Are atheists "Scrooges" by ruining all the fun of religious faith?

[TomC]

now we're advocating the policies of the eugenics movement.

No, as a matter of fact I'm not.

But your willingness to make up stuff like that is why I prefer not to bother with you very much.
Tom

 

[unapologetic]

Are atheists "Scrooges" by ruining all the fun of religious faith?

If they are claiming, with no proof, that I am going to hell. Then they are having their 'fun' at my expense. And I have a duty to set them straight.
They are blind to how much their blind faith ruins everyone else's fun.

 

[unapologetic]

It is odd how religions forbid the strangest things.

I see the pattern:
The only purpose served by sexual taboos, is to help the Cult out-populate it's rivals.
Masturbation is sin,
Spilling your seed outside the womb is sin,
Marrying outside the cult is sin,
Devorce is sin,
Birth Control is sin,
Abortion is sin,
Marriages without offspring are invalid.
Mark (circumcise) males to discourage rival females,
or so your females know who they are allowed to mate with,
It is also why the cult tries to insist it has a monopoly on marriage.

See >

 

[TomC]

I see the pattern:
The only purpose served by sexual taboos, is to help the Cult out-populate it's rivals...

Here's the thing. I can understand quite well why ancient tribal societies would have sexual norms that encourage fecundity. They were constantly on the edge of disaster. Weather events, attacking armies, communicable diseases, it was a constant. Every baby born was a tiny bit of security for the tribe or village or whatever.

But that was then and this is now. We, the Family of Humanity as a group, are in much more danger from too many babies than too few. The ancient ethics of primitive people just aren't moral any more.

I occasionally joke, "Maybe the increase in homosexuality is God's way of saying, 'Oy Vey! Enough with the be fruitful and multiply already."
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

now we're advocating the policies of the eugenics movement.

No, as a matter of fact I'm not.

But your willingness to make up stuff like that is why I prefer not to bother with you very much.
Tom

Tom, try to deny this:

Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits. Being sturdy and smart means you have access to birth control and you use it.

You left that out of your reply to me, but it's in your Post #96 for all to see. I'm obviously not making anything up.

In any case, what exactly did you mean by that remark? Who are these "dumb and weak and sickly" people you are referring to? Do you object to their getting benefits?

 

[gmbteach]

now we're advocating the policies of the eugenics movement.

No, as a matter of fact I'm not.

But your willingness to make up stuff like that is why I prefer not to bother with you very much.
Tom

Tom, try to deny this:

Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits. Being sturdy and smart means you have access to birth control and you use it.

You left that out of your reply to me, but it's in your Post #96 for all to see. I'm obviously not making anything up.

In any case, what exactly did you mean by that remark? Who are these "dumb and weak and sickly" people you are referring to? Do you object to their getting benefits?

Do you object to helping those less fortunate than you? Do you think that the weak and sickly should suffer further? These aren’t Victorian times you know. I don’t object to paying 2% of my salary to ensure everyone gets medical aid. I don’t object to some of my wages going towards housing for unfortunate persons. Do you? If so, then I pity any of your relatives who may be weak or sickly as they would have to fend for themselves!

 

[gmbteach]

now we're advocating the policies of the eugenics movement.

No, as a matter of fact I'm not.

But your willingness to make up stuff like that is why I prefer not to bother with you very much.
Tom

Tom, try to deny this:

Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits. Being sturdy and smart means you have access to birth control and you use it.

You left that out of your reply to me, but it's in your Post #96 for all to see. I'm obviously not making anything up.

In any case, what exactly did you mean by that remark? Who are these "dumb and weak and sickly" people you are referring to? Do you object to their getting benefits?

Do you object to helping those less fortunate than you? Do you think that the weak and sickly should suffer further? These aren’t Victorian times you know. I don’t object to paying 2% of my salary to ensure everyone gets medical aid. I don’t object to some of my wages going towards housing for unfortunate persons. Do you? If so, then I pity any of your relatives who may be weak or sickly as they would have to fend for themselves!

And you never did define sin.

it appears as though you only pick the responses that suit you. Not a very good way to present your argument.

 

[unapologetic]

Tom said:
Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits.

I'm not advocating anything, but I see this too.
There are many drawbacks that don't get selected out in the modern world, or the first world.
I haven't passed on my poor eyesight. But I could have. Poor eyesight doesn't get selected out as it once might have.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In any case, what exactly did you mean by that remark? Who are these "dumb and weak and sickly" people you are referring to? Do you object to their getting benefits?

Do you object to helping those less fortunate than you? Do you think that the weak and sickly should suffer further? These aren’t Victorian times you know. I don’t object to paying 2% of my salary to ensure everyone gets medical aid. I don’t object to some of my wages going towards housing for unfortunate persons. Do you? If so, then I pity any of your relatives who may be weak or sickly as they would have to fend for themselves!

This is getting strange. What relevance is there to your questions based on what I asked Tom to admit?

Anyway, I'm not going to answer your questions because my answers should be obvious. Besides, your questions are obviously meant to harass me and divert attention away from Tom's sick comment.

 

[EricH]

Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits

Benefits? You mean the paltry handouts that the government grudgingly gives out to those unfortunate souls who might depend on these alms for their very survival? You have to be awfully mean spirited to aspire to the miserable existence that such a benefit can buy you, or belive that people who are forced to live a life controlled by such benefits are somehow gaming the system.

 

[TomC]

Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits

Benefits? You mean the paltry handouts that the government grudgingly gives out to those unfortunate souls who might depend on these alms for their very survival? You have to be awfully mean spirited to aspire to the miserable existence that such a benefit can buy you, or belive that people who are forced to live a life controlled by such benefits are somehow gaming the system.

If you know anyone who said or believes any of that, feel free to take them to task.

What I pointed out is that here, in modern, wealthier, more moral parts of the world becoming ill or disabled or otherwise unable to take care of yourself is no longer a death sentence like it used to be. Among other influences, that changes what results in procreative success.

That's all I said and all I meant.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits

Benefits? You mean the paltry handouts that the government grudgingly gives out to those unfortunate souls who might depend on these alms for their very survival? You have to be awfully mean spirited to aspire to the miserable existence that such a benefit can buy you, or belive that people who are forced to live a life controlled by such benefits are somehow gaming the system.

Amazing! That's totally correct. There is hope for IIDB after all.

 

[EricH]

Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits

Benefits? You mean the paltry handouts that the government grudgingly gives out to those unfortunate souls who might depend on these alms for their very survival? You have to be awfully mean spirited to aspire to the miserable existence that such a benefit can buy you, or belive that people who are forced to live a life controlled by such benefits are somehow gaming the system.

If you know anyone who said or believes any of that, feel free to take them to task.

What I pointed out is that here, in modern, wealthier, more moral parts of the world becoming ill or disabled or otherwise unable to take care of yourself is no longer a death sentence like it used to be. Among other influences, that changes what results in procreative success.

That's all I said and all I meant.
Tom

I misunderstood.

To clarify further, in your post you seem to be suggesting that being weak or sickly somehow confers a reproductive advantage. Here is the paragraph for context.

Back for most of human history, having traits like strength and endurance and intelligence would generally result in higher reproductive success. Today they don't. Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits. Being sturdy and smart means you have access to birth control and you use it.

Is that what you are saying? If yes, how? If no, what is the relevance of your statement about the benefit to the weak and sickly? Thanks.

 

[EricH]

Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits

Benefits? You mean the paltry handouts that the government grudgingly gives out to those unfortunate souls who might depend on these alms for their very survival? You have to be awfully mean spirited to aspire to the miserable existence that such a benefit can buy you, or belive that people who are forced to live a life controlled by such benefits are somehow gaming the system.

Amazing! That's totally correct. There is hope for IIDB after all.

I was wrong. I misunderstood what Tom was trying to say. And I wasn't talking to you, so feel free to take your snarky shit somewhere else.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits

Benefits? You mean the paltry handouts that the government grudgingly gives out to those unfortunate souls who might depend on these alms for their very survival? You have to be awfully mean spirited to aspire to the miserable existence that such a benefit can buy you, or belive that people who are forced to live a life controlled by such benefits are somehow gaming the system.

Amazing! That's totally correct. There is hope for IIDB after all.

I was wrong. I misunderstood what Tom was trying to say.

Nah. I think you fell for it. He posted a bigoted comment about the disabled, and then when he realized what he said, he whitewashed it. Seriously, he referred to us as "dumb" and "weak." And then you believed his lame excuse?

And I wasn't talking to you...

As it turns out it would have been better if you never did talk to me.

...so feel free to take your snarky shit somewhere else.

Uh--this happens to be my thread. You should take your own advice.

 

[gmbteach]

stealing the bolder statement for another thread!

In any case, what exactly did you mean by that remark? Who are these "dumb and weak and sickly" people you are referring to? Do you object to their getting benefits?

Do you object to helping those less fortunate than you? Do you think that the weak and sickly should suffer further? These aren’t Victorian times you know. I don’t object to paying 2% of my salary to ensure everyone gets medical aid. I don’t object to some of my wages going towards housing for unfortunate persons. Do you? If so, then I pity any of your relatives who may be weak or sickly as they would have to fend for themselves!

This is getting strange. What relevance is there to your questions based on what I asked Tom to admit?

Anyway, I'm not going to answer your questions because my answers should be obvious. Besides, your questions are obviously meant to harass me and divert attention away from Tom's sick comment.

 

[gmbteach]

Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits

Benefits? You mean the paltry handouts that the government grudgingly gives out to those unfortunate souls who might depend on these alms for their very survival? You have to be awfully mean spirited to aspire to the miserable existence that such a benefit can buy you, or belive that people who are forced to live a life controlled by such benefits are somehow gaming the system.

Amazing! That's totally correct. There is hope for IIDB after all.

I was wrong. I misunderstood what Tom was trying to say.

Nah. I think you fell for it. He posted a bigoted comment about the disabled, and then when he realized what he said, he whitewashed it. Seriously, he referred to us as "dumb" and "weak." And then you believed his lame excuse?

And I wasn't talking to you...

As it turns out it would have been better if you never did talk to me.

...so feel free to take your snarky shit somewhere else.

Uh--this happens to be my thread. You should take your own advice.

Please tell me where he called YOU dumb and weak.

As I said before, you read only what you want to read and interpret it so that it suits you. And only answer questions you want that might, ‘might’ support your case.

And I asked you before, did you purchase this thread? Is it yours exclusively? Last I heard, anyone can comment on any thread they choose. Am I incorrect in my assumption?


Why am I bothering asking you.. apparently your ‘answers should be obvious!’

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Uh--this happens to be my thread.

The thread belongs to IIDB. IIDB provides the resources to post and save this thread as well as the community to respond to the post, thru its non-profit, educational mission to promote and discuss a naturalistic worldview. YOU are PART of the IIDB community and have been for 20 years. Once you post your op, a discussion by community members is generated from the content of the op. Your snarky comment about IIDB was not really relevant to the op and discussion generated by IIDB community members--to include yourself. If you are entitled to make such outrageous snark about the entire community (of which you are a member), then members are entitled to tell you they do not like it. You ought not try to use imagined power as an op author to try to censor other members from writing true things you do not wish to hear when you generated the off-topic snark in the first place.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here in the first world, being dumb and weak and sickly gets you benefits

Benefits? You mean the paltry handouts that the government grudgingly gives out to those unfortunate souls who might depend on these alms for their very survival? You have to be awfully mean spirited to aspire to the miserable existence that such a benefit can buy you, or belive that people who are forced to live a life controlled by such benefits are somehow gaming the system.

If you know anyone who said or believes any of that, feel free to take them to task.

What I pointed out is that here, in modern, wealthier, more moral parts of the world becoming ill or disabled or otherwise unable to take care of yourself is no longer a death sentence like it used to be. Among other influences, that changes what results in procreative success.

That's all I said and all I meant.
Tom

And that came across a lot better the second time.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone challenged the premise of the title? I don't think atheists are ruining the 'fun' of religious faith at all. If anything, the fun aspects of religious faith are the parts we also enjoy.