[getpocket.

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 24, 2020:

I would just like to say that we should collectively point out shit like this anytime a religious person talks about Scientology being "crazy". In my opinion, it may even be less crazy than other religions because at least it recognizes the size and age of the universe.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 25, 2020:

Wow, @LimitedLight is a fragile motherfucker. He blocked me over this exchange? How does this guy learn anything if he can't even handle a back and forth this mild?

[getpocket.

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 24, 2020:

I would just like to say that we should collectively point out shit like this anytime a religious person talks about Scientology being "crazy". In my opinion, it may even be less crazy than other religions because at least it recognizes the size and age of the universe.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 25, 2020:

@LimitedLight Dude, "less crazy than other religions" can still be pretty crazy. Of course, I guess it makes sense you wouldn't have picked up on that because you didn't believe there were degrees of craziness... You're keeping it going just as much as I am, Pot.

You have been blocked

DenoPenno comments on Jun 25, 2020:

The statue pandemic is easily solved. Take them all down and put them in a special building where people can still see them if they like. Explain when they went up and why they came down. If this is not done you end up destroying them and lying about history. This lying is not good. Put the statues ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 25, 2020:

I don't see Jesus as any color...

Preacher Praises Jesus (Again) for Fixing His Backed-Up Toilet | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | ...

DenoPenno comments on Jun 25, 2020:

I fix mine with a large black plastic plunger.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 25, 2020:

That's probably what Jesus did too. I mean at first he tried to reach in to unclog it a but his hand kept floating on the surface.

[getpocket.

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 24, 2020:

I would just like to say that we should collectively point out shit like this anytime a religious person talks about Scientology being "crazy". In my opinion, it may even be less crazy than other religions because at least it recognizes the size and age of the universe.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 25, 2020:

@LimitedLight You're the one that contradicted my comment, bro... Anyway, this isn't a fight, at least not to me. I'm pointing out real world applications for knowledge we have about any enemy of truth, logic, and science. That you don't agree with me is both baffling and telling. I ASSUMED everyone here would agree that all religions are crazy and that we can use one religion calling another religion crazy against them. Apparently, you want to give a lot of religions a pass? You may be on the wrong website.

The Dolezal Jenner Paradox EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ...

SeaGreenEyez comments on Jun 23, 2020:

I'll condense my thoughts to this: Rachel Dolezal is a patholgical liar that did damage to an entire community. To in any way suggest her "sins" were excusable because she was raised in a wicked abusive household with African American adopted siblings is the equivalent of rewarding her ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 25, 2020:

@SeaGreenEyez Thank you for your response. > the Black community spoke out against her vehemently Which is why I said they turned on her. They loved her before she was outed. > BLM didn't need anyone's help in the protests we see today. Well, they need SOMEBODY'S help, or more accurately most people's help otherwise there'd be no one in the streets. The point I was making though is, great leaders vastly improve the success of movements. She was a great leader. We can't know the impact of not having her. > You clearly have some affection for Dolezal Nope, not at all. It's about equal treatment and justice, not who I like. I regularly defend Michael Vick, and I don't give a fuck about him. I don't know anything about him personally. I don't care about football in the slightest. But someone shouldn't go to federal prison for a year and a half for dog fighting while almost every American tortures and slaughters animals every day by proxy and other activie football players have murdered human beings (I consider drinking and driving homicides to be murder). > You're asserting skin color can be compared to sexual identify, which is a false equivalency. No, I'm asserting that identifying with a man-made social construct different than the one assigned at birth is the same regardless of which social construct it is. Skin color is not race because skin color is a continuum. If "white" person A has a darker skin tone than "black" person B, is A actually the "black" person and B actually the "white" person? If we extrapolate, does that mean there is an exact shade that is the point of delineation? That same logic can be applied to all of the other characteristics that I listed at the beginning of the OP. It's why there is no consensus on what defines "blackness". Race doesn't exist. Gender doesn't exist. Sex is not gender. If you can "just be a woman" you can "just be black". Also, you even emphasized your quote to physical OR social qualities. Not only does that highlight the grouping process to be very subjective, but it also begs the question: she clearly had the same social qualities as the black community she served even if you argue the physical qualities weren't real, so wouldn't that, by your definition, make her black? And if it's not "OR" and she has to also naturally "look black", doesn't that again brings us back to: are "black" people who look white not "black"? > In America, color determines race, which is exactly WHY systemic racism is a thing. So "black" people who don't look black aren't black? But then, since she did look black, so much so that no one knew she wasn't and she became the president of the NAACP, doesn't that mean she WAS black?? You can't have it both ways. > I'm still not certain what your point is other than ...

A bit late in seeing this, but still, Ugh! I suppose it had to be obvious.

MikeInBatonRouge comments on Jun 24, 2020:

The damn fool clergy have it coming, but I can't revel it this. The virus spreads terribly indiscriminately. And I somehow doubt churches are learning the right lessons of accountability from this.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 25, 2020:

> I somehow doubt churches are learning the right lessons of accountability from this. Of course not, all they care about is money, but the more of their parishioners that die, the less money they'll get and the less likely Trump will win.

[getpocket.

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 24, 2020:

I would just like to say that we should collectively point out shit like this anytime a religious person talks about Scientology being "crazy". In my opinion, it may even be less crazy than other religions because at least it recognizes the size and age of the universe.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 25, 2020:

@LimitedLight Of course. Is that a serious question? I mean, obviously "crazy" isn't a scientific term for which you'll find definitions and defining characteristics for different levels. But could you honestly say simply the word "crazy" or "insane" with no adjectives or clarifications is completely sufficient and accurate to describe both a person that occasionally hears voices and a person that pulls their own teeth out because they believe they are mind control devices and smears the inside of their home with human excrement to help protect against the radio waves from the government brain washing machines? Even colloquially you've heard differences the likes of "that guy is cuckoo" and "that guy is bat-shit fucking crazy" or "that chick is a level 5 clinger" to "that chick is boil-your-fucking-rabbit nuts", yes? So back on topic, is it equally "crazy" for me to believe there are billions of years currently unaccounted for by science or that matter did not exist anywhere in the universe when fossils had already been on Earth for millions of years? To me it's kind of like the difference between me telling you "I'm 100 years old" or "I haven't been born yet". Without knowing me, there's a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny possibility that I'm 100 and look the way I do, but there's exactly a zero percent chance I haven't been born yet. I think I put way too much time in to what should be a completely unnecessary response.

[getpocket.

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 24, 2020:

I would just like to say that we should collectively point out shit like this anytime a religious person talks about Scientology being "crazy". In my opinion, it may even be less crazy than other religions because at least it recognizes the size and age of the universe.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 24, 2020:

@LimitedLight And that's crazier than 2,500 times younger? Like so young they think the entire universe was created 1,000 years after the Sumerians were already fabricating copper? Sorry, Scientology wins this round. It's still possible, I guess, that we could discover the universe is 100 times older than we thought. It is not possible that we could discover the universe is 6,000 years old. What else ya got?

[getpocket.

racocn8 comments on Jun 23, 2020:

Asinine no matter how you look at it. And they fancy themselves to be intelligent. Curious how such a large percentage of Jews also call themselves atheist. More hypocrisy.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 24, 2020:

@Moravian Agreed. Bring proud of things you had no part in (your cultural background, your height, your eye color, your level of intelligence, etc. to me is akin to being proud of your white skin or "race".)

The Dolezal Jenner Paradox EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 23, 2020:

What an asshole, that chick either blocked me too, or deleted all of her posts. @admin can you make it so that either others' comments don't delete when the person who started the thread deletes their comment, or preferably, have it just take the person's name off the comment and change it to an ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 24, 2020:

@SeaGreenEyez Thank you for the info.

The Dolezal Jenner Paradox EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ...

SeaGreenEyez comments on Jun 23, 2020:

I'll condense my thoughts to this: Rachel Dolezal is a patholgical liar that did damage to an entire community. To in any way suggest her "sins" were excusable because she was raised in a wicked abusive household with African American adopted siblings is the equivalent of rewarding her ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 24, 2020:

After reading as many of your posts and comments as I did, I'm surprised our opinions differ this much. I appreciate the time you spent and your reply. Please let me clarify a few things and respond. I'm not sure what community you believe she did damage to. The local black community in Spokane was immensely improved through her actions over the years, and had the community not turned on her and shot themselves in the foot, she'd likely be fighting the good fight to this day. I wonder what kind of protests she would have been able to organize in the wake of the brutal murder of George Floyd. I don't believe I suggested that she "sinned" or that the reasons you gave should be a reason to give her a pass for something. I'll reread and make changes if it seems that way. I am specifically saying if people can accept Caitlyn without reservation (and it's quite clear the world has) they should be able to do the same for Dolezal as the action to change from the identity assigned at birth to one that aligned with how they felt of a man-made construct is virtually identical. You can tell them I think "wigger" is wholly inaccurate. I don't regularly make it a practice to evaluate the viewpoint of those that would use such a derogatory word, but that word is referring to someone who is outwardly appropriating the black culture, not actually living as a black person and fighting for their rights for years. As has been discussed at length in the comments, what is the definition of "black"? Race is a social construct. I want opinions and spirited debate. The more people we can get to discuss this the more likely we are to weed out bad arguments and verbiage, and distill it down to a concise foolproof argument. The end of your comment confused me. You said we shouldn't be focused on labels, but that race and ethnic relations may be determined by other things more than they are by skin color. But then you also claim she should be loathed because she isn't black, which is both a label, and a determination based on skin color.

The Dolezal Jenner Paradox EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 22, 2020:

This is a repost of a reply that was in a thread TMW is blocked from seeing: @TheMiddleWay A quick question that probably isn't much of a sticking point because I don't imagine either of us know for sure, but if the thing the black community found so objectionable was that she wasn't technically ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 23, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay Yeah, it doesn't appear as though we are getting anywhere; I feel like a broken record, too. It seems as though you don't value the argument I made about it being of no consequence if she lied. (Remember, we don't KNOW that she DOESN'T know she actually does have African ancestors, but I still contend it's irrelevant. I could have African ancestors; I honestly don't know. If I found that out, would I suddenly be allowed to call myself black and say 'the N word' with impunity? Lying about it shouldn't matter for several reasons, but one of them should be that it shouldn't even matter where someone's ancestors came from. Hell, if we want to get technical, every single human on the planet shares a common ancestor.) Transracial, as defined as someone who identifies with a "race" different from the one they were assigned at birth, is no less real to her (and me) than the transgender definition of someone identifying with a "gender" different than they were assigned at birth. Any lies anyone thinks a member of either group told shouldn't matter. So maybe transracial isn't understood or accepted. There was a time when transgendered wasn't understood or accepted. There was a time when homosexuality wasn't understood or accepted. Why do we as a society continue to slog down these paths one painstaking step at a time. Black males finally got the right to vote in 1870, but then women had to fight another fifty years before we recognized they deserved a voice too? We can look back at that and see how absolutely ridiculous it is that we couldn't do it all in one step. Imagine how much better off we'd be if we didn't continue to disenfranchise sections of our population once we already realized we were wrong? So considering we don't have a very clear, concrete reason to separate these things, why wouldn't we take this step together. An example of a clear concrete difference I'm looking for would be when people claimed "You can't let homosexuals get married because the next thing you know, a man will want to marry his toaster." Obviously, anyone who's not a moron could cite at least one very clear reason why marriage between two humans cannot be compared to or even placed on a continuum with marriage between a human and a toaster. Now I could be wrong. There could be a reason I'm not seeing why these things are and always will be different. But the more I discuss this online and in real life, the less likely it seems I will discover that reason. So until that day comes, I'm stuck believing that people who support Caitlyn and shit on Dolezal are being awfully hypocritical.

The Dolezal Jenner Paradox EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 22, 2020:

This is a repost of a reply that was in a thread TMW is blocked from seeing: @TheMiddleWay A quick question that probably isn't much of a sticking point because I don't imagine either of us know for sure, but if the thing the black community found so objectionable was that she wasn't technically ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 23, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay I disagree. She's being discriminated against for being transracial. Again, I disagree. She's transracial, and needed to lie in order to protect herself from bigots who can open their minds to transgender, but not transracial (or neither). Also, you 'feel' or 'think' she was not black. Do you have her DNA results showing lineage? So again, if race is just a social construct, why can't someone just be black if they say they're black the same way a person who was genetically male can just be a woman.

The Dolezal Jenner Paradox EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 22, 2020:

This is a repost of a reply that was in a thread TMW is blocked from seeing: @TheMiddleWay A quick question that probably isn't much of a sticking point because I don't imagine either of us know for sure, but if the thing the black community found so objectionable was that she wasn't technically ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 23, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay A. But now she's universally hated and discriminated against. It's clearly worse than whatever "normal" amount of racism she was subjected to. She's be unable to get a job in her field, and has been doing hair to make ends meet. It may not be an option most black people have, but it likely isn't an option any black people want. It's really pretty terrible, she was willing to take on discrimination in order to more adeptly fight for the rights of the disenfranchised, her children, and her siblings, was undoubtedly successful, only to get screwed over even worse by everyone, instead of just "the man". Also, whatever negative impacts transgendered people suffer could also be avoided by reverting, but they are infinitely more accepted than transracial people, so there's less of a need to do so. B. So wait, since there's no way to prove Caitlyn doesn't feel like (isn't) a woman then everyone should be fully on board with her being a woman, but even though we don't have proof that Dolezal doesn't have African ancestry, it's cool to assume she doesn't and then shit on her for lying. But since race doesn't really exist, why again do outsiders get to determine if you meet whatever arbitrary and subjective criteria they'd like to use to determine if you're "black" enough. Furthermore, why is a personal belief that she's lying even a remotely acceptable determination for whether or not she's deserving of the world's hatred? What if someone claimed they believed Caitlyn was lying about being a woman and shit on her? Some have done it, and the world came to her rescue and collectively bitch slapped them. Hell, you could have actual proof she's lying (which I don't know if anyone actually has), and I still don't see the fundamental difference. People lie about shit all the time, but like being transgendered, it could be what she needed to do to fit in and be safe and comfortable in the skin she identified with. Obviously, telling people from the start she felt black and was going to start living as a black woman wasn't an option. And for many transgendered people, there may be the same sort of lies or lies by omission. Do they all announce every time they meet someone or walk into a bathroom that they are trans, or whatever arbitrary circumstances people think transgendered people should out themselves in? I doubt it. I'm still looking for the fundamental difference here, and no one has been able to point one out.

28,000 Images of Abuse: Bible Scholar Likes the Old Testament… and Young Kids | Terry Firma | ...

MissKathleen comments on Jun 23, 2020:

Not the first religist who proved to be a pedophile. Glad he was caught and prosecuted.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 23, 2020:

Barely. People get more time for a couple of dime bags.

Why I Stopped Talking About Racial Reconciliation and Started Talking About White Supremacy | ...

Jolanta comments on Jun 20, 2020:

Yes, it is ME, ME and ME.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 23, 2020:

@Normanbites : "It concerns us all, or nothing will happen, because it's just the blacks getting all butt hurt again." Yup, that's my cue to leave. I didn't know I was talking to THAT guy.

Why I Stopped Talking About Racial Reconciliation and Started Talking About White Supremacy | ...

Jolanta comments on Jun 20, 2020:

Yes, it is ME, ME and ME.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 22, 2020:

@Normanbites Gonna have to agree with @SeaGreenEyez on this one. Granted, you can never reach perfect equality when there's any division of people into any sort of category, but that's a final step so far into our future it's literally impossible to attain without correcting some wrongs. If a group have suffered systemic racism for hundreds of years, you can't just make stuff equal going forward and think it'll change anything. That's like starting a new game of Monopoly by returning all deeds, houses, and hotels to the bank but everyone starts with the money they ended the last game with.

The Dolezal Jenner Paradox EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 22, 2020:

This is a repost of a reply that was in a thread TMW is blocked from seeing: @TheMiddleWay A quick question that probably isn't much of a sticking point because I don't imagine either of us know for sure, but if the thing the black community found so objectionable was that she wasn't technically ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 22, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay A. I don't think it's as easy as "she can revert to whiteness". Look at what happened to her when people found out. Imagine if she just decided to revert? She'd have to prove she was white first then still face all the backlash. And it's not like she can just tell the cop that's harassing her, "Excuse me, sir, I'm actually a white woman, so..." And that's assuming her feelings about her race are any less real to her than Caitlyn's feelings about being a woman. As difficult as it would be, couldn't she always just revert to male? B. I wasn't asking how they would find out they were black, I was asking if their claim to blackness after the first X years of their life living as a white person is any more or less valid than Dolezal's claim to blackness after living the first X years of her life as white, but then living as a black person and suffering racism, and advancing black rights, and combating racial profiling, and becoming the president of the NAACP, and raising black siblings and children, etc. It was rhetorical, and done to point out that whatever conditions one states as the reason what Dolezal did was wrong are very fluid and subjective and contrasting that with how the only person that gets to judge gender identity are individuals themselves. I will give you that if we can divorce gender/sex and biology/culture we'd all get along much better, but that was mostly my point from the beginning (after the explanation above about who gets to be the arbiter of blackness)... why can people accept Jenner and not Dolezal?

The Dolezal Jenner Paradox EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 22, 2020:

FYI: @Leontion didn't care for the science I brought up so she blocked me and thus that sub-thread is inaccessible to me. LOL

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 22, 2020:

That's not appropriat​e. This is probably the most constructi​ve discussion​ I've been a part of in a long time. I quickly noticed there were numerous things I needed to change about how I thought and what I wrote. As I'm sure you've noticed, that doesn't happen to me often (certainly a lot less than you think it should happen to me 😝). I will be editing my OP to reflect these changes and hopefully provide a jumping off point to start a new discussion. My goal is to lean and hone my argument as much as it is to get other people to think and contribute.

I’m struggling with the statement people make when they say they are Free Thinkers, Critical ...

PBuck0145 comments on Jun 21, 2020:

I have a bigger problem with those who claim to be free thinkers but accept regressive leftist group-think.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 22, 2020:

@PBuck0145 I just don't think there's a high proportion of them compared to progressive liberals. (I don't think I'd agree that there is any magical think to them that it would constitute a substitute for religious beliefs, either.) I mean, someone posted a link the other day asking why atheists are afraid to make fun of Islam, and no one seemed scared to join in the fun posting memes and such. If this site was dominated by those unwilling to challenge Islam, I'm not sure how that would happen. There may be a higher proportion in liberal circles that are not primarily atheist and/or agnostic, but not here.

I’m struggling with the statement people make when they say they are Free Thinkers, Critical ...

PBuck0145 comments on Jun 21, 2020:

I have a bigger problem with those who claim to be free thinkers but accept regressive leftist group-think.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 22, 2020:

@PBuck0145 I don't think that's much better for you. It still points to the fact that there are more progressive liberal people that aren't shackled by magical thought without the negative connotation you initially placed on them with the use of the word 'infected'.

The Dolezal Jenner Paradox EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 22, 2020:

> Genetically, we’ve always had, in very low percentages, those that don’t neatly fit into one of the two who, in essence, made up a third gender category of sorts As per the AMA, you are conflating gender and sex here so it makes it difficult to know if you are talking about sex *or* gender...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 22, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay I still think the larger point stands even if you assume whatever meaning you'd like to assume wherever I made mention of gender. Basically: if we can collectively applaud someone for making choices about their sex and/or gender, doesn't it seem wrong or at least unfair to collectively demonize someone for making choices about race? There have been several points you both have brought up that really challenge me, and maybe with that help and clarification of verbiage, I can amend this to be a much stronger argument (which I thank you both for being excellent sounding boards), but so far I don't know that I feel differently about feeling bad for Ms. Diallo.

I’m struggling with the statement people make when they say they are Free Thinkers, Critical ...

Paul4747 comments on Jun 21, 2020:

I think I'm quoting W. C. Fields here: "The only remedy for a spirited woman is spirited drink."

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 22, 2020:

@whiskywoman Will that took a turn.

I’m struggling with the statement people make when they say they are Free Thinkers, Critical ...

PBuck0145 comments on Jun 21, 2020:

I have a bigger problem with those who claim to be free thinkers but accept regressive leftist group-think.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 22, 2020:

@PBuck0145 Infected with, or predictably frequented by?

The Dolezal Jenner Paradox EDIT: As stated in a recent comment, this post has been edited since ...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 22, 2020:

> Genetically, we’ve always had, in very low percentages, those that don’t neatly fit into one of the two who, in essence, made up a third gender category of sorts As per the AMA, you are conflating gender and sex here so it makes it difficult to know if you are talking about sex *or* gender...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 22, 2020:

I don't know that I did. I think everywhere I said gender I meant gender. More importantly, I'm curious how far back can you find evidence of people clamoring for new gender designations? 20 years? 50 years? Even medical journal publications didn't make a distinction for a vast majority of their existence. And doesn't the fact that this distinction is a relatively new development just add more support to my argument? Also it seems as though you found one little thing you think I said wrong to focus on and completely missed the overall point that doesn't change much even if you assume I did make a mistake.

Have you ever been offended by being an agnostic or atheist?

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 20, 2020:

I think what the OP is asking is: "As an atheist, do you find yourself bring offended by things similar to the way a Christian may be offended by someone saying 'Jesus Christ' in anger, or a Muslim being offended by a depiction of the prophet Muhammad." If that is the question, no, it's next to ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 20, 2020:

@anglophone 2 scoops of vanilla ice cream 12oz. of liquefied baby.

Alternet and Patheos report: Many Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals have been ...

CuddyCruiser comments on Jun 20, 2020:

I just hope I Live to see the day when organized religion disappear / Die. It’s been on the decline for a while now. I will jump laughing into my grave with extraordinary satisfaction

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 20, 2020:

@SeaRay215ex Pretty sure when someone else recently posed a question about this, @TheMiddleWay found research that debunked this.

RETIRED SURGEON Sam Laucks, has this to say about wearing a mask: "I have spent the past 39 years ...

Mcflewster comments on Jun 19, 2020:

This is the best analysis I have seen on this tricky but important topic and is exactly what everyone needs to read before making up their mind. If ONLY every mind was a safety FIRST mind. Of course it would only be produced in this detail by an expert with many years in the field. Not so long ago...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 20, 2020:

@Mcflewster You are a better man that I. I believe the democratic experiment of America has failed, and the human experiment in general has failed. I do not believe it can be turned around. Good luck. I hope to be dead soon so I don't have to deal with this shit getting worse by the day.

Have you ever been offended by being an agnostic or atheist?

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 20, 2020:

I think what the OP is asking is: "As an atheist, do you find yourself bring offended by things similar to the way a Christian may be offended by someone saying 'Jesus Christ' in anger, or a Muslim being offended by a depiction of the prophet Muhammad." If that is the question, no, it's next to ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 20, 2020:

@anglophone How do you make a dead baby float?

Alternet and Patheos report: Many Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals have been ...

Donna_I comments on Jun 19, 2020:

I feel for those that will be collateral damage.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 20, 2020:

It sucks, but it's worth it. Think of them as heroes who volunteered to walk into the melted down reactor to release the water from the reservoir below, preventing another disaster.

Alternet and Patheos report: Many Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals have been ...

CuddyCruiser comments on Jun 20, 2020:

I just hope I Live to see the day when organized religion disappear / Die. It’s been on the decline for a while now. I will jump laughing into my grave with extraordinary satisfaction

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 20, 2020:

It would be nice, but I think there's effectively a 0% chance of that happening.

Alternet and Patheos report: Many Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals have been ...

MakeItGood comments on Jun 20, 2020:

I only feel sorry for the kids. The adults...not so much.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 20, 2020:

Good chance those kids were lost causes being born into those families anyway...

RETIRED SURGEON Sam Laucks, has this to say about wearing a mask: "I have spent the past 39 years ...

JackPedigo comments on Jun 18, 2020:

Thank you for this. Very informative and logical. We heard a lot of similar crap when seat belts were first made mandatory. My grandfather said they are more dangerous as one won't be able to be thrown out of the car. Changes are always hard and there are many who can't handle even a little change....

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 20, 2020:

You can gently wash those. The hospital I work for reprocesses tons of PPE every day. I've even put many regular "paper" masks through the washer and dryer and they came out great (a few of them had the nose wire thing fall out).

RETIRED SURGEON Sam Laucks, has this to say about wearing a mask: "I have spent the past 39 years ...

Ray13 comments on Jun 19, 2020:

This pandemic has really opened my eyes,as to how ignorant,our society has become. Went to the grocery store this morning, wore my mask - I also wear disposable latex gloves - and noticed very few people wearing masks, and some who did had their nose uncovered - including several store employees....

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 20, 2020:

We need to stop correcting them. Let people go to church and Trump rallies without masks all they want. It may stress our healthcare system, it may cause some collateral loss, but proportion-wise it will be a huge net benefit to our country.

RETIRED SURGEON Sam Laucks, has this to say about wearing a mask: "I have spent the past 39 years ...

Mcflewster comments on Jun 19, 2020:

This is the best analysis I have seen on this tricky but important topic and is exactly what everyone needs to read before making up their mind. If ONLY every mind was a safety FIRST mind. Of course it would only be produced in this detail by an expert with many years in the field. Not so long ago...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 20, 2020:

How good is a 'safety first' mindset is you don't believe in science? So many of these dumb motherfuckers do not believe in science at all.

Which is growing faster atheism or Islam

OldMetalHead comments on Jun 19, 2020:

Wish in one had and shit in the other and see which one fills up first. Unfortunately we are moving towards the movie Idiocracy except without the cryogenic storage. The most uneducated and religious among us are breeding at a rate many times that of the educated and atheist. I don't want to say ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 19, 2020:

@SolarWind I'm not sure if you're making a joke or stating that being an atheist necessarily means you're more intelligent than religious people.

Which is growing faster atheism or Islam

OldMetalHead comments on Jun 19, 2020:

Wish in one had and shit in the other and see which one fills up first. Unfortunately we are moving towards the movie Idiocracy except without the cryogenic storage. The most uneducated and religious among us are breeding at a rate many times that of the educated and atheist. I don't want to say ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 19, 2020:

@OldMetalHead Don't get me wrong, I've been preaching Idiocracy was coming true for years. I just don't think atheism is necessarily a cure for it.

A Question of Morality -- Looking for Opinions -- Should saving a puppy mill dog just be written...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 19, 2020:

Wow, excellent question! WARNING. SUPER UNPOPULAR OPINION BELOW. I will, as I do with every other question about cruelty to animals for the pleasure of humans, come down on the side of: we have collectively agreed that torture of animals for our pleasure is okay. I personally do not see any ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 19, 2020:

@Gareth You didn't argue a fundamental difference between ANY of them. My point stands.

A Question of Morality -- Looking for Opinions -- Should saving a puppy mill dog just be written...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 19, 2020:

Wow, excellent question! WARNING. SUPER UNPOPULAR OPINION BELOW. I will, as I do with every other question about cruelty to animals for the pleasure of humans, come down on the side of: we have collectively agreed that torture of animals for our pleasure is okay. I personally do not see any ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 19, 2020:

@Gareth 1. Not ONLY dog fighting. You're missing the point. I'm comparing ALL forms of animal abuse for the benefit of humans. Until you can point out a legitimate difference between your desired animal abuse and another's, you don't have a moral leg to stand on. The only people that really have the moral high ground here are people like my sister that won't even eat honey she's so vegan. 2. Then you concede? 3. Your very first reply you stated, ”I think yours is the old 'don't do anything unless you do everything' argument. And it's fallacious." I took that to mean that you agreed with the proposition of banning puppy mills. If that's not what you meant I apologize, but you could have stated your position clearly. 4. Again, whataboutism is about changing the subject. I am not changing the subject.

A Question of Morality -- Looking for Opinions -- Should saving a puppy mill dog just be written...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 19, 2020:

Wow, excellent question! WARNING. SUPER UNPOPULAR OPINION BELOW. I will, as I do with every other question about cruelty to animals for the pleasure of humans, come down on the side of: we have collectively agreed that torture of animals for our pleasure is okay. I personally do not see any ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 19, 2020:

@K9Kohle789 I'm not arguing with you on that. Should we even be racing horses at all? I personally don't give a shit about horse racing, but I can't advocate for banning it or prosecuting those that enjoy it while I'm eating a cheeseburger or sitting on my leather couch without being a hypocrite.

Which is growing faster atheism or Islam

OldMetalHead comments on Jun 19, 2020:

Wish in one had and shit in the other and see which one fills up first. Unfortunately we are moving towards the movie Idiocracy except without the cryogenic storage. The most uneducated and religious among us are breeding at a rate many times that of the educated and atheist. I don't want to say ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 19, 2020:

Being atheist doesn't necessarily mean one is smart, either.

Franklin Graham on Supreme Court’s LGBTQ Ruling: “My Rights Should Be Protected” | Beth ...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 18, 2020:

I added a comment that read, "Franklin Graham is a dumb cunt." It won't matter to anyone, but it made me feel good.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 19, 2020:

@snytiger6 I think the logic follows that would also be insulting to pieces of shit.

A Question of Morality -- Looking for Opinions -- Should saving a puppy mill dog just be written...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 19, 2020:

Wow, excellent question! WARNING. SUPER UNPOPULAR OPINION BELOW. I will, as I do with every other question about cruelty to animals for the pleasure of humans, come down on the side of: we have collectively agreed that torture of animals for our pleasure is okay. I personally do not see any ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 19, 2020:

@Gareth 1. I wasn't comparing ONLY animals for food and animals for entertainment. We currently legally use (torture) animals for food, entertainment, clothing, luxury, comfort, etc. You're the one that's trying to distort my argument. Even if I did compare just animals for meat vs. animals for companionship (or entertainment as you labeled it), it would still be a valid argument because animals aren't necessary to feed humans. Actually, eating animals, by most estimations, reduces food supplies for humans, so the consumption of tortured meat is purely for pleasure, not sustenance. 2. Nothing about my argument is "bad or dishonest". If it is, show how by pointing out fallacies or using analogies. (As I have done and you failed to refute.) 3. I said nothing about a personal choice to not buy from a puppy mill. My argument is against shutting them down and prosecuting them (and only them as opposed to all forms of animal torture equally. That is how it relates to the technology analogy.) What you have done here is create a straw man fallacy. 4. This has nothing to do with whataboutism. Whataboutism is a tactic of claiming there is some other worse, yet unrelated problem we should be worrying about instead of the problem at hand. This, however, is a very related problem (the exact same problem if you ask me- the mistreatment of animals for human benefit) so I'm not attempting to deflect or change the subject in any way.

A Question of Morality -- Looking for Opinions -- Should saving a puppy mill dog just be written...

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 19, 2020:

Wow, excellent question! WARNING. SUPER UNPOPULAR OPINION BELOW. I will, as I do with every other question about cruelty to animals for the pleasure of humans, come down on the side of: we have collectively agreed that torture of animals for our pleasure is okay. I personally do not see any ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 19, 2020:

@Gareth No, it's the don't tell me not to do what you're doing argument, and it's about fairness. I don't believe the perfectionist fallacy applies here because the goals and costs of the actions are more global and not specific to individuals or groups e.g. "We should protect the park from being turned into a parking lot." "Well, millions of acres of rainforests are being chopped down and we're not fixing that, so why bother with this?" I think you're in just as much danger of committing the politician's syllogism fallacy here i.e. "We have to do SOMETHING, this IS something, we have to do it." Let's try an analogy. Say we both agree that speeding is a problem and something needs to be done. So we develop a device that monitors speed and automatically sends a speeding ticket to your home. But for some reason, we can only get it to work on black males. It IS something, and it would technically reduce speeding, but don't you agree that it is unfair to target one group for wrongdoing when everyone else is doing the same thing and getting away with it? Or would you put those devices to work? What is the fundamental difference between using animals for meat, leather, fur, or entertainment and dog breeding that it makes it okay to only target those that want to use or provide the services of a breeder?

You're wondering how God's love is the greatest?

Larry-new comments on Jun 18, 2020:

9/11 does it for me. WWII did it for Europe.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 18, 2020:

I mean, if your ask David Cross, sometimes a bunch of kids need to die (like in elementary school shootings) because where else would god get all the virgins to give each suicide bomber 72 when he arrives in heaven.

Today's hike: Searching for Lady Slippers, we found a couple having sex.

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 17, 2020:

I mean, when I saw there were photos on this post... I've had sex in the MetroParks before, and I've owned my own condo since I was 18. There are a bunch of reasons to get it on in public.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 18, 2020:

@Cyklone Eh, for me it's gotta be for something. I can live with a mosquito bite on my ass if I got laid.

Who else is a naughty atheist who invites the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witness's into their home ...

Borgovic comments on Jun 18, 2020:

I;m short and sharp with both these lots....off my premises in 10 seconds or i let the dogs of the leash.( I don't have dogs...but it works,)

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 18, 2020:

I'd let someone's dog attack me so I could have the dog put down and sue them.

Who else is a naughty atheist who invites the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witness's into their home ...

gracielufreebush comments on Jun 16, 2020:

Well I don't believe I know enough about the bible to argue with them. I was one of those ones they got their hooks into but it wasn't because I was at a low point in my life, I was just very curious as to why they did what they did and about the bible. I talked with them for about 2 years but all I...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 18, 2020:

@gracielufreebush To say that one is "intended to" or "supposed to" begs the question why/dictated by who? A higher power? There is no "supposed to".

Today's hike: Searching for Lady Slippers, we found a couple having sex.

ChestRockfield comments on Jun 17, 2020:

I mean, when I saw there were photos on this post... I've had sex in the MetroParks before, and I've owned my own condo since I was 18. There are a bunch of reasons to get it on in public.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 18, 2020:

@Cyklone Well, from a guy's perspective, there's really no telling if or when a chick is going to be in the mood in any particular location or time, so if she indicates she wants to bone in the woods, you should probably bone in the woods.

What are your opinions on prostitution?

Twisty420 comments on Jan 28, 2018:

It's the oldest profession if the world. If someone has the ability to sell their " goods " and someone else wants to buy them, then go for it. It shouldn't matter one bit as long as no one is getting damaged and it's no one else's business besides those involved in the transaction. Just my ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 18, 2020:

@Twisty420 Just came back after a long time away and was reading old posts. Out of curiosity, if prostitution is just another job like selling your time or brain power as others have suggested, then should children be allowed to do this job? Children are allowed to do other jobs. Either prostitution is just like other jobs, or it's not. Can't have it both ways.

To No One’s Surprise, More Coronavirus Outbreaks Are Traced Back to Churches | Terry Firma | ...

WaywardAtheist comments on Jun 16, 2020:

I’m in Texas hell—specifically Houston. We’re supposed to go back to work at 50% starting July 6, but my colleagues and I are anticipating a post-Memorial Day weekend spike that has yet to crush us. I really, really hate ignorant people.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 18, 2020:

@WaywardAtheist My reply wasn't to you, it was to @Rich177 who claimed people who catch it now will be better off because they will be immune come the fall's second wave (then subsequently deleted his comment after I called him on it). I took no issue with anything you said.

Today's hike: Searching for Lady Slippers, we found a couple having sex.

Fit50something comments on Jun 17, 2020:

Typical. You give us an interesting headline, but we only get pictures of the flowers.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 17, 2020:

@LiterateHiker Those are gorgeous photos. What kind of camera?

Today's hike: Searching for Lady Slippers, we found a couple having sex.

Fit50something comments on Jun 17, 2020:

Typical. You give us an interesting headline, but we only get pictures of the flowers.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 17, 2020:

@LiterateHiker People do not have an expectation of privacy in public...

Who else is a naughty atheist who invites the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witness's into their home ...

gracielufreebush comments on Jun 16, 2020:

Well I don't believe I know enough about the bible to argue with them. I was one of those ones they got their hooks into but it wasn't because I was at a low point in my life, I was just very curious as to why they did what they did and about the bible. I talked with them for about 2 years but all I...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 17, 2020:

@gracielufreebush No, what determines what and when things are to be understood by people? Do you not see where I'm going with this?

To No One’s Surprise, More Coronavirus Outbreaks Are Traced Back to Churches | Terry Firma | ...

WaywardAtheist comments on Jun 16, 2020:

I’m in Texas hell—specifically Houston. We’re supposed to go back to work at 50% starting July 6, but my colleagues and I are anticipating a post-Memorial Day weekend spike that has yet to crush us. I really, really hate ignorant people.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 17, 2020:

@Rich177 Not true at all. Where are you getting your information?

Who else is a naughty atheist who invites the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witness's into their home ...

Stilltrying1964 comments on Jun 16, 2020:

I love it when they come by. I'll talk your dick in the dirt, as the expression goes. They usually leave after a few minutes. They can't stand atheists and agnostics. They just want to feel proud of themselves for going out and trying to bring us into the fold. They want to find some poor broken ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 17, 2020:

@Surfpirate They are essentially no crazier than any other religion.

Who else is a naughty atheist who invites the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witness's into their home ...

gracielufreebush comments on Jun 16, 2020:

Well I don't believe I know enough about the bible to argue with them. I was one of those ones they got their hooks into but it wasn't because I was at a low point in my life, I was just very curious as to why they did what they did and about the bible. I talked with them for about 2 years but all I...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 17, 2020:

Supposed to? What determines what people are supposed to do or when they're supposed to do it?

Who else is a naughty atheist who invites the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witness's into their home ...

Triphid comments on Jun 16, 2020:

Haven't gone that far as yet but when the JeHos used to door-knock during the very hot Aussie Summertimes, ( days with the temps. reaching in the high 30's - mid 40's Celsius and dragging their poor little kids along with them) I'd answer the door with glasses of icy cold water for the kids. The ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 17, 2020:

@Triphid Is it as fun if you don't tell them? I think making them choose with all knowledge is my favorite thing. "Oh, you don't eat pork/meat? Well, I made a dessert that's a double recipe of brownies, a layer of chocolate chip cookies, frosting, then sauteed bacon with extra popcorn salt. Feel free to have some if you'd like." I mean, there's no legitimate reason not to have a small piece of something like that, right?

I am an atheist.

Gwendolyn2018 comments on Jun 10, 2020:

Regardless of how some rant about the Bible and its horrible verses--and many are horrible, especially Psalm 137:9--it also has some words of wisdom and good advice. "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword" is one that comes to mind. "Love thy neighbor" is another. Proverbs 12:18 “There is ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 16, 2020:

@Gwendolyn2018 Sleeves are probably scared of me too because I'm always cutting them off. I am a strong supporter of the right to bare arms.

Of the formerly religious people, at what age did you abandon your faith?

HannaYou comments on Jun 16, 2020:

I had doubts since the age of 8 but the ignorance of childhood coupled with the fear of burning in hell forever made me fairly religious until I 18-19, although at the time I still wouldn't admit to it, even to myself. I was 25 when I realized it was all bullshit and was finally honest with myself ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 16, 2020:

Uugh, I do too. I even agree with phrases like "Everything happens for a reason" at work, a phrase I don't agree with at all, just so my new co-workers don't dislike me. It's most of the reason I came back here. I have almost no one I can be honest about myself to anymore.

Tulsa mayor said we are not shooting African Americans as much as we should be

Captain_Feelgood comments on Jun 13, 2020:

Context is everything people!! He was commenting on the statistics showing that the TPD get called in on many more crimes than the average city, and that according to the stats, if you compare them to other high crime areas, they should have had more people shot by a police officer than they did... ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 16, 2020:

@Captain_Feelgood Should be and needs to are two different things.

Of the formerly religious people, at what age did you abandon your faith?

Mofo1953 comments on Jun 16, 2020:

159

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 16, 2020:

@Mofo1953 You were pi years old, got it.

I am an atheist.

Gwendolyn2018 comments on Jun 10, 2020:

Regardless of how some rant about the Bible and its horrible verses--and many are horrible, especially Psalm 137:9--it also has some words of wisdom and good advice. "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword" is one that comes to mind. "Love thy neighbor" is another. Proverbs 12:18 “There is ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 16, 2020:

@Gwendolyn2018 That's what I get for not reading before posting.

Of the formerly religious people, at what age did you abandon your faith?

Mofo1953 comments on Jun 16, 2020:

159

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 16, 2020:

??

I am an atheist.

Gwendolyn2018 comments on Jun 10, 2020:

Regardless of how some rant about the Bible and its horrible verses--and many are horrible, especially Psalm 137:9--it also has some words of wisdom and good advice. "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword" is one that comes to mind. "Love thy neighbor" is another. Proverbs 12:18 “There is ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 15, 2020:

@Gwendolyn2018 Exactly. The shit the Bible gets right pretty much anyone can get right. However, the shit it gets wrong it gets ALL THE WAY WRONG. I mean, this book condones slavery of races of people and the torture of one's own sleeves, the selling of one's daughters into sexual slavery, it's full of nonsense like talking animals, cruelty like intentionally mauling 42 young boys for making fun of someone being bald, and more contradictions than you could probably count.

I am an atheist.

Gwendolyn2018 comments on Jun 10, 2020:

Regardless of how some rant about the Bible and its horrible verses--and many are horrible, especially Psalm 137:9--it also has some words of wisdom and good advice. "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword" is one that comes to mind. "Love thy neighbor" is another. Proverbs 12:18 “There is ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 15, 2020:

Even a broken clock...

Let's give religion a break just for a moment.

Triphid comments on Jun 7, 2020:

Though I never truly believed BUT was forced to attend Sunday Schools, note the PLURAL btw, by my 'mother' the only really good thing I ever gained from every one of them was the 'Expulsion notes' I received every time I asked questions and the rewards I got each and every time from my Dad, usually ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 15, 2020:

How has no one "liked" this story?!

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

Rich177 comments on Jun 15, 2020:

The same thing can be said about people in robes and people flashing colored lights

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 15, 2020:

@Rich177 Still have no idea what the hell you are taking about.

Tulsa mayor said we are not shooting African Americans as much as we should be

Lorajay comments on Jun 12, 2020:

I hope the Juneteenth celebration in Tulsa is peaceful and well intended. I also hope they include a big voter registration drive-in their plans.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 15, 2020:

@Rich177 That's about the dumbest thing I've heard all year.

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

Rich177 comments on Jun 15, 2020:

The same thing can be said about people in robes and people flashing colored lights

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 15, 2020:

Yes on the cops, but I don't know what people in robes you're referring to.

Tulsa mayor said we are not shooting African Americans as much as we should be

Lorajay comments on Jun 12, 2020:

I hope the Juneteenth celebration in Tulsa is peaceful and well intended. I also hope they include a big voter registration drive-in their plans.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 15, 2020:

@Rich177 I think you mean elections have always gone on even under martial law.

Tulsa mayor said we are not shooting African Americans as much as we should be

Lorajay comments on Jun 12, 2020:

I hope the Juneteenth celebration in Tulsa is peaceful and well intended. I also hope they include a big voter registration drive-in their plans.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 15, 2020:

@Rich177 Says who? There are lots of things he's done that weren't supposed to "work like that".

Tulsa mayor said we are not shooting African Americans as much as we should be

MakeItGood comments on Jun 12, 2020:

Another moron mayor that needs to be voted out. How do these dum-dums get elected.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 15, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay and I agree on something.

Tulsa mayor said we are not shooting African Americans as much as we should be

Captain_Feelgood comments on Jun 13, 2020:

Context is everything people!! He was commenting on the statistics showing that the TPD get called in on many more crimes than the average city, and that according to the stats, if you compare them to other high crime areas, they should have had more people shot by a police officer than they did... ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 15, 2020:

You don't think it's fucked that anyone licensed to carry a gun doesn't have the opinion that no one should be getting shot??

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

TO_BY comments on Jun 13, 2020:

I'm not sure I understand what a 'religious moderate' is. You either believe or you don't in that faith. What is it I wonder that gets moderated ?

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 15, 2020:

@TO_BY While EVERYONE should describe themselves as agnostic regardless of their religious beliefs, I don't think that's quite the right way to define what we're taking about here. I think the phrase 'cafeteria Christian' or the red letter Christians would be more apt here if you've heard of those. It refers to being selective in what you adhere to and practice. While it doesn't call into question whether they believe overall, they don't, for instance, feel that they need to carry signs that say, "God hates fags" even though the Bible clearly shows that God does in fact hate them.

Atheists most politically active group in US, survey finds - The Christian Post

freedom41 comments on Jun 14, 2020:

That might proof that our numbers are rising faster and religious is dropping faster.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 14, 2020:

They were saying percent of... It would have no bearing on our population share.

Forty five years ago when I finally awoke from my Christian illusions I never dreamed I would ...

Barnie2years comments on Jun 14, 2020:

One of the biggest issues I see, time and time again, is the almost eerie fifty-fifty split on almost everything in the US population. From local elections to president. Be it abortion or legalized marijuana medical insurance or labor rights. The numbers are seldom more the than ten points apart ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 14, 2020:

@Barnie2years Of course not. The side in power, most likely the Republicans considering their penchant for shitting on the Constitution, will have the entire United States military at their disposal. A coalition of other countries couldn't even beat that, let alone an uprising of individuals.

Forty five years ago when I finally awoke from my Christian illusions I never dreamed I would ...

Barnie2years comments on Jun 14, 2020:

One of the biggest issues I see, time and time again, is the almost eerie fifty-fifty split on almost everything in the US population. From local elections to president. Be it abortion or legalized marijuana medical insurance or labor rights. The numbers are seldom more the than ten points apart ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 14, 2020:

Agreed. The American experiment has failed. We no longer live in a democracy.

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 12, 2020:

Another angle in disagreement: If we take your thesis as true and moderates ARE the biggest reason for extremism, then a solution is to not be a moderate. To not be moderate means to be extreme. Hence, a solution to moderates being the biggest reason people become extreme... is to be extreme ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 14, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay Again, you are ignoring the very obvious third option of abandoning the faith. And the fact that we're having this discussion on a website that was created by, and almost exclusively visited by, individuals that never have, or no longer adhere to religious beliefs is what makes me think that you're just being intentionally difficult. And if that makes me the bottom of the barrel, fine, but I do not believe I am in the minority in that opinion about you. I'd also like to point out that your characterization of my argument as "'the biggest part of the problem' in becoming extreme" is wholly inaccurate. I never stated or suggested religious moderates CAUSE extremism, I suggested they provide an environment for it to survive and thrive. Wait, is your assertion is that if every moderate became an extremist, it would mean the moderates couldn't be the biggest part of the problem because they wouldn't exist? If that is the case, I'm sorry something so nonsensical didn't occur to me, but to be fair, you could have made your point more clear when you realized there was a miscommunication. But if that is the case, I'll respond. 1. If every moderate member of a religion suddenly and universally adhered to the beliefs and actions of its most extreme members that would, in essence, make them the moderates. How extreme are you when potentially billions of people the world over (depending on which religion) all think and act exactly as you do? 2. The aim of this was an attempt to solve a problem many may not even know exists. The goal is that through awareness and self reflection we can reduce (or preferably eliminate) the existence of, or at minimum, participation by, religious moderates. Why would one posit a solution that is worse than the original problem? (Similarly, why would you expect others to both understand that's what you were doing and take you seriously?) That's like someone saying, "Homelessness is not normal. What can be done to solve this?" And your answer is, "We should burn down every single home." Then, when questioned, you say, "Well, you asked how to solve the problem of homelessness being abnoral, and the antonym of abnormal is normal. So in order to make homelessness normal the only possible solution is to burn down every home." It's clear, to almost everyone in the room, that the intent of the question is a) not about the semantics of normal vs abnormal b) about solving a problem not making it obsolete with an overshadowing worse problem. 3. Obviously, if there was a dramatic, instant, and universal shift of billions of individuals' views from the moderate to the most extreme among their respective religions, obviously our list of biggest problems would change. Obviously. Obviously, my thesis would be irrelevant and ...

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

p-nullifidian comments on Jun 12, 2020:

That moderates can create a safe space or provide top cover to the more extreme among them is a well-understood problem. But I am more concerned that these moderates are hypocrites. They’re what we might call, MINOs—moderates in name only. A true moderate would insist that the scriptures ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 13, 2020:

Yes, they could re-write it. They have written and eliminated whole books of the Bible in the past, not to mention there are countless different versions of the Bible. However, people already only follow that they want to follow, so there's not much of a point.

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

MissKathleen comments on Jun 12, 2020:

It IS a good point. I will redistribute this...with a different image.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 13, 2020:

@MissKathleen Can you provide a link?

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

TO_BY comments on Jun 13, 2020:

I'm not sure I understand what a 'religious moderate' is. You either believe or you don't in that faith. What is it I wonder that gets moderated ?

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 13, 2020:

The more temperate position one can hold about things in the religion. A moderate might say the stories in the Bible study an allegory that teaches a general way to live life and treat each other. An extremist might say the Bible is the literal word of God and we need to follow it exactly, and through this we know the Earth is 6,000 years old, God hates gays, and supports slavery.

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 12, 2020:

Another angle in disagreement: If we take your thesis as true and moderates ARE the biggest reason for extremism, then a solution is to not be a moderate. To not be moderate means to be extreme. Hence, a solution to moderates being the biggest reason people become extreme... is to be extreme ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 13, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay But you are assuming the individual is required to be adherent to the religion in some way, which is a completely false premise. This whole fucking website is evidence of that. So you ARE creating a false dichotomy by eliminating the other possibilities. Again, your own quote isn't even accurate. You said, "moderates being the biggest reason people become extreme". The part you quoted was part of your premise assuming my thesis was true. I waste so much time arguing nonsense and semantics with you, and you can't even quote yourself correctly. I think you are probably just trolling me.

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 12, 2020:

Another angle in disagreement: If we take your thesis as true and moderates ARE the biggest reason for extremism, then a solution is to not be a moderate. To not be moderate means to be extreme. Hence, a solution to moderates being the biggest reason people become extreme... is to be extreme ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 12, 2020:

Nope, it doesn't, because what you have done is create a fallacy of a false dichotomy. To not be a moderate person of religion X could very easily be a non-adherent to religion X. And not for nothing, but you also created a fallacious straw man fallacy. I didn't say moderates are the cause of extremism, I said they are the biggest part of the problem of why the extremists can survive and thrive. You should learn about fallacious arguments before you post. This is the third one you've posed in this thread alone.

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

Larry-new comments on Jun 11, 2020:

Indoctrinating children with lies is child abuse, for one. There's more.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 12, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay I don't see how that's ironic...

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

Larry-new comments on Jun 11, 2020:

Indoctrinating children with lies is child abuse, for one. There's more.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 12, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay Come on. You know we won't. 72% is this dumb ass country believes in angels and you think we are suggesting there's actual law labeling the teaching of even the most bat-shit crazy religious beliefs as child abuse.

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 11, 2020:

>>Without religious moderates, religious extremist groups would have no where to recruit members or obtain funding. << The presumes that the extremists are recruiting from the moderates and obtaining their funding from the moderates. But by the very nature of being moderate, they would neither be ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 12, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay On this point, we'll have to agree to disagree, as, unfortunately, we will never see the elimination of all religious moderates. It's pretty perplexing to me that you don't see how extremists of a fringe belief system aren't less dangerous/powerful/influential than those of a popular one. To me, the difference is as clear as a group that manages to kill a few people and have a Netflix show made about them 20 years later and a group that manages to fly planes into buildings.

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

MissKathleen comments on Jun 12, 2020:

It IS a good point. I will redistribute this...with a different image.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 12, 2020:

I would love it if this kind of info was shared with everyone. If Religious moderates were confronted with the fact that their donations were used to pay sexual abuse premiums and settlements for clergy that raped children, they would at least be forced to do it knowingly in the future or do the right thing and stop altogether.

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 11, 2020:

>>Without religious moderates, religious extremist groups would have no where to recruit members or obtain funding. << The presumes that the extremists are recruiting from the moderates and obtaining their funding from the moderates. But by the very nature of being moderate, they would neither be ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 12, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay Umm, did you mean to post a different article? The one you linked seems to support my argument not yours. ”As anthropologist Scott Atran notes, drawing on his long experience of studying these killers, most are ordinary people. What turns someone into a fanatic, Atran explained in his 2010 book Talking to the Enemy, “is not some inherent personality defect but the person-changing dynamic of the group” TO WHICH HE OR SHE BELONGS." (Emphasis mine). This is the exact opposite of what you suggested. You stated people would become religious extremists from outside the religion. This, too, from your linked article supports my claim, not yours: "If you can provoke enough non-Muslims to treat all Muslims with fear and hostility, then those Muslims who previously shunned conflict may begin to feel marginalized and heed the call of the more radical voices among them." The second reply with info from the FBI refers to extremists in general (I'm assuming like mass shooters in schools and theaters) and not specifically RELIGIOUS extremists. But if they did have a specificity to their extremism, I believe you'd be hard pressed to find one that wasn't at one time a moderate in that same group.

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 11, 2020:

>>Without religious moderates, religious extremist groups would have no where to recruit members or obtain funding. << The presumes that the extremists are recruiting from the moderates and obtaining their funding from the moderates. But by the very nature of being moderate, they would neither be ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 12, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay It's really fucked up. Could you imagine being the one in charge of buying the policy? How dirty would you feel? "Cards on the table, you and I both know the people I work with are gonna rape some kids sooner or later. I mean, probably sooner. And later. And probably a lot. Like, lots and lots of raped children. And, ya know, we'll probably cover it up for a while and move the really prolific child rapists around to protect them from prosecution as long as we can, which, of course, is gonna result in even more raped children. So what do you have in the way of a really comprehensive policy that will end up paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to our victims. Don't worry about the premiums, we'll get the money to pay them from the parents of the children we're going to rape. Yeah, hilarious right? No. They just give it to us. Nah, we don't even really have to ask for it, we just put a basket in front of them and they give us money. Like tons of money. I get a warm fuzzy inside when we send an extra box of collection envelopes to the homes of our parishioners in their children's names. Well, yeah, the same ones we rape. Anyway, the patents end up putting more of their money in the kids' envelopes and actually make them physically hand money over to the group that's abusing them that we then use to protect ourselves from the parents. It's about the best, most vile business plan ever. So what'll that run us a month?"

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

Larry-new comments on Jun 11, 2020:

Indoctrinating children with lies is child abuse, for one. There's more.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 12, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay Indoctrination can truly hurt the children and to say only physical abuse is "real" abuse is nothing more than a No True Scotsman fallacy. Tell me Westboro kids weren't seriously fucked up by that.

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 11, 2020:

>>Without religious moderates, religious extremist groups would have no where to recruit members or obtain funding. << The presumes that the extremists are recruiting from the moderates and obtaining their funding from the moderates. But by the very nature of being moderate, they would neither be ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 12, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay I find that scenario far less plausible. Someone who doesn't believe in a religion at all suddenly believes 100% and can be convinced to strap a bomb to their chest or murder an abortion doctor? I guess it's possible it could happen, I just don't see that as the major route to membership. I DO know that my tax dollars are used to do terrible shit, and I am ashamed of it. If I didn't know, it wouldn't change the fact that they were. The major difference is once I know what do I do with the information? Do I protest, try to educate people about it, campaign for his opponent, etc. Or do I remain silent and complicit and say, well, I don't really agree with the way he XYZ, but my portfolio looks good so...

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 11, 2020:

>>Without religious moderates, religious extremist groups would have no where to recruit members or obtain funding. << The presumes that the extremists are recruiting from the moderates and obtaining their funding from the moderates. But by the very nature of being moderate, they would neither be ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 12, 2020:

@TheMiddleWay What?! Dude, you are sorely mistaken. There absolutely is sexual abuse insurance and it was covered in stories about several lawsuits that were settled by archdiocese in major cities. (And people who put money in collection plates absolutely pay the premiums for it.) Here's an excerpt from one such story: "The Los Angeles archdiocese, its insurers and various Roman Catholic orders have paid more than $114 million to settle 86 claims so far. The largest of those came in December, when the archdiocese reached a $60 million settlement with 45 people whose claims dated from before the mid-1950s and after 1987 — periods when it had little or no sexual abuse insurance." http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19762878/ns/us_news-life/t/la-archdiocese-settle-suits-million/

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

MarkWD comments on Jun 12, 2020:

"Compare the "crazy" beliefs of the marginalized with those of the religious. How different are they, really?" Have you had any success promoting this conspiracy theory, that your average religious practitioner is only in it to provide safe haven for those willing to strap on the explosives? To ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 12, 2020:

In no way did I suggest that they are doing it knowingly.

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

indirect76 comments on Jun 11, 2020:

I respect your point of view. However I still think the problem is the extremists not the moderates.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 11, 2020:

Extremists are terrible, for sure. But what if they were just that, extremists that no one paid any attention to? How menacing are the tin foil hat wearing people from major cities you don't live in to you? Not at all.

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

Mofo1953 comments on Jun 11, 2020:

You should actualize the photo, that Pope left on February 2013.

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 11, 2020:

Yeah, my bad. The current Pope doesn't wear anything ridiculous on his head. (FYI: The original photo was from when I first wrote this.)

I've heard a lot over the years about how religious moderates aren't hurting anyone and that they ...

TheMiddleWay comments on Jun 11, 2020:

>>Without religious moderates, religious extremist groups would have no where to recruit members or obtain funding. << The presumes that the extremists are recruiting from the moderates and obtaining their funding from the moderates. But by the very nature of being moderate, they would neither be ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jun 11, 2020:

It is a near necessity that extremists of religion X were moderates of religion X before being radicalized. How exactly would you think a member of a religion (or no religion) would become an extremist of a religion whose tenets of faith they didn't believe? The same is true of funding. Save for illegal sources of income like drug and arms sales, funding would invariably be funneled from more moderate sources of the same religion. (Much in the way donations to the collection plate on Sunday and funds from Catholic school fundraisers makes its way to the coffers that pays for archdiocese's sexual abuse insurance, or settle lawsuits resulting from the rape of children. Do you think those moderates are aware they are contributing to horrific shit like that? Does not knowing change the fact that they are?).

The manner in which most people use the term "atheist" is unfortunate, because such usage suggests a...

Fernapple comments on Nov 23, 2019:

The two types of atheist are sometimes called 'hard' and 'soft' atheists. True hard atheists are rare, but it is a common straw man argument used by theists, to suggest that all atheists are of that type.

ChestRockfield replies on Nov 24, 2019:

@Paul4747 If you're speaking of strictly suicide bombers, sure, but that was just one over-the-top example. It's hard for me to imagine that people who vote against their own best interests so that they could vote for things that align with their religious beliefs, people who picket abortion clinics, people who allow their children near Catholic priests, people who learn to speak in tongues, people who let their family members die rather than accept blood transfusions, and, most importantly, people who refuse to eat something as delicious as bacon smells because they think they'll go to hell for it aren't true believers. And those are just a few examples off the top of my head. I'm actually kind of shocked that you think the true believers are in the minority.

The manner in which most people use the term "atheist" is unfortunate, because such usage suggests a...

Fernapple comments on Nov 23, 2019:

The two types of atheist are sometimes called 'hard' and 'soft' atheists. True hard atheists are rare, but it is a common straw man argument used by theists, to suggest that all atheists are of that type.

ChestRockfield replies on Nov 24, 2019:

@Paul4747 I'm going to have to disagree with this. There may be some theists that have doubts (otherwise where would all of the former Catholic-turned-atheists come from), but people willing to blow themselves up for their God don't strike me as merely hopeful.