BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:56 AM

I meant that the Christian and Moslem treatment of nd attitude towards women is disgraceful. Judaism isn't much better but at least they can work.

The women in the old Star Trek episode were happy with their freedom to wear the skimpiest outfits... I can understand Christian and Moslem women being shocked, but reasonable thinkers? Why would they mind?

And teaching children the realities of the natural world as demonstrable through science and observation, which is becoming forbidden in this country (US) when it contradicts some people's Scripture, cannot be termed indoctrination without a terrible misuse of the term. The term indoctrination, I mean.

Are we having fun yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:08 AM

Bee: Mrrrzy: "…And I don't think it a kindness anymore to allow people their insistence on refusing reality…
Mrrzy is one atheist, and I doubt she means what you seem to be implying"

Whether it was an unguarded comment or intentional, (the most charitable) meaning is clear - 'up to now atheists have been indulgently tolerant of the self-harming foolishness of 'believers'. But the time has come to be more forceful and 'believers' must no longer be allowed to carry on as they have'. And if that's the patriarchal tone on an internet forum, I can only quake at what would happen should such a person gain responsiblity for the legislature.

Mrrzzy may be only one atheist, but I have found the same tone emanating from many others (on and off mudcat). The comments on education are a drift in the same direction. In essence, they say 'children must not be educated by 'believers'. This would be their detriment. Education should be in the hands of secularists or even better, atheists'

Only BillD has sounded a note of caution over this approach, every other atheist seems happy to go along with it unquestioningly. The result will be, as usual, either Totalitarianism A or Totalitarianism B. Why not teach the children both theories (e.g the Big Bang AND creationism) and let them make their minds up for themselves? If creationists are wrong and the kids hear both accounts, reason should triumph. Wouldn't that be the most open-minded thing to do?

BTW, I myself am not a creationist as in 'the world is 6,000 years old; dinosaur fossils were put ther by satan' etc etc

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:19 AM

Nick - If you know creationism not to be true, why would you want to teach it to children in science classes?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:20 AM

Mrrzzy: "I meant that the Christian and Moslem treatment of nd attitude towards women is disgraceful. Judaism isn't much better but at least they can work"

Last time I checked, Christian women are allowed to work too. Though 'sexual exploitation' encompasses 'disgraceful treatment' the reverse is not necessarily the case. All three monotheisms you speak of have at least not exploited women sexually as is openly done in our 'civilise' western society. Sometimes I get so fed up of it I am tempted to write to the big companies and TV stations and tell them specifically I will NOT buy any products they advertise using gratuitous images of women. Of course they'd probably write me off as a 'fundamentalist' or a 'killjoy'.

You seem mostly to have Islam in mind in your comments on women. While you say the problem of sexual exploitation in the secular west is a social problem, you don't seem to realise the status of women in middle eastern societies is also a social issue. While it's true (as far as I know) that the Koran says women should obey men etc., it's unlikely men would have taken this religious justification much further unless it served some use. When you scrach the surface it has less to do with religion than chauvanism. All through history, in religious and secular societies, there has been a tendency by men to treat women as sex objects and exploit their physically weaker nature.

You also overlook the tireless work done by many religious, pastors, priests and nuns in saving women from exploitation, such as being sold into sexual slavery, kidnapped etc., (as M.Ted noted in China). They often risk their lives to do so, and act both from rational human compassion and the belief - based in their religion - that all human life is sacred and God-given.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:23 AM

Ringslinger - freedom of speech, freedom of choice. All the things you atheists profess to believe in. I disagree with atheists on many points as well, but I don't want to silence them. 'The truth will always out' as they say. It doesn't need censorship to help it.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:26 AM

It's not an issue here, no one wants to teach creationism. But it seems that that's not the case in the USA. So maybe, in a pluralistic society, a way can be found to accomodate everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:38 AM

at least not exploited women sexually ? What do you call sewing them shut?

And I repeat, repeat, repeat, I am not arguing against faith. I am arguing against denying reality when it contradicts your faith.

Why can't people just believe that their god created the world the way it actually is? Then all this demonstrated reality wouldn't have to be denied, it could be just a test of faith.

And even a pluralistic society should have a DUTY towards the children in it to give them an actual education, even if said education includes demonstrable facts that contradict their parents' superstitions. It is to me a cruelty to the kids to kowtow to their parents' religious beliefs (those that contradict demonstrable reality) in the name of "respect" those demonstrably-false beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:54 AM

"And I repeat, repeat, repeat, I am not arguing against faith"

That's not what it sounded like before, as I mentioned.

"at least not exploited women sexually ? What do you call sewing them shut?"

A horrible, dreadful violence. But is this the result of religion or of a chauvanistic society? What do you call getting a women hooked on heroin and then forcing her into prostitution or porn flicks?

"Why can't people just believe that their god created the world the way it actually is? Then all this demonstrated reality wouldn't have to be denied, it could be just a test of faith"

I do believe God created the world the way it actually is - He got the ball rolling and nature and evolution both took their course. There's no reason why intelligent design couldn't have guided the initial steps that led us to where we are today. I just don't believe the world is 6,000 years old etc. That flies in the face of geology, and so on.

When you talk of the duty of a pluralistic society, have you forgotten that 'pluralism' means a variety of viewpoints and voices - precsiely what'd be lacking in your model where the wsihes of parents are overriden? What you are trying to create is a monolithic society.

And who is this impersonal 'society' that has a duty to kids? Are their parents not members of society too?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:01 AM

There's no reason why intelligent design couldn't have guided the initial steps that led us to where we are today.

God rolled the dice, and left the casino?

Where's the payoff?

Or did he see it was a losing roll and walk out?

Interesting argument -- it pushes the God factor back behind the Big Bang, where it can't be evaluated. A perfectly good creation myth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:17 AM

Back to the facile God comments, Amos?

What's the difference between a pile of stones and a house?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:27 AM

Nick, it is not atheist politicians who are calling for changing the US constitution to bring it in line with the Bible, disregarding the millions of citizens who don't believe in the Bible at all. Have you no comment on Huckabee's speech, which I posted about in this thread earlier? You keep trying to make out that Mrrzy would make it illegal for you to teach your children your religion, when all she asks is that you NOT teach it to ALL school children. Do as you like at home.

You say: "Why not teach the children both theories (e.g the Big Bang AND creationism) and let them make their minds up for themselves? If creationists are wrong and the kids hear both accounts, reason should triumph. Wouldn't that be the most open-minded thing to do?"

There are many, many creation myths. Should they all be taught as alternate theories in a school science class? Teaching creationism as a theory on the same plane of reality as evolution is tantamount to opening your mind enough to let your brains fall out.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:29 AM

Nickhere

Why not teach the children both theories (e.g the Big Bang AND creationism)

Both? Surely if you are going to teach one creation myth, you've got to teach them all. Here's a few to be going on with.

It's not an issue here, no one wants to teach creationism.

I'm not sure where "here" is for you, but if its the UK, have a look at this.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:38 AM

Nick:

Your remark indicates you have a weak grasp of the nature of evolution.

Your question would be better phrased, "What's the difference between a house with one window missing and the same houose with the window in place?". Evolution does not go from a pile of stones to anything but -- possibly -- a slightly wetter pile of stones, or a fallen pile.
THere's no inconceivable change involved.

May I recommend, for as further explanation of this, "The Blind Watchmaker".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:42 AM

Both? Surely if you are going to teach one creation myth, you've got to teach them all.

Some churches do, as a matter of fact.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:48 AM

And churches are welcome to. But not in my kids' - or any other kids' - science class.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:57 AM

Bee, Mrrzzy, you guys still seem to be missing your own point. You describe yourselves as atheists and actively promote a pluralistic society as part of your worldview. In one of her recent posts Bee lamented the fact that the majority of the US population are fuzzy-headed believers who would teach creationism in schools. What kind of pluralism is it that wants to silence the MAJORITY of its population? Are you saying you want the views of 20 percent (your figures) of the US' population imposed over the other 80 percent?

And sure, why not teach all various creation myths as you call them? It could be done in comparative religion class, or similar.

And yes, Bee, I have already commented on Huckabee - I said I'm not like him (at least from what I hear of him). "Our brains fall out"? So, we do need to be at least a bit close-minded, afterall?

"You keep trying to make out that Mrrzy would make it illegal for you to teach your children your religion, when all she asks is that you NOT teach it to ALL school children. Do as you like at home"

Mrrzzy's words speak for themselves. That was not all she asking.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:58 AM

"Evolution... from a pile of stones to a slightly wetter pile of stones..."

Nice, but meaningless metaphor. And where did the wet come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:01 PM

I'm asking that religion not be taught as if it were reality. I am asking that reality be taught even if it contradicts some religions.

I am not saying make religion illegal. I'm saying, it's OK to find it silly. I am saying that there is nothing disrespectful in laughing at silliness. Or, that there is nothing to respect in the silly attitude that reality can't be true if it contradicts prior, unfounded (on reality) beliefs.

The wet comes from rain.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:01 PM

"But not in my kids' - or any other kids' - science class"

And what if the majority of parents WANT their kids taught that in science class? Have you ever heard of democracy, Mrr? They could get in a special teacher to teach it, so that an atheistic teacher wouldn't be obliged to teach it against their beliefs.

The 'any other kids' extends your reach over the chilldren of other parents. Suppose I insisted your kids be taught religion? You can't have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:09 PM

I am trying to live in a democracy, here. If the majority of Americans wanted slavery back, would that make it OK? I think not. This is no different.

And they ARE insisting that my kids be taught religion, which would be OK with me if it were in a philosophy class, but it's not. It's in SCIENCE classes, and that is wrong, and unfair to my children AND to other children, religious or not, who by virtue of having been born American (or brought here by others) have the right to a decent education.

We already, I believe, prevent the Christian Scientists from letting their children die from appendicitis, or other easily-fixed-by-medical-skills problems. Is that wrong, in your book? Would it be less wrong if more Americans were in favor of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:12 PM

'Reality' is already being taught even if it contradicts some religions. The important question is how far do you want to go with that? Personally I feel it's ok for a tecaher to explain all about earth's 4-billion year timeframe etc., even if some Christians say it sin't so (I beg to differ with them on that one). I do not think it's ok for any teacher to say God doesn't exist, as that is something that cannot know; moreover if they insist on empiricism for their world model, they should also realise there is no empirical evidence to prove their belief.

I once had a teacher who dismissed the Holy Spirit as a pigeon (He's represented as a dove in old paintings). Now there's no way she can say for certain there is no such thing as the Holy Spirit, but she was presenting her belief (however well-founded) as fact. Moreover, she was missing the point - the Holy Spirit is a spirit, not a pigeon. This is only a representation in art, a symbol. I felt like standing up in class and saying "Miss, you're right - and the United Nations is just a bunch of leaves and wood!" (maybe I wasn't too far wrong either!) But being a small boy against the 'might' of the teacher and realising from her tone it wouldn't have gone down well, I kept silent.

And where did the rain come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:15 PM

Rain happens. It comes from clouds.

I'm not saying any teacher should say God doesn't exist. I'm saying, when what the teacher is trying to teach contradicts someone's superstitions, even those of the majority, the teacher should still be teaching whatever they are supposed to be teaching. It's exactly that feeling of small children against the teacher that I worry about.

Are you American, Nickhere? Where do you live?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:24 PM

As you point out in the slavery issue, I think there are degrees of seriousness. Teaching creationism and letting your kids die of appendicitis are in a different league. I agree that teaching creationism might be better doen in religion class, but I can see why some parents might want it done in science class.

We are - believer and atheist alike - all going to see our kids taught stuff we don't agree with in school. Our job as parents is to give them what we believe is the correct version at home. I think any cioncerned parent already does that. If your kids are taught creationism in school, you'll remedy that when they get home. When the teacher assigns homework, you'll give it to them 'both barrels' by helping your kid with their homework.

Nick: "why do we not have referenda to go to war? ...But I would still vote against it even if most Joe Soaps wanted to go to war!

As you can see from my earlier posts I don't believe majority rule always equates with moral correctness either. You stress your concern for kids dying from appendicitis due to Christian Science. That's not right, of course. But neither is it right that millions of unborn children have died because of atheists' belief in a right for people to have private control over their lives and deaths either.

What I am saying is you can't have it both ways - you can't argue for a pluralistic, encompassing society and for the silencing of some viewpoints you don't agree with in the same breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:38 PM

I haven't been arguing for a pluralistic, encompassing society. I have been arguing for freedom from religion.

How do you see teaching creationism as science, and letting your kids die of appendicitis, as in a different leagues? Aren't both just letting the parents have freedom of religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:43 PM

No Mrr, I'm not American. I live in Europe. But I've been stateside (our word for the US) a few times. Thanks to a common langauge and the US' domninant position in world affairs i follow news from there, and have some sense of the culture as well. It seems to me to be a land of extremes - pacifists and gun-toting patriotic NRA all in the same land. Atheists and fundamentalist Christians. Perhaps if people could meet half way a bit more, it would help. To my outsiders view, it appears that Americans tend to view the world in very black or white terms, like Bush's 'your either with us or against us'. When I was in the US, I was surprised to find how few people had a passport or travelled outside the US. I suppose it's such a vast county that you have everything on your doorstep without having to go abroad. The culture of the US seems fairly uniform despite regional differences. The lanaguage is also widespread despite the rise of Spanish in Arizona and California.

In Europe on the other hand any time you go abroad you end up having to speak a different langauge, adjust to very different customs, eat different food (despite globalistaion) adjust to a different timetable (different shop opening hours for example), different cultures, until recently use different money. And you are still effectively ina different country, without a federal government (though Eurocrats hope to change all that soon).

So maybe we Europeans are more used to having to live alongside each other and adapt to difference. Maybe we realise there are many shades of grey, which is why most European countries were unenthusiastic about supporting Bush's simplistic world view of Muslims v. the civilised world.

For all that, the political scene in Europe these days is heavily atheist. You guys would be really happy here. The EU Commission a few years back got rid of one of their commissioners because they deemed him too 'religious' even though he promised to keep his religion a private matter. They knew what I have argued all along here - one's beliefs - religious or atheistic - can never be simply kept a private matter and one will always try and shape society according to them. But there is active hostility to religion from the political establishment here too. Having outgrown the need for church support in a heavily secularised world, political leaders are less wary of baring their atheistic teeth when the occasion rises. The way I see it, it may only be a matter of decades to a new kind of religious persecution. Already it is present here in the form of how religious people are ridiculed or singled out for villification by an secularistic and atheistic media.

BTW, I know rain comes from clouds... the comment was for Amos to figure out.... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:44 PM

In different leagues? I'll let you think about that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:46 PM

"the teacher should still be teaching whatever they are supposed to be teaching"

It seems to me that that's part of the debate in the US. What are they supposed to be teaching?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 12:53 PM

You want freedom from religion. You want other people who want religion to be free of it as well. Other people want freedom from atheism. In the end in your country it'll probably come down to whoever shouts the loudest.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Emma B
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 01:10 PM

'The EU Commission a few years back got rid of one of their commissioners because they deemed him too 'religious' even though he promised to keep his religion a private matter'

ROCCO BUTTIGLIONE -

'As a Roman Catholic, Buttiglione believes that homosexuality is a sin, and that "The family exists in order to allow women to have children and to have the protection of a male who takes care of them"' BBC News item

'Rocco Buttiglione sabotaged a European directive intended to outlaw discrimination in the workplace by introducing exemptions that allow the Italian military, police, prisons and social services to refuse to employ gay men and lesbians. Three years ago, during his first week as Italy's European Affairs minister, he called for a ban on artificial insemination and started a campaign to outlaw abortion. So much for the preposterous claim that Buttiglione, whose nomination by the incoming Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, caused an unprecedented crisis in Brussels last week, would not have permitted his private views to influence his public role.'
-- Joan smith writing in The Independent

"I would not want, as a Spanish citizen, to have a minister of justice who thinks that homosexuality is a sin and that a woman should stay at home to have children under the protection of her husband…. These are shocking attitudes—that is the least that one can say."
--Josep Borell, president of the European Parliament, October 7,
2004.15

'Mr Buttiglione has reactionary prejudices against gay people and women and that he tried to get sexual orientation removed as a ground of discrimination in the constitution. He has also proved himself, as a member of the Berlusconi government, complicit in widespread non-respect for the rule of law. On asylum, the Italian government is breaching the UN Refugee Convention by deporting migrants without allowing a determination of whether they qualify as refugees.'
--Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP

just for the record....

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 01:17 PM

Nickhere...in the latter part of my disclaimer, which you did not include in your quote, I said that we must be careful "lest we be guilty of the same logical errors common with many on the other side."

   Now...you say that you are comfortable with the idea that God " got the ball rolling and nature and evolution both took their course."

Fine....that is about the only way we can reconcile both viewpoints....some of us accept that idea, and some of us don't, but it allows us to study HOW evolution proceeded.
   The difficulty is that religious groups don't stay with that model. They tell us the God came back and intervened a number of times and held personal conversations with a 'few' humans and left instructions about how we were to behave (never mind that we had "free will") and proceeded to use metaphysical, 'spiritual' powers to create beings that could NOT be explained by evolution (angels, saviors, prophets...etc.) God did this when records and languages were rudimentary and, as I say only to a few men, whose word we have to take. No clear update or intervention has happened in a couple thoudand years, yet various humans...in many countries...have created ever more complex myths and stories....as men are wont to do.
I am supposed to believe that God gave us reason & free will, yet I am NOT to question the validity of old parchments and stories handed down for umpteen generations. Seems to me that a god, with infinite wisdom, would see that we have kinda muddled the original message...(and some areas of the world never got it at all)..and he'd drop in occasionally to 'remind' us of the rules. (What WOULD be the modern equivalent of a burning bush or stone tablets?)

...well, anyway, you see where I am going. It is not the **first cause** that keeps us arguing, as neither science or religion can really do more than speculate on that, but some really complex claims made later....some of which are in direct disagreement with each other.

THIS is the situation that makes me say "I can see 'why' believers accept various stories and scriptures...for various cultural, psychological and historical reasons...but I see nothing that clearly validates any of the specific belief structures."

For THIS reason, I and others need a world where 'believing' is understood, but not compelled...and what we see is some VERY strong attempts to compell adherence to certain rules imposed BY certain belief structures.

THIS is why we continue to resist, argue and worry when men like G.W. Bush and Mike Huckabee seem to be advocating government BY some religious doctrine. Even our money says "In God We Trust" when it is obvious that many of us do not!
THIS is why we complain when Christian prayers are foisted on meetings & schools where many are NOT Christian.
THIS is why we suggest that the answer to not believing in abortion is to not have one, instead of demanding that those who do not share the underlying religious stricture, still share the restriction.
THIS is why we are upset that a country with a Constitution that states "....shall make no law respecting establishment of religion" still requires the Pledge of Allegiance to say "under God". The rest of the clause says "...or prohibit the free exercise of (religion)..", but I can't see see how "free exercise" allows the tactics of intimidation used by the more zealous Christians to pressure and demand special privileges.

THIS is why, along with my ongoing attempt to accommodate perfectly understandable religious convictions and live happily with those who practice their religion quietly and non-confrontationally, I still feel the need to remind folks of the reality of the situation and refute obvious, public claims that any one group has **THE ANSWER**.

As I said...it ain't easy. But not trying is worse....

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 01:37 PM

The only place any religious doctrine has in a science class is as a classic example of pre-scientific thinking. However, to do so would probably upset those who cleave to the partiuclar religious doctrine in use.

Placving ten or twenty Creation Myths side by side might be instructive as to human nature, and would be a good thing to demonstrate such.

But arguing such beliefs as data in the scientific sense, or even in the psychological sense, would be harmful. They are metaphors,stories, myths and legends. The moral guidance they provide is not (for the most part) entered into one way or another by science.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 01:48 PM

For the record, Christian Science does not, and has not, required that its followers to use prayer only--Mrs. Eddy said, from the beginning, that if Christian Science wasn't working, the patient should stop using it and move on to a more conventional treatment--

Mrzzy said--"Ah, but, M.Ted, it's religion that is keeping us from educating our children!"--That is also not true. Nobody is keeping you from educating your children. If they aren't educated, it is your own fault.

Riginslinger is right about one thing--a lot of buffoonery is taught in schools--the most important thing that you can teach them is to recognize it, even when it isn't religious in nature--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 02:00 PM

BillD, I can see where you're coming from. I understand why some people in the US are in a flap over Huckabee and Bush. We're in a flap in Europe over Bush. You speak about God giving us freewill yet leaving us a set of instructions as if you find these terms mutually incompatible. But surely you must see that they are not. The 'set of instructions' are designed for our own good - we've been over this one on another thread and I think I demonstrated how we would be better off if we observed them. Yet we are free not to follow them, and many of us do not, often to our own detriment.

I perfectly accept your argument about not foisting prayer on schools. Any such prayer would be insincere at best, a pain on God's ears at worst (the pain coming from the fact that people were being forced to say them).

I can even understand why atheists have reservations about adherence to rules based on religious belief.

What I cannot understand is why atheists suddenly abandon reason when it comes to an issue like abortion. My opposition to abortion is based both in rationality AND religion (nor are the two mutually exclusive). It is based on the empirically-backed view that the embryo is a human being. It is also based on the sanctity of human life.

It is disingenuous to talk of 'choice' in the matter of private right to control the life and death of another human being. What you are basically saying is 'if you don't want to murder anyone, then don't. But let people who do want to murder make up their own minds'.

If that doesn't alert you to the pitfalls of secular atheism, nothing is likely to.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 02:13 PM

Nickhere, why do you totally ignore the issue of the wholesale natural deaths of embryos in utero? Again, if you have forgotten already, 45% to 65% of fused sperm and egg, your priceless unique human, (and some estimates are higher, as high as 80%) die, are lost, slough off, miscarry, naturally abort, before the mother even knows she might be pregnant or within the first three months of gestation.

If God is so very concerned about the deliberate deaths of embryos, then why is he so cavalier about all those billions of unique human beings that he apparently 'ensouls' for five minutes or three days or a week or two, only to haul them back, presumably to heaven where they must all fly about like angelic gnats?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 02:16 PM

And Bill, of course one can question the validity of old parchments. For me at any rate there's no problem there. We've discussed them at length on another thread and I've addressed some of the common misconceptions about them. But if you do the homework and then strongly feel there is something to them afterall you find they demand further action. They are not like historical documents like the Magna Carta or a Charter of Trade granted to some medieval city - these latter do not make demands on our lifestyle and actions, however interesting they may be historically.

You also mentioned the notion that I find 'comfort' in my religion. I might also find comfort in atheism and the idea, for example, that therefore I will not be called to account for my actions in this life, in the next. If I were to look for comfort, I could at least not pick such a demanding religion!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 02:25 PM

Furthermore. desiring to spare a woman from the tribulations of enforced pregnancy is not a byproduct of atheism, but of normal compassion.

Your definition of human being is somewhat arbitrary, a necessary step in order to fuel the rhetoric you offer.

As for "a set of instructions for our own good", this sounds like a child's defense of arbitrary orders from parents.

The only set of instructions that is ultimately, genuinely "for your own good" is the set of uinstructions you yourself can take full responsibility for. This paternalistic model of an interfering, ordering, and somewhat perverted God is one of the least attractive aspects of this particular sub-branch of Xorastrianism.


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 02:32 PM

Bee, that's the second time you've made that point, and I cannot understand why you are unable to see the difference.

Abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn human being by another human being (or two, to be precise - the mother and the person who performs the abortion).

What you are describing is a natural process.

If you are still having difficulty seeing the difference, let me explain it another way; someone is dying a natural death in their bed, of old age. They might have a week, or a few weeks, or a few days left in them. I walk in pull out a .45 and put a couple of shots in their head. Now I presume you can understand that if the person dies of old age, I stay a free man. If I shoot her before she dies, I go to jail.

Re. your comment about God and embryos:

First of all; murder, by definition, is a sin against the law of God in that a human is appropriating to themselves the power of life and death over another human being, a right reserved only to God. If God calls a life back to Him, He is only calling back what He freely gave in the first place. Thus it is not murder. The nearest thing we humans get to giving life is in the act of conceiving children (part of what makes it so sacred from the Christian theological point of view).

Secondly God allows natural processes to take place and seems to interfere very little or as little as possible. I don't know yet or exactly why this should be so, but perhaps it is to allow the maximum freedom to this world. If people - believer and non-believer alike - fall foul of the same accidents and natural catastrophes, at least no one can accuse God of being unfair even to those who reject Him. Jesus spoke in the Gospel of the same sun shining on good and evil people.

Thirdly, death is only an absoulte catastrophe to an atheist. To a Christian, death is not a catastrophe (while accepting that the sense of loss for those left behind is very great - I know, as I've experienced it myself). Death is a passage to another phase of life - one without a physical form - and the phase which forms the longer part of our existence.

I hope that answers your question

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 02:41 PM

Amos, we've been over the abortion issue before. I do feel great compassion for a woman who is having what might be called a 'crisis pregnancy'. I helped one raise her child to 2 years of age, and have close personal experience of another woman in a similar situation. I ahev already outlined what I believe to be the correct Christian repsonse to such a situation on a previous thread, and I think you will find a good measure of compassion in there.

But in a pregnancy we are dealing with two people, not one - the mother AND her unborn child.

How is my definition of a human being arbitrary?

"As for "a set of instructions for our own good", this sounds like a child's defense of arbitrary orders from parents"

Whatever it sounds like is your own subjective opinion, perhaps based on your experience. Nonetheless I have demonstrated - not that it's very difficult - that a lot of benefits would follow if everyone tried to practice them. But that's up to them. For myself, I take full responsibility for following them.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 02:53 PM

Nickhere...It would require another 9 paragraphs to reply adequately. But look at the embedded assumptions in your post:

"It is based on the empirically-backed view that the embryo is a human being. It is also based on the sanctity of human life."

That 'empirically backed' view is hotly debated and variously understood! What do you SAY to someone who argues that a human being is something that can live OUTSIDE the womb? What makes a zygote suddenly become a 'human'? Most who accept your view are saying that at the moment of conception, a 'soul' enters the zygote...and off we go again. Even the linguistic construction "sanctity of human life" implies something metaphysical...otherwise, why use it? Do penguins have 'sanctity'? Or goldfish? Do they have 'souls'? Why not? Where do souls come from? Is God sitting 'up there' with a holy assembly line? When there were only 1,000,000 humans, were there 6 billion extra souls waiting? Are souls recycled? If reincarnation is possible, do we get a new one each round?
*sigh*...no, you are not expected to actually answer such questions...they are just examples of the awkward implications of accepting certain premises.

You say "The 'set of instructions' are designed for our own good... " but this [being designed]is what is being debated! Did some Supreme Being say so, or did we just work out for ourselves that some rules are a good idea? Kant says the latter...but there is a HUGE difference between a moral imperative that is required by a deity and one that is suggested as a pragmatic way of behaving.
At what point in our evolutionary development did bashing someone over the head to get a meal or a mate suddenly become 'forbidden morally' instead of just dangerous?

We have created many, many sets of religiously based 'moral standards' over 15,000 or so years...some of which oppose any form of killing others, but most of which allow certain types of killing, and some of which directly encourage killing in certain circumstances....mostly to protect the religious beliefs on which the rule is based. Talk about circular reasoning! Sorry, but it all looks like rationalized self-interest to me.

My overall, basic point is that 'most' of us skeptics get where we are by seeing these questions and confronting the implications and refusing to adhere to a system that has no plausible¹ answers.....while 'most' members of religious groups stay where they are by not seriously confronting awkward questions, and when necessary, saying something like, "well, it certainly is confusing, but it is God's will and we can't hope to understand why He does many things".

Not only ain't it easy, it ain't likely to GET much easier when we seem just to be wired to take one path or another.


¹..plausible- meaning answers that do not just lead in circles to more questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 03:23 PM

Well Bill, you made a start on the 9 paragraphs, at least!

The embryo.... the empiricism to which I am referring is the basic science that states at the moment of conception gametes from both parents fuse to form a complete set of humna DNA. Moreover, this DNA has not existed before and is more than the sum of its parts. It will give rise if nothing intervenes to stop it, to a new human being who has not lived before. Now, what part of this is 'hotly contested'?

A zygote, being the new life I described above, is already a human. If it continues its gestation, what do you think will emerge from the woman's womb? A penguin? A sea-lion?

It seems to me that the rationalised self-interest you assign to various religions (and that's one reason why 'believers' do not value all religions equally) can also be found among those hotly-debating when a human becomes a human (as if the statement itself isn't a contradiction in terms). When will sceptics confront the implications of that?

Do penguins have sanctity? Yes, I would argue they do, in that they are God's creation too, and deserve our consideration as such. God expects us to treat all His creation with respect. Unlike humans however, they lack free will and so there is a qualitative difference between us. For example we don't talk of penguins being 'saved' or of 'sinning'. Now, before you rush off to say 'But that's circular reasoning, we must assume God exists to rationalise that' etc., remember it was you who used the word 'sanctity' which put the question outside empirical science and into the religious sphere.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 03:26 PM

As for your other questions about souls, assembly lines and so on, there are answers, but metaphysical ones. You won't find scientific empirical information about them anytime soon, as you know. Ok, now I must go an eat.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 04:01 PM

If we won't find scientific answers about souls anywhere in the stratosphere, why would we tolerate creationism in science classes?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 04:33 PM

I think you have a double standard, here, Nick. You would like to assert that empirical information is the rule to judge cases by, EXCEPT when your own views go off into areas where empirical views are very scarce. Then, it's not empiricism that matters, but orthodoxy.

Does it not strike you that this is a bit of a tapdance?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 04:34 PM

I'd like a clarification from BillD--from the tone of your comments, one gets the impression that you see the idea that life has sanctity to be a product of circular reasoning.

Do you believe that life, human or otherwise, has any particular sanctity (sanctity meaning that it is entitled to special deference, or protection)? If you do, what logical foundation do you have for that belief?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST,Mrr elsewhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 04:43 PM

M.Ted: Mrzzy said--"Ah, but, M.Ted, it's religion that is keeping us from educating our children!"--That is also not true. Nobody is keeping you from educating your children. If they aren't educated, it is your own fault. Mrr: I have the time, and the education, to spend hours with my kids teaching them what school is supposed to be, and un-teaching what it has taught incorrectly. But it is not the fault of the other parents who have neither the time nor the education necessary if their children get through public school without learning anything. It's the fault of the public school system.

And as a professor teaching science I've had to deal with students who don't "believe in" the fundamental fact of life that our evolution was/is just like that of any other DNA-based life form.

As an aside, to me, a pregnancy is a woman's body part. But to bring it back to the thread, I read recently in a great book called Mu(t)an(t)s, about clergy who wonder how many times to baptize conjoined twins. If the "human" begins at conception, then do all the pregnancies that start out as twins and one fetus absorbs the other involve fratricide? What about outlawing IVF, which makes and discards zygotes? And what about if conjoined twins turn out to happen by fusion rather than fission, which I found incredibly interesting as a possibility, would that matter? If fission, then when does the second one become human, since only one was actually conceived? The can has many, many worms, if you want to go there.

I also read somewhere the point that now that we have the technology, any cell is a "putative" human being, so scratching your ass is killing hundreds of such... *BG*!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 04:56 PM

"...what part of this is 'hotly contested'? "
The 'status' of a zygote which "will become" a human if nothing intervenes. You move from "will become" to "is" with no qualification. This simply is contested.

I an not clear about your question "When will sceptics confront the implications of that?" Are you claiming that self interest is the rationale behind abortion...and that this is some sort of logical contradiction?

As to 'sanctity', it was my point that it implied something outside empirical science...I do NOT assume that using a word gives any particular status to its implications....just the opposite.

and...well...as to "God expects us to treat all His creation with respect." That has been debated VERY hotly as to implication when reading the part of the Bible that says "...have dominion over..."...and there are some pretty bad examples of 'respect' going on these days.

If God is monitoring our behavior, in this and other matters, I kinda wish he'd explain it clearly...NOW...to some serious offenders, instead of waiting till some vague 'end', and then judging them after it's too late. If I got my freedom to have such ideas FROM God, I assume he is clever enough to understand my reservations about the details.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 05:09 PM

M.Ted...from a dictionary
sanctity..."The quality of being holy"

therefore, it DOES assume that some special protection outside simple pragmatic consideration is being applied. This assumes that there is such a thing AS holiness....and this IS one of the issues under debate.

Short answer: No, I do not believe that life "has any particular sanctity" related to the definition above, but that we can argue in ways similar to Kant's Categorical Imperative that we can extract logical bases for respecting life and each other, and by implication, other things related to having 'quality' in life.

need more detail?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 05:19 PM

I guess one of the implications of my own position is that many specific questions must be answered on a case-by-case basis, and that few ,if any, absolute rules are available to run complex questions thru...which THEN implies that in order to deal with many uncomfortable questions, one must take into account current legal strictures about certain issues (such as gay marriage, abortion,etc.) but not because of metaphysical moral guidance.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 05:46 PM

Sure Bill, a zygote is of course a human being - I state as much a few lines later. I should have been a bit more attentive while typing and clarified - a zygote will give rise to a child, adult etc., human if nothing intervenes.

Mrr: "As an aside, to me, a pregnancy is a woman's body part"
A pregnancy is not a body part. a pregnancy is a process whereby a new life grows inside its mother and is born (passes out of its mother's body).

I have heard this argument many times, about 'a woman having control over her body'. This ignores the fact that there are two lives in question. The new life growing within her is not simply an organ of the mother's body or a piece of waste. If it were so, denying a woman an abortiion would be as unreasonable as denying her laxatives if she were constipated. The fact that the unborn baby is a separate human being puts it in an altogether different category.

As for the twins - no, I don't think it is fratricide. What is happening is a natural process. One embryo gets more nourishment than the other and survives, but neither sets out to kill the other. If they did, it would be murder of course. Though at least froma legal standpoint one would have trouble prosecuting, as in the case of older children who murder.

The cell you described could at best be a possible potential human being in the same way a sperm cell is not the same thing as a new human being.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even identical twins do not share the exact DNA. I seem to remember that however similar their appearance, ethy at least have separate finger prints. And no matter how close they are to each other, they both regard themselves as individuals.

I would be in favour of outlawing IVF that makes and discards zygotes, given that I see each zygote as a human. That might not be popular I know, but here now we have a problem where scientists want to use these zygotes (humans) for experiments, claiming they'd only be thrown out anyway. True, but if they hadn't been created in test tubes in the first place, there wouldn't be anything to 'throw out'.

This is an example of the failure of science to address moral issues. Clearly it cannot, since science is about finding out what makes the world tick, and seeing where it can take that knowledge further. But it's a bit like a boy pulling half the wings off a fly to see if it will fly more slowly: an interesting experiment, but one wonders should he be conducting it? That's why I say we need something more than empirical science to deal with moral and social questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 05:47 PM

Bill - what I was getting at was that (in my experience) atheists usually appeal to science and empiricism as the bedrock for their worldview, since these give concrete facts we can deal with (as opposed to an 'empirically unprovable' God). But in this instance the empirical facts point in the opposite direction to the world view of most atheists. They favour choice in the matter of abortion even when the empirical facts suggest that to do so is to favour murder in certain cases. From a rational and even human moral point of view, that seems difficult to sustain.