Bigoted Organization "Chic-Fil-A" infiltrates facebook

[Nola_Lifer]

That's the problem. God picks and chooses when to allow things to happen and when to rain fire and plagues and all sorts of death upon firstborns. What explains this without removing all sorts of credibility from the words?

Similarly, people pick and choose when to follow words literally and when they can openly interpret them or even outright ignore them and do the opposite thing. What explains this without removing all sorts of credibility from the words?

Same people pick and chose what freedoms are granted and not granted. "Hey, you can't have those freedoms they are just your opinion!" "But hey, I'll enjoy these freedoms over here that benefit just me."

[heavycola]

I thought there was a separation between state and church? How come the ones who scream the loudest for freedom and rights are the ones screaming that gay people can't get married?

Listen: the bible is absolutely clear on this. Gay people are going to hell. So are rich people, because they can't get into heaven, except for me of course because what jesus really meant was some wishy-washy bullshit that doesn't apply to me. I'm not rich - i mean i live in a nice house and have a car and an xbox and central heating and aircon and generally want for nothing, so I guess compared to 90% of the world's population i'm as rich as Croesus, but the bible is very clear on this.

Basically it's all about obeying the word of god. The bible is very clear on this. Ignore all the fiddly stuff, like the entire old testament (except the bits about gays and the ten commandments, but definitely not the murder and rape and genocide bits, unless you're making a point), giving all your money away and not judging people, and instead cherrypick the bits that best suit your own fears and prejudices. Thats what jesus meant. The bible is very, very clear about this. Take it to heart - take it literally - just don't take all of it. That's the beauty of the bible. I've been using it for years to justify keeping trafficked Albanians in my cellar as slaves. It's really a remarkable book.

[GreecePwns]

That's the problem. God picks and chooses when to allow things to happen and when to rain fire and plagues and all sorts of death upon firstborns. What explains this without removing all sorts of credibility from the words?

Similarly, people pick and choose when to follow words literally and when they can openly interpret them or even outright ignore them and do the opposite thing. What explains this without removing all sorts of credibility from the words?

Same people pick and chose what freedoms are granted and not granted. "Hey, you can't have those freedoms they are just your opinion!" "But hey, I'll enjoy these freedoms over here that benefit just me."

These things should be decided upon and agreed upon by a society of any number of individuals willing to associate themselves with each other. In order to have any sort of credibility, a person must agree to a set of freedoms, rights and responsibilities to his or her community. Contract law applies here.

In other words, the current way freedoms are allocated (forcably taking taxes and putting responsibilities on you in exchange for certain rights and freedoms, neither of which you agreed to) is not credible, nor am I defending that.

[kentington]

I thought there was a separation between state and church? How come the ones who scream the loudest for freedom and rights are the ones screaming that gay people can't get married?

Listen: the bible is absolutely clear on this. Gay people are going to hell. So are rich people, because they can't get into heaven, except for me of course because what jesus really meant was some wishy-washy bullshit that doesn't apply to me. I'm not rich - i mean i live in a nice house and have a car and an xbox and central heating and aircon and generally want for nothing, so I guess compared to 90% of the world's population i'm as rich as Croesus, but the bible is very clear on this.

Ha, that's pretty funny. I don't live in a nice house. I live in an apartment where things are falling apart. The stove only has one burner that works. The carpet is over 13 years old. I have to do the plumbing myself or any other fixes. Because we literally cannot afford the rent to go up at all. We have heating but can't afford to use it, and we haven't since we moved in. We don't have any debt, but we also don't have any savings. So what do you want me to sell? My used couch that goodwill wouldn't take? Believe me they wont, if the feet are missing from the couch and there are any tears in it, they wont take it.
Yep, I do have food though. I do have a computer because I need it for work. I do have an older tv, but that was a gift. You act like I am shirking a duty so that I can live in luxury. Is the problem because I pay rent to live in an apartment so my kids aren't sleeping on the streets? Jesus stayed in peoples homes that would accept him. Good luck trying to do that today with a family.

[jay_a2j]

What is it with these religious types?

Why do they act so arbitrarily in regard to appealing to the authority of the Bible?

"Gays can't marry! It's a sin"

'Well, what about those rules on adultery, divorce, and living the life of a hobo?"

[absolute silence] or (edit: repeat old argument, derp).


These guys have nothing to stand on. Their arguments are such crap. They use a logical fallacy (appeal to authority), and even if it's taken as true, the appeal to authority argument is based purely on arbitrary reasons--as has been shown. Otherwise, these religious types would be "loving others as Jesus has loved others," or "stoning women for having sex before marriage," or "committing the gravest sin for getting a divorce," etc. etc.

I would say this is nonsense, but it isn't from their perspective. They do this because it's a lazy way of justifying one's hatred or fear of the unknown. It's outright bigotry, in a bad way. That's the only reason that explains that underlying motives here because obviously they can't rely on logic and good reasons (for they have failed on both accounts).

Adultery, ANY sex outside of marriage, lying, cheating, etc. are ALL sin. Who here (or anywhere) is condemning homosexuality and promoting any of these other things????? The subject of this thread is about homosexuality. If you would like to talk about divorce, adultery etc. start a thread..... I'm sure the same peeps in here calling homosexuality a sin will do likewise in those threads.

[jonesthecurl]

The lying of the wondrous Christian Chick-Fil-A people has been pointed out several times in this thread already.
The CEO didn't call THAT "Shaking your fist at God".

[crispybits]

Adultery, ANY sex outside of marriage, lying, cheating, etc. are ALL sin. Who here (or anywhere) is condemning homosexuality and promoting any of these other things????? The subject of this thread is about homosexuality. If you would like to talk about divorce, adultery etc. start a thread..... I'm sure the same peeps in here calling homosexuality a sin will do likewise in those threads.

The problem (at least as far as I see it) isn't that the ones calling for no same sex marriage are promoting those things, it is that they are using, or more precisely cherry-picking bits of, scripture to make their point somehow have more authority than just the opinion of one man/woman, and elevate it to the Word of God. These people however are not advocating taking the other bits of that book of the bible, let alone the bible as a whole, as literally as they take the bit that suits them for this argument.

If you choose to live your life by biblical scripture, you have NO right to deem that certain sections apply and others don't. If you decide that homosexuality is a sin, then you must also accept that having your hair cut is a sin, and eating pork or shellfish is a sin, and that anyone who swears at their parents or utters the name of Jesus in vain must be killed. You must accept that you will never be able to sit down on public transportation again, or in a restaurant, or in any other public arena, because if a menstruating woman has sat there in the last week that will make you unclean, and that if you have any sort of emergency on the sabbath then dialling 911 will let you put a message on an answerphone for them to respond to the next morning. Strangely you must also keep slaves and love all men and treat them as you would wish to be treated, good luck with that balancing act...

If (as most christans do) you decide that most of the bible (particularly the blood-soaked and violently oppressive old testament) is meant as more of a guide rather than a strict, hard-and-fast rulebook, and the importance of the lessons within it must be applied to modern society with common sense and rational, considered interpretation about the spirit and intended meaning of the lessons contained within (basically summing up the majority of the job description of all priests there, if the Word is literal there is no need for them except as evangelists), then you cannot use scripture to support banning or prohibiting anything. You can use it as a guide to say "well, I think this is probably against those teachings so I believe God would want me to oppose it", but then you have to go to other avenues to find justification for enforcing or opposing societal change. Sociological, humanstically ethical, medical or any other rational avenues. Once you demote the word of God to guidelines, then He loses His power over societal law.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Word of God is literal truth, and should be enforced, in which case it's the whole 9 yards, or guidelines, in which case make your argument with something other than scripture. You decide.

Edit - seems Chick-Fil-A aren't sure about this themselves, as they serve pork products on their menu. Surely a CEO who believes in the literal Word of God as expressed through Leviticus wouldn't profit from enabling his customers to sin?

[jay_a2j]

Adultery, ANY sex outside of marriage, lying, cheating, etc. are ALL sin. Who here (or anywhere) is condemning homosexuality and promoting any of these other things????? The subject of this thread is about homosexuality. If you would like to talk about divorce, adultery etc. start a thread..... I'm sure the same peeps in here calling homosexuality a sin will do likewise in those threads.

The problem (at least as far as I see it) isn't that the ones calling for no same sex marriage are promoting those things, it is that they are using, or more precisely cherry-picking bits of, scripture to make their point somehow have more authority than just the opinion of one man/woman, and elevate it to the Word of God. These people however are not advocating taking the other bits of that book of the bible, let alone the bible as a whole, as literally as they take the bit that suits them for this argument.

If you choose to live your life by biblical scripture, you have NO right to deem that certain sections apply and others don't. If you decide that homosexuality is a sin, then you must also accept that having your hair cut is a sin, and eating pork or shellfish is a sin, and that anyone who swears at their parents or utters the name of Jesus in vain must be killed. You must accept that you will never be able to sit down on public transportation again, or in a restaurant, or in any other public arena, because if a menstruating woman has sat there in the last week that will make you unclean, and that if you have any sort of emergency on the sabbath then dialling 911 will let you put a message on an answerphone for them to respond to the next morning. Strangely you must also keep slaves and love all men and treat them as you would wish to be treated, good luck with that balancing act...

If (as most christans do) you decide that most of the bible (particularly the blood-soaked and violently oppressive old testament) is meant as more of a guide rather than a strict, hard-and-fast rulebook, and the importance of the lessons within it must be applied to modern society with common sense and rational, considered interpretation about the spirit and intended meaning of the lessons contained within (basically summing up the majority of the job description of all priests there, if the Word is literal there is no need for them except as evangelists), then you cannot use scripture to support banning or prohibiting anything. You can use it as a guide to say "well, I think this is probably against those teachings so I believe God would want me to oppose it", but then you have to go to other avenues to find justification for enforcing or opposing societal change. Sociological, humanstically ethical, medical or any other rational avenues. Once you demote the word of God to guidelines, then He loses His power over societal law.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Word of God is literal truth, and should be enforced, in which case it's the whole 9 yards, or guidelines, in which case make your argument with something other than scripture. You decide.

Edit - seems Chick-Fil-A aren't sure about this themselves, as they serve pork products on their menu. Surely a CEO who believes in the literal Word of God as expressed through Leviticus wouldn't profit from ennabling his customers to sin?

You just demonstrated that you lack knowledge of scripture. No biggie, as many people read scripture and assume things about its meaning. OT laws DO NOT APPLY since Christ came IF they were changed because of Christ! So slave ownership, clean and unclean animals, cutting you hair etc. are no longer in effect. The OT is the history of the Jews and the laws God gave them to govern them, but when Christ came these laws changed. It's not "cherry picking", you just have to know and understand the ENTIRETY of scripture. And as the hundreds of Christian denominations prove, this can be difficult for even Christians. As I mentioned before, anything that is disobedient to God is sin. Homosexuality is just one sin of MANY.

[Woodruff]

Oddly enough, the 10 commandments does not list every sin. Homosexuality is sin. Spin it anyway you wish, but sin is sin. Sin is not defined as something which harms other people but rather sin is disobedience to God. God has said, homosexuality is "detestable" to him. I'm not going to argue with him.

Interestingly, I couldn't find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus states that homosexuality is detestable (I'm not necessarily asking for that specific word, just the general idea). Could you point it out for me?

Jesus himself specifically affirmed that marriage is only between one man and one woman, so I don't think any Christian has any grounds to deny that.

Could you point me to that section, please? I'm not at all saying it doesn't exist (it's been a while since I've been in the Bible), but I'm curious as to the context.

Matthew 19:1-12 (specifically 4-6).

Thanks, I appreciate it (seriously). Now...why is it that there is so much railing against homosexuality, when there is not similar railing against divorce (other than the excused adultery reason)? Why is it that the desire is to keep homosexual marriage illegal when there is no move to make divorce illegal (other than the excused adultery reason)?

He also spoke out against all sinful actions being an affront to God and spoke about any sexual acts outside of marriage being immoral, so obviously homosexual relations would be included in that.

Ah, the old "we're not going to let you marry, but it's sinful for you to have sex outside of marriage" argument. That actually makes sense to you?

Why wouldn't it? The Bible clearly defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman and clearly defines sexual immorality of relationships or actions outside that marriage union. Therefore, homosexual actions would clearly fall outside the Bible's definition of what is sexually moral.

So God creates homosexuals, yet God punishes homosexuals simply for being homosexual. That makes sense?

[Night Strike]

I thought there was a separation between state and church? How come the ones who scream the loudest for freedom and rights are the ones screaming that gay people can't get married?

Actually, there is no such Constitutional principle of separation between church and state. Some people have just tried to reword the first amendment to include it.

Thanks, I appreciate it (seriously). Now...why is it that there is so much railing against homosexuality, when there is not similar railing against divorce (other than the excused adultery reason)? Why is it that the desire is to keep homosexual marriage illegal when there is no move to make divorce illegal (other than the excused adultery reason)?

Probably because Christians have already lost the divorce battle in society, and because there are too many Christians who are just as sinful in getting no-fault divorces as the general society.

So God creates homosexuals, yet God punishes homosexuals simply for being homosexual. That makes sense?

There are indications that some people are more susceptible to substance addictions and similar things due to genetics, yet those people are treated the same way in the Bible. No matter what our natural inclinations are or are not, God still calls us to reject sinful desires and live a holy life. The whole point is that we live in a sinful, fallen world where sin has corrupted the natural order of life that God created. God didn't create sinful beings: the sinful nature of the world has caused us to be imperfect. And God considers all sexual immorality the same, whether it's homosexual or heterosexual. The only acceptable sexual relationship to God is between one man and one woman under the covenant of marriage.

[Army of GOD]

wasn't it Jefferson who first mentioned in a letter there should be a separation between Church and state?

And don't you Republicans have like a boner for Jefferson?

[kentington]

wasn't it Jefferson who first mentioned in a letter there should be a separation between Church and state?

And don't you Republicans have like a boner for Jefferson?

Wasn't Jefferson the guy who mentioned slavery was bad yet continued to own them?

[Symmetry]

wasn't it Jefferson who first mentioned in a letter there should be a separation between Church and state?

And don't you Republicans have like a boner for Jefferson?

Wasn't Jefferson the guy who mentioned slavery was bad yet continued to own them?

Seems like the guy made two good suggestions, no?

[BigBallinStalin]

What is it with these religious types?

Why do they act so arbitrarily in regard to appealing to the authority of the Bible?

"Gays can't marry! It's a sin"

'Well, what about those rules on adultery, divorce, and living the life of a hobo?"

[absolute silence] or (edit: repeat old argument, derp).


These guys have nothing to stand on. Their arguments are such crap. They use a logical fallacy (appeal to authority), and even if it's taken as true, the appeal to authority argument is based purely on arbitrary reasons--as has been shown. Otherwise, these religious types would be "loving others as Jesus has loved others," or "stoning women for having sex before marriage," or "committing the gravest sin for getting a divorce," etc. etc.

I would say this is nonsense, but it isn't from their perspective. They do this because it's a lazy way of justifying one's hatred or fear of the unknown. It's outright bigotry, in a bad way. That's the only reason that explains that underlying motives here because obviously they can't rely on logic and good reasons (for they have failed on both accounts).

Adultery, ANY sex outside of marriage, lying, cheating, etc. are ALL sin. Who here (or anywhere) is condemning homosexuality and promoting any of these other things????? The subject of this thread is about homosexuality. If you would like to talk about divorce, adultery etc. start a thread..... I'm sure the same peeps in here calling homosexuality a sin will do likewise in those threads.

STONE THEM TO DEATH!

PURGE THE INFIDELS!

Oh, but love one another as Jesus has loved you.

And become a hobo!

[crispybits]

Right - only NT then, gotcha (we'll forget the bit where Jesus said explicitly that he had not come to overturn any of the old rules, but merely to clarify them, and that they all stood)

How about:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

God is the one true and final judge, not man, therefore who are any men to decide that one group should not be allowed to enjoy the same secular civil rights as another group? Surely they should voice their disapproval and belief that this is against scripture but take no action to actually try and prevent it?

And regardless of that, god forbids homosexuality. Do you think that people are heterosexual right up until the time they have the civil ceremony, then suddenly turn gay? The sin is already committed by that time. There is no difference in scripture between a gay couple living together and sleeping together before any civil union and afterwards. The civil union is a secular way for those two homosexuals to publicly affirm their mutual love and commitment to each other and has no basis on or bearing on religion. Why tolerate the fact that they are allowed to live in sin outside of a secular civil union and then oppose them living in sin in a secular civil union? Shouldn't all christian groups be fighting to make homosexuality illegal? Or is this along the lines of:

"Probably because Christians have already lost the divorce battle in society"

Yeah so once a battle is lost you should stop fighting. Guess what you've ALREADY lost the battle against homosexuality. It's a part of society that isn't going away.

[Night Strike]

wasn't it Jefferson who first mentioned in a letter there should be a separation between Church and state?

And don't you Republicans have like a boner for Jefferson?

It was one phrase out of an entire letter, where the entire rest of the letter is completely ignored. Heck, pretty much every other single thing Jefferson stated about the federal government has been ignored by big-government promoters except for this one phrase. And nevertheless, it was clearly a letter, not the Constitution.

[Symmetry]

wasn't it Jefferson who first mentioned in a letter there should be a separation between Church and state?

And don't you Republicans have like a boner for Jefferson?

It was one phrase out of an entire letter, where the entire rest of the letter is completely ignored. Heck, pretty much every other single thing Jefferson stated about the federal government has been ignored by big-government promoters except for this one phrase. And nevertheless, it was clearly a letter, not the Constitution.

So you believe in the unification of church and state?

[BigBallinStalin]

Why take seriously a religion that advocates for policies which discriminate against gays? How is that in line with the teachings of Jesus? Should such a religion, or that segment of that religion, merely be discarded for being absurd and bigoted?

Furthermore, we have several holy books with holy laws given by some holy dude (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.). So, Christianity advocates for such bigoted policies, yet there are other religions with different rules with equally possible Holy Dudes. So, why not opt for the other religions? Their claims on Holy Dudeness are just as likely because each uses the same means of logical support (appeal to authority + circular reasoning).

Could it be that the Old and/or New Testament "got many/some things wrong"? Perhaps, it's time to reconsider changing to a more sensible and less bigoted religion?

[patches70]

What is it with these religious types?

Why do they act so arbitrarily in regard to appealing to the authority of the Bible?

"Gays can't marry! It's a sin"

'Well, what about those rules on adultery, divorce, and living the life of a hobo?"

[absolute silence] or (edit: repeat old argument, derp).


These guys have nothing to stand on. Their arguments are such crap. They use a logical fallacy (appeal to authority), and even if it's taken as true, the appeal to authority argument is based purely on arbitrary reasons--as has been shown. Otherwise, these religious types would be "loving others as Jesus has loved others," or "stoning women for having sex before marriage," or "committing the gravest sin for getting a divorce," etc. etc.

I would say this is nonsense, but it isn't from their perspective. They do this because it's a lazy way of justifying one's hatred or fear of the unknown. It's outright bigotry, in a bad way. That's the only reason that explains that underlying motives here because obviously they can't rely on logic and good reasons (for they have failed on both accounts).

I think, Jesus would make quite clear to you, BBS, in terms you can understand well.

One does not need the State to punish adultery, divorce and all the other things, one reaps the "rewards" of such behavior in due time in the normal course of their life through failed relationships, depression, sickness and many other consequences of living life by making unwise choices.

Having the State or the Church or "authority" lashing one all the while is just kicking an already dying horse. A little bit of insult to injure as it were.

By all means, live the life of debauchery, hedonism. It's not without a price. As with everything in life, there is always a price that also includes trade offs. Or even letting the State or Church or "authority" condone and allow such behavior, it does not alter the price in any way. We each pay the price for the way we live our lives. One should choose wisely.....

[Night Strike]

wasn't it Jefferson who first mentioned in a letter there should be a separation between Church and state?

And don't you Republicans have like a boner for Jefferson?

It was one phrase out of an entire letter, where the entire rest of the letter is completely ignored. Heck, pretty much every other single thing Jefferson stated about the federal government has been ignored by big-government promoters except for this one phrase. And nevertheless, it was clearly a letter, not the Constitution.

So you believe in the unification of church and state?

No.

[Symmetry]

wasn't it Jefferson who first mentioned in a letter there should be a separation between Church and state?

And don't you Republicans have like a boner for Jefferson?

It was one phrase out of an entire letter, where the entire rest of the letter is completely ignored. Heck, pretty much every other single thing Jefferson stated about the federal government has been ignored by big-government promoters except for this one phrase. And nevertheless, it was clearly a letter, not the Constitution.

So you believe in the unification of church and state?

No.

But you're not a fan of Jefferson saying that they should be separate?

[Night Strike]

wasn't it Jefferson who first mentioned in a letter there should be a separation between Church and state?

And don't you Republicans have like a boner for Jefferson?

It was one phrase out of an entire letter, where the entire rest of the letter is completely ignored. Heck, pretty much every other single thing Jefferson stated about the federal government has been ignored by big-government promoters except for this one phrase. And nevertheless, it was clearly a letter, not the Constitution.

So you believe in the unification of church and state?

No.

But you're not a fan of Jefferson saying that they should be separate?

Considering that Jefferson's words have been twisted into saying that nothing in public can even have any hint of religion tied to: yes, I'm opposed to that interpretation.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think, Jesus would make quite clear to you, BBS, in terms you can understand well.

One does not need the State to punish adultery, divorce and all the other things, one reaps the "rewards" of such behavior in due time in the normal course of their life through failed relationships, depression, sickness and many other consequences of living life by making unwise choices.

Having the State or the Church or "authority" lashing one all the while is just kicking an already dying horse. A little bit of insult to injure as it were.

By all means, live the life of debauchery, hedonism. It's not without a price. As with everything in life, there is always a price that also includes trade offs. Or even letting the State or Church or "authority" condone and allow such behavior, it does not alter the price in any way. We each pay the price for the way we live our lives. One should choose wisely.....

If you're trying to say, "don't be a dick without good reason; otherwise, suffer (or gain) from the consequences," then I'd mostly agree to that.

(rereads...) (haha)

Ohh, is your second paragraph talking about karma? Sorry, I don't buy it. Bad people do terrible things to people and get away with it all the time. Look at what governments, and their politicians and bureaucrats, do to people. Politicians get away with plenty of long-term consequences because they can easily cast away the blame, voters have short attention spans, the monopolized courts are not objective, etc. Not only that, they involuntarily extract people's wealth without their direct consent. Even implied consent is a joke when the arguments of political "accountability" via voting and "leave if you don't like it, but I don't care about your property rights" are factored in.

I used to believe in karma until I learned about cognitive bias (confirmation bias especially) and the necessity for empirical evidence. Granted, I have not conducted such an extensive study, but if one is pushing for karma, then the burden of proof lies with them. I'll admit that my evidence is based on personal observation, but to me it's strong enough to discard the absolutely zero evidence in favor of karma--much of which is rejected after factoring in confirmation bias.

[crispybits]

wasn't it Jefferson who first mentioned in a letter there should be a separation between Church and state?

And don't you Republicans have like a boner for Jefferson?

It was one phrase out of an entire letter, where the entire rest of the letter is completely ignored. Heck, pretty much every other single thing Jefferson stated about the federal government has been ignored by big-government promoters except for this one phrase. And nevertheless, it was clearly a letter, not the Constitution.

So you believe in the unification of church and state?

No.

But you're not a fan of Jefferson saying that they should be separate?

Considering that Jefferson's words have been twisted into saying that nothing in public can even have any hint of religion tied to: yes, I'm opposed to that interpretation.

Sorry for hijacking this but I'm curious

If I could snap my fingers tomorrow and make a state with the perfectly implented and uncorruptable ideals that "church and state are completely separate and neither shall have any influence over the other" (and all other factors are identical) would you move there?

[rdsrds2120]

I think, Jesus would make quite clear to you, BBS, in terms you can understand well.

One does not need the State to punish adultery, divorce and all the other things, one reaps the "rewards" of such behavior in due time in the normal course of their life through failed relationships, depression, sickness and many other consequences of living life by making unwise choices.

Having the State or the Church or "authority" lashing one all the while is just kicking an already dying horse. A little bit of insult to injure as it were.

By all means, live the life of debauchery, hedonism. It's not without a price. As with everything in life, there is always a price that also includes trade offs. Or even letting the State or Church or "authority" condone and allow such behavior, it does not alter the price in any way. We each pay the price for the way we live our lives. One should choose wisely.....

If you're trying to say, "don't be a dick without good reason; otherwise, suffer (or gain) from the consequences," then I'd mostly agree to that.

(rereads...) (haha)

Ohh, is your second paragraph talking about karma? Sorry, I don't buy it. Bad people do terrible things to people and get away with it all the time. Look at what governments, and their politicians and bureaucrats, do to people. Politicians get away with plenty of long-term consequences because they can easily cast away the blame, voters have short attention spans, the monopolized courts are not objective, etc. Not only that, they involuntarily extract people's wealth without their direct consent. Even implied consent is a joke when the arguments of political "accountability" via voting and "leave if you don't like it, but I don't care about your property rights" are factored in.

I used to believe in karma until I learned about cognitive bias (confirmation bias especially) and the necessity for empirical evidence. Granted, I have not conducted such an extensive study, but if one is pushing for karma, then the burden of proof lies with them. I'll admit that my evidence is based on personal observation, but to me it's strong enough to discard the absolutely zero evidence in favor of karma--much of which is rejected after factoring in confirmation bias.

Karma doesn't make sense to me, either.

Consider the following: A newborn child dies in a house fire. Tragic, yes, but for the sake of the karma argument, what had the infant done to receive such a harsh punishment? If the external environment suits directly affects you based on your actions, then wouldn't that imply that morality is some kind of zero-sum game?

-rd