tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1761710908276777217..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Is Fundamentalism the Problem That Leads to Atheism?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58484879729109428852009-07-01T16:51:49.286-04:002009-07-01T16:51:49.286-04:00I can safely say that Christian Rock music has a h...I can safely say that Christian Rock music has a hand in this...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205384167481897308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79015183191961106662009-06-23T21:28:00.320-04:002009-06-23T21:28:00.320-04:00Edson said "We are united by one God, One Chr...Edson said "We are united by one God, One Christ, One bible and one Church"<br /><br />Hmmmmm Edson,personally i find this pretty hard to see or even start to go anywhere near believing.Maybe if i was still a faithful type too just wanting it to be true "at all costs",then i too might decide to just turn a mighty blind eye to any other evidence which might actually be suggesting quite the opposite.<br /><br />But then as a follower of faith i could see and easily believe almost anything i so desired to.Which evidence available also suggests is often what actually happens anyway,hence the reason we have so many very different faith beliefs worldwide already and growing yearly.<br /><br />In a world plagued by so many differing gods often even being at the root of why some wars happen between countries,i fail to see how it can ever honestly be claimed that any god is actually uniting us.<br /><br />A with so many folks families in this world now split though differences of beliefs etc some being abused some even ending their lives in suicide etc,and the presence now of so many many different church groups mostly all claiming to know just whats or wrong etc.<br /><br />To be honest i really see very little uniting factor happening here?,overall there is no evidence i see suggesting what you have claimed as a truth.How you manage to turn such a large blind eye to such blatant things that are staring you so boldly right in the face suggesting the opposite to what you claim, i really dont understand.<br /><br />Some type of spirit might very well be guiding you like faithful folk try to suggest, but the only thing holy i can see about it is its full of large holes where decent evidence for proof falls straight through and in the presence of such overwhelming bliss its just blissfully going totally unoticed it seems.<br /><br />One bible is still useless and very very much extremely unlikely to ever unnite people, if its almost impossible to ever be likely that most people will ever be able to really understand it simply or ever manage to all translate it the same way.<br /><br />In (my opinion) the reason why so many faithful folk over look these blatant things so easily is because they just dont really give a damm.As long as their faithful postion in life suits them and makes them happy, then thats all that really matters.<br /><br />Good Samaritans,only whenever it suits?.<br /><br />Whats even harder to understand and even more of a joke is that faithful folk stupidly think us non faith believers to be so stupid and blind also,that relying once again totally on faith they seem to hope that somehow we just wont ever see these contradictions.And hope that if they just come here enough times suggesting unfactual things over and over again,that faith will somehow finally make us also believe it to be true as well.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77860012583183517172009-06-23T20:45:31.026-04:002009-06-23T20:45:31.026-04:00"Is Fundamentalism the Problem That Leads to ..."Is Fundamentalism the Problem That Leads to Atheism?"<br /><br />Well, I'm sure it is for some, it wasn't for me. However, it was the reason I became a vocal Atheist.<br /><br />The reason I embraced Naturalism, wasn't a sudden disproof in a "literalist interpretation" of God. That was gone with a grade-school education. The planet (and the universe for that matter is only 6000 years old?) Any museum with dinosaur fossils refuted that (OK, in college doing experiments with radioactive decay chains probably sealed it for good, but still). A high school level of understanding of history did a good job nailing the literalist coffin shut too (a college level made it pretty much unchangeable unless someone presented a mountain of evidence). What killed religion for good for me was when I realized, liberal religion is untenable. You must believe that all the words in the sacred books are figurative, but have real meaning. But then no consensus could be reached by, intelligent, moral caring people as to what that interpretation could be. Naturalism could answer the question of why you shouldn't expect a consensus to be reached. When liberal religionists couldn't stand up to racism, sexism, or other bigotry because it might alienate them from their group, that sealed the answer.<br /><br />But, you know what? None of those things would have caused a single other (non-immediate family member) human being to ask questions about their faith. <br /><br />What made me speak out? What has caused others to leave theism because I have presented the evidence to them? <br /><br />Without a doubt, fundamentalism. I felt absolutely no compelling need to speak out about it until fundamentalists (who are so absolutely sure that they are right about a universe that they don't even have a remote understanding of) wanted to use the power of the government to force their beliefs down my throat, that's when a line was drawn.<br /><br />Hey, if you want to try that fine (it is a free country despite what the fundamentalists want), but realize, all the evidence is on my side. You're fighting a losing battle. But after what I have seen the goals fundamentalism to be, I will speak out. I will speak out wherever you raise your head. I no longer think, "Well, that is their opinion, why should I embarrass them?"<br /><br />Now, I just embarrass them. No guilt.<br /><br />So, the answer to the question, yes and no.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27619184985469720852009-06-23T12:51:07.942-04:002009-06-23T12:51:07.942-04:00Russ,
I am a huge fan.
Thanks again for rebuttin...Russ,<br /><br />I am a huge fan.<br /><br />Thanks again for rebutting the arrogance of danielg.<br /><br />Awesome.<br /><br />Well said sir.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75272908953922397042009-06-23T12:16:50.703-04:002009-06-23T12:16:50.703-04:00danielg,
You stated,
And while fundamentalism, in...danielg,<br />You stated,<br /><b><br />And while fundamentalism, in general (including evolutionary fundamentalism) do reject science and logic, your contention that fundamentalist Christianty has impeded science is nonsense. For just an introductory lesson in history on this matter, see The biblical origins of science.<br /></b><br />The notion that the various Christian Bibles somehow contributed to the origins of science is wholy unjustified. To be sure the first western scientists knew full well that they'd be killed if they didn't bark out in religious obedience and solidarity, but, that in no way suggests that the Christian's blatantly ignorant holy book contributed in any non-trivial way to the rise of modern science. Coercing a man to profess allegiance to Christianity and the tenets of its sacred writings, under violent threat to him and his family, provides no evidence at all that the Bible did anything more than sit on a shelf.<br /><br />So many factual claims made in the Bible have been demonstrated to be false that it is dismissed even by Christians as a source of useful information. We eat shellfish. We eat pork. We do not kill persons who work on the Sabbath(if we were going to kill them as instructed by that loving father, we don't even know which day to do it on). We do not keep slaves. We plant crops according to known science, not Biblical dictate. We wear fabrics woven from more than one fiber. We do not cut off hands for petty crimes. Pi is not 3(an omniscient thing would both know this and know that the difference is very important). We know that Adam and Eve never existed, so we also know that the Christian's much beloved "Original Sin" never happened, and, thus, that . We know that the Exodus never took place. We know that the invasion of Canaan never occurred as chronicled Biblically. We know Noah's flood never happened. We don't stone our children to death for being stubborn. We don't stone the town drunk or the glutton. We knowingly sit on furniture where menstruating women have sat. The vast majority of Christianities reject the vast majority of the Bible as a source of useful information.<br /><br />Since most people recognize the falsity of a great many Biblical claims, it is more a book of lies than truths. The Bible says hate gay people(you don't love abominations) and don't eat pork. Many Christians say "God was wrong about the pork, but he was spot on about those homosexuals. So, I'll ignore God's command about the pork and I'll work against gay people in any way I can." They pick and choose, and no sane moral person tries to live by the lights of the Bible.<br /><br />As a guide for ignorant children feeling their way through the dark, the Bible appears even more stupid for what is not in it. <br /><br />God could have given many one line statements that the primitive Bible authors could easily have understood and would have made untold millions of lives healthier and happier. A knowledgeable loving father could have said,<br /><b><br />Wash your hands with soap before you eat. Here's how to make soap. Cook your pork well-done to kill the germs. Germs are the cause of diseases like leprosy, cholera, typhoid and the Black Death. I just love "Black Death" for the name of a disease, don't you? What? Yes, I did make them, but...shut up and listen...DO NOT PISS ME OFF. Now, where was I...Oh, yeah. Slavery is wrong, always. The punishment must match the crime, so do not maim people for filching a loaf of bread or picking up firewood on your Sabbath. Don't ever punish person A for person B's crime. That's immoral and I won't stand for it.<br /></b><br />The Bible could have been the source of science, but it's authors were limited to what they could imbue to their deity by what they knew themselves. So, their god ended up just exactly as ignorant of mankind and the natural world as they were.<br /><br />So, danielg, you don't get to look about you and claim the succulent fruits of science as some glorious triumph of Christianity. Science is a 100 percent supernatural-free gift from humanity to itself.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32912563210383731592009-06-23T09:51:24.496-04:002009-06-23T09:51:24.496-04:00edson,
You said,
So you think by degrading the st...edson,<br />You said,<br /><b><br />So you think by degrading the status of fundamentalist Christians is going to change their outlook about the world? <br /></b><br />My statements are simple facts about the current state of the world. I do not mean to demean. I shared some data about the observed lives of fundamentalist Christians, then used that as a basis for drawing some conclusions about how their claims do not square with the those observed facts.<br /><br />Each Christianity has a deity who they are certain intervenes in their lives performing miracles and who will also send them to hell for transgressions like perpetrating criminal acts or not tithing.<br /><br />However, their claim of constant miraculous intervention should tell them that sure as shootin' that god is real and it means business when it says its going to send them to the lake of fire forever. Their behavior on the other hand does not reflect that they believe any of it. Among Christian groups the fundamentalist have the highest rates of criminality. This is not an attempt to degrade, debase or defame; it is an observed fact.<br /><br />In polite personal settings tact is required. When the chunky girlfriend struts about bulging at the seams and asks, "Do these pants make me look fat," it's tactful to reply "No, I do not think the pants are making you look fat." It would be somewhat less tactful to say, "Rest assured, I do not think you look fat because of the pants."<br /><br />When persons with bizarre religious notions about the world who are enamored with the idea of it ending in a blaze glory, all of us are affected and all of us should stop being tactful, stop being deferential. Religions are given free hand to believe whatever they choose among themselves. When what they choose to believe among themselves includes their believing that they have a right to take control of a society through violence or the ballot box, their nonsense must be exposed.<br /><br />Our last US president claimed to be an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian, and it's useful to note that the consequences of his being guided by his version of a Christian deity has adversely affected every person on this planet. Nothing done under his administration matched the claims by evangelicals for divine guidance. Their claims are that divine guidance is actually good for people and that those following it make good decisions. We did not observe that.<br /><br />Recall that evangelicals were ecstatic about Bush's elections, and while they got the chance to stick it to gay people, screw with stem cell research and put conservative anti-abortion activist judges on the Supreme Court, during both Bush administrations quality of life for those exuberant evangelicals diminished significantly through wage deflation, loss of pensions, loss of health care, losing their homes. Twice they voted against their own best interests; twice they got what they claimed they wanted; twice their doing their god's bidding at the ballot box bit them squarely in the ass.<br /><br />Riding up right behind him with an even more nonsensical and dangerous worldview, the evangelical fundamentalist worldview, was Sarah Palin who even had the Assembly of God style endorsement of an African witch doctor Pentecostalist.<br /><br />I do not wish to degrade people, edson, but neither do I wish to give religious nutjobs free reign. The inherent invasiveness of evangelicalism is a cause for great concern. Most critics of religion, including me, would be quite content to leave the religious to their superstitions, if what they believe and do did not so adversely affect us all.<br /><br />There even comes a time when honesty is far more important than tact. There comes a time when honesty becomes a moral imperative. When the girlfriend's weight becomes a health issue, a better reply might be "No, I'm sure it's not the pants that make you look fat. You need to lose some weight."<br /><br />Humankind is at the point of the moral imperative. Religions are adversely affecting us all and morally we must speak out.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27740078898549194132009-06-23T09:14:53.710-04:002009-06-23T09:14:53.710-04:00Edson,
Your comments to Russ indicate the fatal f...Edson,<br /><br />Your comments to Russ indicate the fatal flaw of true believers.<br /><br />Russ provided objective statistics from multiple sources, some of which are Christian, to make his case that pre-suppositional believe is highly correlated with bad decision making. <br /><br />You then respond by saying essentially, "I feel you are wrong." Christianity places too much value on personal revelation rooted in feeling as truth evidence.<br /><br />What you provide is your opinion and only reflects on your bias. It tells us nothing of the how the world is or works. Fine you think Craig is the greatest philosopher of the 21 century. I say he isn't. End of argument. You think Paul was the smartest guy in his time. I say he wasn't. End of argument. <br /><br />Provide some evidence to your superiority claims. That is all I ask for.<br /><br />Your feelings are not a reliable data set.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68004389539035604742009-06-23T09:08:53.540-04:002009-06-23T09:08:53.540-04:00Edson,
You said, "Virginia Tech massacre is ...Edson,<br /><br />You said, "Virginia Tech massacre is an example of this. Communism is a state sponsored Atheism. Will they ever admit that Atheism inspired these people or states to commit atrocities?"<br /><br />Atheism is not a world-view. It holds no binding beliefs and therefore cannot be equated to theology. How does one's refusal to believe unsubstantiated claims for the supernatural inspire them to commit atrocities? Atheism is simply the refusal to believe in a god. Period.<br /><br />Do a little objective study outside of your church community and discover the organizing principles which helped focus the insanity of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. <br /><br />It had very little to do with respect for skeptical investigation demanding objective evidence.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69183965205368215032009-06-23T05:27:53.207-04:002009-06-23T05:27:53.207-04:00Russ,
“Comparing the US to Japan, Canada, Sweden,...Russ,<br /><br />“Comparing the US to Japan, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and Great Britain, we see that the US, despite all of its god bothering, fares very poorly in measures of personal health, personal happiness, longevity, violent crime rate, among many others.”<br /><br />Why are you so much obsessed by these things? Japan is a predominantly Buddhist country and therefore not a good example of irreligiosity. Canada, Australia/New Zealand and the other European countries are less Christian (please note that this does not amount to being Atheistic). Please give an example of typical Atheistic countries, there are so many of them don’t pretend you don’t know them!<br /><br />Personal welfare is a very poor attack on Christianity. Yes, I do believe that Christianity is a package: Spiritual gifts such as happiness, love, endurance, charity, etc; bodily gifts such as wealth, health and intellectual power in this life, and we fare quite high in these things and in all cases we are on top whether you agree it or not; but Christians are not obsessed of these things. They are very temporary and very delicate (especially those material things). It just amazes me that you are loath on these things. It only reveals that you have a very low self esteem such that you are attempting to raise it in rejecting and degrading Christianity. No offense intended, please, but I have noticed that so many atheists will quote Steven Weinberg, Albert Einstein and other top notch scientists and intellectuals to show how they distaste religion and this give atheists a feel good factor that aha I’m also an intellectual for Weinberg reject religion as I do too. In the other forum I read about one guy claiming that he feels he possess typical traits possessed by Nobel laureates, when I asked him which are those traits, he replied confidently “ I feel that I’m predisposed to believe God does not exist”.<br /><br />You see, in my case I do not believe atheists are as intellectuals as they would rather have so many people believe or as they believe themselves to be! There are so many top notch Christian scientists and to me these are my role models. In America today, I regard Dr. William Lane Craig as the top notch philosopher of the 21st century. In the Ancient world, I regard Paul, the Apostle, as to be the greatest thinker of his time. Throughout history, I regard Jesus as to be a greatest man of all times. So please Russ bring on your list too, I bet it will include Hitchens, no doubt about that (wink).edsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06266606853107791571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37681920671247377972009-06-23T04:42:09.527-04:002009-06-23T04:42:09.527-04:00Russ,
“Contrasting that with religion, you and ot...Russ,<br /><br />“Contrasting that with religion, you and others have repeatedly noted how other Christianities are wrong. You know you can't trust them, just like I know I can't trust them or any other religion.”<br /><br />No one say other Christianities are wrong. That is your desperate attempt at showing how Christians are utterly divided and therefore Christianity is not reliable thus not true. Sorry, that won’t work. Certain Christianity will only be wrong when its general beliefs are not backed by a bible, period. I easily notice a Cultic church that way. Christianity is principled and one of its main principles is to read the bible. In reading the bible one will know false teachers, coward pastors, stupid doctrines, barbaric practices and fake traditions. <br /><br />Here we’re not trying to persuade you to trust Christianity or any other religion. Whatever you decide is your prerogative. Only we’re concerned at showing flaws in your line of thinking, the same thing you are doing to us.edsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06266606853107791571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32505981571999732762009-06-23T04:14:36.235-04:002009-06-23T04:14:36.235-04:00Daniel,
I am going to differ with you only on the...Daniel,<br /><br />I am going to differ with you only on the issue of fundamentalist Christians. You also seem to have a negative view about them, but I realize that probably you and I have totally a different understanding of Fundamentalist Christianity.<br /><br />Dictionary.com defines a fundamentalist Christianity as:<br /><br />A movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.<br /><br />It goes further as to define Fundamentalism as a state of strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles. Apparently, you have got some misnomer interpretation of fundamentalist Christians when in reality you are referring to those pseudo-prophetic, pseudo-apostolic, rapture hyper-conscious, Armageddon sensitive cults whose beliefs are nothing but total discrepancies to real biblical doctrines. These are not fundamentalist Christians. They are simply cultic Christians. In Africa there are so many cults of this nature and some mainline Christianity in some African countries are beginning to educate their members of this danger.<br /><br />This also applies to those abortion doctors killers. No fundamentalist Christian in a literal sense of the word will be inspired by his beliefs to kill a person. And if atheists disagree with me on this one, I will bring them a lot of examples showing some cultic atheists on rampage killing other people. Virginia Tech massacre is an example of this. Communism is a state sponsored Atheism. Will they ever admit that Atheism inspired these people or states to commit atrocities?edsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06266606853107791571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32901179918230024662009-06-22T23:09:07.051-04:002009-06-22T23:09:07.051-04:00danielg,
Here you go . . .
"Why are people ...danielg,<br /><br />Here you go . . .<br /><br />"Why are people so skeptical today of the idea that history is an objective reality?<br /><br />I think that some people are skeptical about this because of the popularity of relativistic views of truth. Post-modernism denies the existence of objective truth. Post-modernists believe that the past is merely the construction of the present. They believe that since the events of the past are gone, they are lost—they’re no longer accessible. Therefore history is what we make it. And, moreover, since they claim that no historian is a neutral observer, but is inevitably caught up in the historical process, he cannot reconstruct the past objectively as it really was. This has led some thinkers to a relativistic view of history according to which, as one person put it, “History is a series of lies that everyone has decided to agree upon.”<br /><br />This where Craig loses me big time. To make his case he must take the moral inventory of others and then box them in to create the assumption of honest scholarship.<br /><br />The historicity of the gospel accounts are skeptical because there is little to no extant documentation that matches their extra-ordinary claims.<br /><br />A post-modern approach to definitive texts allows for healthy doubt. It is not a bad thing and by implication Craig tries to make it such and creates a halo of authenticity around the gospel as history. <br /><br />This kind of reasoning seems like arrogant, reactive and defensive wishful thinking. It operates from a pre-supposed premise and not from a position of letting the facts take one where they may.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82927165716965225242009-06-22T23:00:33.180-04:002009-06-22T23:00:33.180-04:00Russ,
Once again. Well said.Russ,<br /><br />Once again. Well said.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62108509949820510462009-06-22T22:44:28.836-04:002009-06-22T22:44:28.836-04:00danielg,
You said,
"But again, you are groupi...danielg,<br />You said,<br />"But again, you are grouping some strange cultish African/Christian group with the Baptist next door. Africa is so frought with animism and other fear and nature-based demonic religions, it's like saying that the voodoo Christianity of Haiti and Evangelicalism are the same thing. Dumb. Stop doing that, it doesn't work."<br /><br />Let's see, now, who was it that in the last presidential election running as the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate was endorsed by an African excorism-performer in her own Assembly of God church in Alaska? Oh, yeah, Palin. This is not "cultish African/Christian group," this is "the Baptist next door" sort of thing. Here at DC we've had fundamentalist clergy tell us of exorcisms they've performed. And, as for being "cultish African/Christian group," many of those truly backward Christian clergy are US educated in the ways of their churches. They kill and maim in Africa, but not in the US, only because the social setting permits it.<br /><br />I note that you didn't contest any of the metrics I mentioned other than divorce. Religion does not serve its members well at all. Look at the United Nations Human Development reports to compare national measures of health, happiness, and well-being. The more religion a country has, the less well-off are its citizens. In the entirely theocratic countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia - following the deity of the old testament, just like the numerous Christianities - the human rights abuses are straightforward to assess. When we compare the US, a less formally theocratic country, but still highly religious, to countries where persons practice little or no religion, we see that religion offers no benefit.<br /><br />Comparing the US to Japan, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and Great Britain, we see that the US, despite all of its god bothering, fares very poorly in measures of personal health, personal happiness, longevity, violent crime rate, among many others. On a per capita basis those other societies are also more generous. The US has its religion, but it gets no benefit from it. It does not make people healthier, happier, more moral or caring or generous.<br /><br />Until you and your god have some benefit to show, some real benefit, verifiably resulting from your particular Christianity's brand of deity, you should stop hawking your religious wares. All your bellowing carrys no weigh with those of us who see it for what it is.<br /><br />In today's world where we can't know everyone we interact with, it is imperative that we garner a reasonable sense of the world by using data from groups like those who put together the Human Development Report. This data is compiled and analyzed to be as reliable as they can make it. Contrasting that with religion, you and others have repeatedly noted how other Christianities are wrong. You know you can't trust them, just like I know I can't trust them or any other religion.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76637125434270647302009-06-22T22:42:37.485-04:002009-06-22T22:42:37.485-04:00danielg,
What were the "main-stays" of ...danielg,<br /><br />What were the "main-stays" of Tiller's abortion mill?<br /><br />He was never convicted of violating the necessary legal restrictions for a late-term abortion. You will need more than hearsay to convince me that he was a murderer. You will need motive and violation of law.<br /><br />The case I cited is a real one, not a hypothetical one. Your response indicates you do not support a complete prohibition on abortion.<br /><br />I will answer your hypothetical when you supply data and evidence to support your hearsay against Tiller.<br /><br />Also, I am not an "abortion advocate". I am pro-choice. There is a difference. I believe a non-viable fetus lacking neural pathways does not have the same autonomy as a fully developed human being and a woman's reproductive system is hers to manage. Her autonomy trumps a non-viable fetus'. A late term viable fetus creates a more difficult ethical dilemma but, I believe a safe medical treatment should be legal when there are medical complications that support aborting the child. One such case is the example I cited. There are others. Cancer being diagnosed in the mother. Severe genetic defects in the child that will ensure it's death hours or days after birth. Essentially the same restrictions currently in law and the same restrictions governing Tiller's practice. <br /><br />It seems to me that your moral indignation indicates there is no room for nuance or compromise within this debate and that abortion is murder no matter what.<br /><br />If that is your position that is fine. I disagree with it.<br /><br />Thanks for the links. I will look into them. You can check this page for my response on them.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56363171684332387352009-06-22T18:30:43.276-04:002009-06-22T18:30:43.276-04:00>> CHUCK: Send me your links. I will read t...>> CHUCK: Send me your links. I will read them.<br /><br />Which questions are you concerned with? I am afraid the articles below may not be directly on topic or addressing your contentions.<br /><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5342" rel="nofollow">Are There Objective Truths About God?</a><br /><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5391" rel="nofollow">The Challenge of History: the importance of objective history for the Christian faith.</a><br /><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5207" rel="nofollow">Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: The Evidence for Jesus</a><br /><br />Those are some of WLC's 'popular' articles on such topics. For some of the deeper 'scholarly' ones, you could wade into the depths of:<br /><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5212" rel="nofollow">The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective</a><br /><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5214" rel="nofollow">Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ</a><br /><br />I could go elsewhere for such arguments, but WLC's site is a good start. You can also pick and choose from his <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a_archive" rel="nofollow">Q & A ARCHIVE</a>. I particularly like:<br /><a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767" rel="nofollow">Slaughter of the Canaanites</a>danielghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442435994163863699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37010293201316299512009-06-22T18:10:44.144-04:002009-06-22T18:10:44.144-04:00>> CHUCK: A 9 year old girl is raped by her ...>> CHUCK: A 9 year old girl is raped by her step-father and doesn't realize she is pregnant until her third tri-mester. If she brings the baby to term she will die and so will the baby. What do you do?<br /><br />If the mother will die, of course you save her life, but you try to save both if possible. Such events, however, were not the mainstay of Tiller's abortion mill. As it has been shown, many of the late term abortions were done for trivial reasons.<br /><br />Just like the executioner who delivers the state's capitol punishment is not a murderer, neither is the doctor who must regrettably terminate a pregnancy to save a mother's life.<br /><br />However, to kill the unborn OR an infant for maternal convenience is inexcusable.<br /><br />However, if the mother is NOT going to die. killing the child will not (1) undo the rape, nor (2) heal the victim of her trauma. But it will kill an innocent human being.<br /><br />Try this scenario and you give me an answer. <br /><br />A 9 year old girl is raped by her step-father and doesn't realize she is pregnant until her third tri-mester. She has the baby, but is traumatized by the whole event. <br /><br />Do you:<br />a. kill the infant because it traumatizes the mother<br />b. offer the child up for adoption or let another adult care for the infant<br />c. force the 9 year old to raise the child<br /><br />You, and other abortion advocates, are basically endorsing infanticide (option a) and accusing pro-lifers of option c. But we are advocating the protection of a life (b). <br /><br />The only difference here is, you don't recognize the personhood of a child until they are physically born. I think that you have no good argument, or at least a poor one, for justifying such killing.<br /><br />As I outline at c-ral.org, there are better measures of what society ought to logically call a person, and it includes those tragically considered inferior or non-persons.danielghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442435994163863699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27707496358558974272009-06-22T17:54:34.668-04:002009-06-22T17:54:34.668-04:00danielg,
A 9 year old girl is raped by her step-f...danielg,<br /><br />A 9 year old girl is raped by her step-father and doesn't realize she is pregnant until her third tri-mester. If she brings the baby to term she will die and so will the baby.<br /><br />What do you do?<br /><br />That is an actual case that Dr. Tiller handled.<br /><br />Additionally, the law demands documented evidence that the mother is at risk before a late term abortion can be initiated. <br /><br />I react to the arrogance you and others show when condemning Dr. Tiller a murderer without reference to the current laws governing the medical procedures or, specific cases when the procedure was necessary.<br /><br />He was not a murderer. He provided medical care to women who needed it and was murdered due to self-righteousness that didn't understand the medical need nor the legal restraint.<br /><br />Send me your links. I will read them.<br /><br />Don't underestimate my ability to consider other perspectives. <br /><br />I, unlike you, don't hold a pre-suppositional bias but instead long for evidence to help shape truth.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25079863006163252402009-06-22T17:07:57.116-04:002009-06-22T17:07:57.116-04:00>> CHUCK: What makes you think the conclusio...>> CHUCK: What makes you think the conclusions atheists come to are not the product of serious introspection? <br /><br />I did not say that. I said that unbelief CAN be a choice based on emotional reaction rather than logic, just as religionism can be.<br /><br />I acknowledge that you can not make yourself believe, but you can insulate yourself from that possibility for the wrong reasons.<br /><br />Have I dissuaded you from your rose-colored reading of my comments, or I am I still 'arrogant' in your humble opinion? ;)<br /><br />>> CHUCK: Holding a minority position in the face of unsubstantiated pre-supposition seems to me to be the more introspective position.<br /><br />If that were the only factor here, I would agree. However, the Christian view, esp. when it comes to such things as sexuality are also minority positions. By your simplistic argument, all who hold such possitions are more likely to be motivated by logic than ideological zeal. <br /><br />But when it comes to belief and unbelief, such things can not be explained by social factors alone.danielghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442435994163863699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30744667863418089432009-06-22T17:03:09.995-04:002009-06-22T17:03:09.995-04:00>> CHUCK: Your support of his murder is evid...>> CHUCK: Your support of his murder is evidence to the moral contradiction your self-righteous faith creates.<br /><br />I take it then, that you are against the death penalty, and believe that anyone who claims to be a Christian must also be so, or be self-contradicting?<br /><br />>> CHUCK: Comparing Tiller to the Nazis is the evidence of your elitist nonsense. <br /><br />I'm sure that you would find all comparisons to Nazi's, except perhaps Christian leaders like Falwell and his ilk, as illegitimate.<br /><br />The fact that Tiller killed what amounts to 60000 infants makes the comparison legitimate and clear.<br /><br />>> CHUCK: The only reason you can make your claim is by applying your pre-suppositional superstition regarding a "soul". <br /><br />Straw man. I and other pro-lifers make no such argument, just like we don't argue for abolition based on the 'soul' of black people.<br /><br />The argument is that they are helpless people with self-evident, 'inalienable' rights to life, liberty, and happiness (and please don't muddy the water with 'what about the rights of the homosexual,' that is another discussion).<br /><br />While you would assign personhood only after a child is born, or perhaps, like some atheist 'ethicists', after the child is 12 to 24 months old, it is perfectly reasonable to doubt such an assertion, and rely on better markers of personhood, like brainwave, heartbeat, or even genetic uniqueness and potential.<br /><br />I am not pre-supposing a soul. What are YOU pre-supposing to say that a 9 month old fetus (or 8, 7, 6, etc) is NOT a person with a life and rights to be protected?<br /><br />>> CHUCK: Your support of his murder is evidence to the moral contradiction your self-righteous faith creates.<br /><br />You missed my point entirely. I do not support his murder. I condemn it because it was vigilante justice. However, I acknowlege that he was worthy of death, as all first degree murderers are, by just means, that is, by civil government execution of justice. Whether or not the current law reflected that it was murder does not determine it's morality, any more than Nazi law or Jim Crowe laws justitied those perspectives.<br /><br />>> CHUCK: Post your links. I doubt they stand up to any true scholarship.<br /><br />I doubt that you would consider any opposing viewpoint valid, reasoned or not.<br /><br />>> CHUCK: History, science and the behavior of "true believers" have disproved any claim you may have to moral or intellectual superiority.<br /><br />Um, your reading of history, I have no doubt.<br /><br />>> CHUCK: It is not hateful to speak truth to deluded power.<br /><br />I totally agree, but your inaccuracies and broadbrush tactics are evidence of emotionalism and illogic. Your accusation of childishness and immaturity is nonsense. Pot, kettle, black, get it? The reason I called your rejection of the historicity of the Bible 'hateful' is that, it is such a bald-faced untruth that I could only conclude that your rejection is not based on logic, but on emotional hatred for all things religious, which is common among people who hold that view. My mistake if you are not hateful, but merely bitter.danielghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442435994163863699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47466358732968602012009-06-22T15:53:48.772-04:002009-06-22T15:53:48.772-04:00danielg, I need to comment once again because you...danielg, I need to comment once again because your arrogance demands it.<br /><br />>> TELE: It's nice that you would respect our choices, but for me, agnosticism/atheism is not a choice.<br /><br />>>I agree, belief is not a choice, but unbelief, or refusal to question one's own worldview or assumptions is. Just be careful that you are not excusing a lack of serious introspection.<br /><br />What makes you think the conclusions atheists come to are not the product of serious introspection? It seems to me that your position is the shallow one. You live in a culture dominated by christian mythology and uncontested support that the belief in that mythology = morality (despite repeated hypocrisies and outright crimes to contradict that perspective). Holding a minority position in the face of unsubstantiated pre-supposition seems to me to be the more introspective position.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26213827455790523342009-06-22T15:17:55.099-04:002009-06-22T15:17:55.099-04:00danielg,
Comparing Tiller to the Nazis is the evi...danielg,<br /><br />Comparing Tiller to the Nazis is the evidence of your elitist nonsense. <br /><br />Tiller was not a nazi and your assertion that he was only indicates your ignorance of abortion law and also the medical procedure he practiced.<br /><br />The only reason you can make your claim is by applying your pre-suppositional superstition regarding a "soul". <br /><br />Your support of his murder is evidence to the moral contradiction your self-righteous faith creates.<br /><br />Post your links. I doubt they stand up to any true scholarship.<br /><br />Additioally, your constant retreat to opposition to your delusions as "hateful" indicates your level of immaturity. History, science and the behavior of "true believers" have disproved any claim you may have to moral or intellectual superiority. It is not hateful to speak truth to deluded power.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89322651947931802722009-06-22T15:09:38.899-04:002009-06-22T15:09:38.899-04:00>> CHUCK: You don't agree with vigilanti...>> CHUCK: You don't agree with vigilantism but do believe a man deserved murder <br /><br />No, he, like any murdering criminal, deserved justice. Would you agree that, even though German law did not prohibit the Nazi cruelties, that those men deserved punishment? How is this an 'immature' viewpoint? <br /><br />Whether or not you think capital punishment is warranted for murderers, and whether a spiritual or Christian viewpoint may rightly include capital punishment is another matter.<br /><br />>> CHUCK: Your imaginary stories are elitist nonsense that any objective methodology identifies as nothing more than ancient myth.<br /><br />I'm sorry, your ranting has me confused. Are you still talking about the fact that I think that Tiller deserved what he got, and that his death in a hypocritical church that failed to condemn him was ironic and just? Or have you gone back to raving about the supposed non-historicity of the bible, which can be soundly refuted as ignorant hateful nonsense?<br /><br />>>CHUCK: I posted a link to a site that had well-researched evidence to why your claim for historical veracity of the bible is bunk yet, you failed to respond to it.<br /><br />I'll just reply with some other links verifying my point of view, OK? That way we don't have to go round in circles. Believe what you like.danielghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442435994163863699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57968219756306275912009-06-22T14:59:46.329-04:002009-06-22T14:59:46.329-04:00>>RUSS: Fundamentalist Christian adults, lay...>>RUSS: Fundamentalist Christian adults, laymen and clergy alike, in Africa murdering, maiming, torturing and abusing their children due to their "interpreting the bible in its rigid, literary[literal?] form" is wrong.<br /><br />We totally agree. But again, you are grouping some strange cultish African/Christian group with the Baptist next door. Africa is so frought with animism and other fear and nature-based demonic religions, it's like saying that the voodoo christianity of Haiti and Evangelicalism are the same thing. Dumb. Stop doing that, it doesn't work.<br /><br />>> RUSS: the Fundamentalist's penchant for embracing, elevating and perpetuating ignorance is a grave concern to us all. <br /><br />Your use of superlatives and grouping your opponents into demonized groups is a pure example of the fundamentalism you decry.<br /><br />And while fundamentalism, in general (including evolutionary fundamentalism) do reject science and logic, your contention that fundamentalist Christianty has impeded science is nonsense. For just an introductory lesson in history on this matter, see <a href="http://www.twoorthree.net/2005/10/the_biblical_or.html" rel="nofollow">The biblical origins of science</a>.danielghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442435994163863699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7125185404127880682009-06-22T14:54:00.562-04:002009-06-22T14:54:00.562-04:00>> RUSS: Edson, you say, "A fundamental...>> RUSS: Edson, you say, "A fundamentalist Christian is not going to slit your throat," but we see that right now, today, they are doing that and things equivalent to it to themselves, to their own children, their neighbors and through their vilification and rejection of science to the rest of the human community.<br /><br />Beyond the fact that I have previously countered your contention that Christians (which I assume you mean by 'fundamentalist') divorce more or equally as their unbelieving neighbors, your equating murderous violent intent with the selfishness and ignorance of those who marry and divorce inadvisedly is ludicrous. <br /><br />Perhaps you think that such a creative flourish makes you sound right, but it looks idiotic to a thinking person. While divorce is terrible, I think you and I would much rather live next door to a divorcee than an Alquaida member. Or maybe in your estimation there is little difference?danielghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12442435994163863699noreply@blogger.com