, then apply it to the millions of aborted babies.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, I must be a kook that believes that religions are acting in a fashion akin to genocide. Samuel 15 2-3 Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

I will not use the term aborted babies or genocide to describe blastocysts.

[ QUOTE ]
Emotion based PC is exactly what you are advocating. The church has different values than you do which you find offensive, and you seek to curtail their rights, although you use the term "hold accountable"

[/ QUOTE ] EmoPC is what enforces the widley held view that faith based matters are immune to skeptical critisisms. Where is this soul that you speak of? What about twins? Are there two souls before they spilt? What about chimera's do those two souls get regualted to one body?