Christians almost always seem to be more pleasant than other atheists.Honestly, most Christians assume that you are Christian, and if you reveal this to not be the case or they find out somehow, it's kind of a crapshoot if they are still the same way toward you or not.
As for the left, they may call themselves atheist, but they are not. They think they are because they are not Christian, but they still worship abstract authority over themselves which they don't really understand.
It's no different from most criticism of Communism, in that it's about the failure modes particular to it. The bloodbaths of the Protestant Reformation were long before rejection of Christianity, being as how they were entirely about trying to fix it, and it just so happens that Utopian thinking abounded then just as it did for the later bloodshed you blame Atheism alone for.
Again, "Atheism" is a term describing views not held, not views that are held. Such does not exist just as "fundamental monotheist virtues" do not, in both cases they cover radically different sets of beliefs. You may as well be complaining that Monotheism is unworkable because Christians and Muslims have an extremely long history of murdering eachother over "irrelevant" differences, and there's less distance between those than some of the atheist ideologies!
I know this might count a double posting but I would like to add : also political orientation.
Oh, I've nothing against Christians on the whole (unless they're the batshit kind and Evangelicals) -- where I live in the UK is traditionally a Christian area, after all.
And this is an example of the problem: people can be shitty with or without religion being involved or being used as a justification/excuse/cause. People are shitty with or without religion as a compass, and people can be shitty and do horrific things both in the name of religion and in the absence of it (e.g. Communism).
1.Burned codex,but saved people,who keep their lands till Mexican masons supported by USA take it.
You're both assuming an argument on my part, and ignoring my point.
There were hundreds to thousands of times the people governed, far more centralized governments to be wielded against said people, vastly more effective means of killing, and society could maintain the bare essentials with a smaller portion. And again, the reasoning behind it follows from Christian totalizing morality and Utopianism. The features of the ideologies in question responsible for the genocides of the 20th century are all able to be found within Catholicism.
Literally backwards, the genocides happened due to absolute refusal of personal preference. This is what I refer to with "totalizing", both Christianity and the successor Utopian Atheist ideologies you're complaining about demand to be the only moral framework. None of them are functional with competition. What moral relativism did was put the keys on auction, bought with the lives of dissidents.
Didn't seem to be a problem for all the Pagan societies that frequently deified rulers, the Roman Empire included. It's almost like the problem is the notion that a singular unquestionable moral authority that needs followed on all matters is acceptable. Certainly, the atheist societies dominated by actually leaving morality to personal preference don't seem to have genocides, it's only when demagogues get that to stop being the case that they crop up.
When the options are "conversion or damnation", it becomes imperative to be rid of as much pressure against the former as possible, which inevitably lands on killing off those who refuse to convert so they cannot lead others astray. Every single bloodbath of the Protestant Reformation and every brutality in the interest of conversion was well-justified by this, even if it wasn't in keeping with doctrine, because it's too incredibly blatant a logical conclusion to prevent.
Well perhaps that, but more likely a lot of the issue is that isolating for two years and not being exposed to anything really weakens the immune system, and leads to a pretty bad cold/flu season. Everyone's kids are getting sick constantly, regardless of vaccine status. A lot of my parent friends are saying this. Well, no shit. It's almost like some of us called this out years ago.
Remember you are the carbon they wish to reduce.
brownstone.org
The CDC's information page on Covid-19 vaccines contains the following bullet points on "How mRNA COVID-19 vaccines work:"
First, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are given in the upper arm muscle or upper thigh, depending on the age of who is getting vaccinated.
After vaccination, the mRNA will enter the muscle cells. Once inside, they use the cells' machinery to produce a harmless piece of what is called the spike protein…. After the protein piece is made, our cells break down the mRNA and remove it, leaving the body as waste.
Or, in other words, as we have long been told, "it" – the mRNA – "stays in the arm." And then, after having instructed the muscle cells to produce the spike, is disposed of.
But look at the below picture from a recent presentation on mRNA vaccination at the European Parliament. The picture was posted on Twitter by Virginie Joron, a French member of the parliament. The speaker is no less an authority than Özlem Türeci, the Chief Medical Officer of BioNTech: the German biotech company that developed what has come to be known to most of the world as the "Pfizer" Covid-19 vaccine.
Have a closer look at Türeci's slide, which tells a very different story than that which the CDC has been telling Americans for the last two years.
Far from "staying in the arm" and entering the muscle cells at the injection site, the injection site is only the point of departure for a journey that is supposed to take the mRNA rather to the lymph nodes. The subtitle of the slide is "Bringing mRNA to the right cells at the right places." The deltoid is not the right place; the lymph nodes are.
Once in the lymph nodes, a specific sort of cell, the dendritic cells, is supposed to manufacture the spike protein: here colorfully described as the "wanted poster" that will help the immune system to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus in case of subsequent exposure.
A passage from The Vaccine, the book that Türeci and her husband, BioNTech CEO Ugur Sahin, wrote which journalist Joe Miller, explains why BioNTech's platform specifically targets the lymph nodes:
What Ugur learnt was that the location to which a vaccine delivers its 'wanted poster' really mattered. The reason for this, the couple's team in Mainz later realised, was that not all dendritic cells … were created equal. The ones that resided in lymph nodes – of which the spleen is the largest – were particularly adept at capturing mRNA and making sure the instructions it carried were acted upon. These kidney-bean shaped organs, found under our armpits, in our groins, and at several other outposts in the body, are the information hubs of the immune system. (p. 98)
Indeed, Sahin and Türeci were so determined to get their mRNA into the lymph nodes that they had an earlier mRNA construct injected directly into the patient's lymph nodes in the groin (p. 104).
Needless to say, such an approach was not likely to obtain wide acceptance as a vaccine! This is why the couple, as explained in their book, needed to package the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles, in order to ensure that mRNA administered by way of an intramuscular injection would, nonetheless, be widely distributed around the body and thus reach the lymph nodes.
This is to say that the wide biodistribution of the mRNA that came to light after rollout was never a bug. It is a feature of BioNTech's mRNA technology. Having elicited an immune response by way of injection into the groin, Sahin is even said to have wondered, "How substantial could the immune response be if a vaccine got into all lymphatic tissues around the body, and recruited all the resident DCs [dendritic cells] into action?" (p. 105)
So, why has the CDC been lying about this for the last two years and insisting that the mRNA "stays in the arm?" Well, the obvious answer is that the idea of the mRNA staying at the injection site is reassuring, since otherwise we could fear systemic adverse effects of precisely the sort that have emerged since rollout.
It is worth noting, moreover, that in developing its vaccine, as discussed in my earlier article here, BioNTech simply skipped the so-called safety pharmacology studies whose purpose is precisely to test a candidate vaccine for potential systemic adverse effects – and regulators, including the FDA, let the company do it.
