On Being Atheist...

[cloudy]

permits perfectly good people to ruin their entire lives by, for example, having an abortion at age 18. The act will never go away and will haunt forever. And yes, I know that as a fact.

Amicus

This ranks right up there with the most stupid things I've ever seen you say.

A fact? Seriously?

Have you talked to every single woman who has ever had an abortion at the age of 18 and had every single one of them confirm your so-called "fact"? How about when the woman/girl is 16? Does it ruin her life, too?

I'm calling bullshit on your "fact" that you pulled out of your ass like so many others. I'm living proof.

I had an abortion at 16. It was one of the absolute best decisions I made at that age, and I don't regret it for a single minute - never have. I was horribly unsuited to have and raise a child at that age. I would have not only destroyed my own future, but most likely destroyed the child's future, as well. As it was, when my daughter came along three years later, I was still wobbly as hell when it came to kids.

I tell you this because hopefully the newbs around will see what a bullshitter you are, and a really bad one, at that. At least make up something halfway believable. Hell, my 10-year-old can lie better than you can.

My life has been far from "ruined." In fact, its been quite a good life so far, and I see more of the same good life to come. You can make up all the "facts" you like (just like you always have), but to be quite honest, I don't give a good god damn what you think of me, because - to use the local vernacular - you ain't shit to me.




A fact....my tight red ass. b

 

[Pure]

note to stella

your assertions are so poorly formulated and simplistic, it's hard to know where to start. below you suggest "scientific process" leads to search for facts and truth, and "religion" teaches its adherents to defer to authority [and presumably, evade the truth].

you ignore the large number of scientists who are religious, who dealt with facts and held their religion, some famous examples documented below: Kepler, Newton, and in our time Owen Gingerich, Harvard prof of Astronomy.
indeed one survey quoted below, suggests perhaps 30% of US scientists may be theists.

science v. religion is one of those spurious dichotomies you're fond of, the other being that tolerance and democracy are opposed by "religion". again, simplistic thinking belied by such examples as MLK and the early suffragettes, e.g. Lucretia Mott, the Grimke sisters, and so on.



stell-- I find the scientific process of empirical research, replicable testing, hypothesis proof and theory-- all based on the understanding that new information may come along at any time-- to be a pretty good way to go about it. I do not know of a better one.

It's quite true that individual scientists can and often do get caught up in their pet theory until they falsify evidence to "prove" it. But that's human nature, and science as a body of work tries, at least, to discourage such things.

In contrast, religion tends to train its followers to expect answers from some authority figure or another-- a priest or such-- and to accept those answers.

=====
sources:

http://www.adherents.com/people/pk/Johannes_Kepler.html
From: Dan Graves, Scientists of Faith, Kregel Resources: Grand Rapids, MI (1996), pages 46-48:

The founder of modern astronomy... His real dream was to enter the ministry, but economic necessity forced him to pursue mathematics. He would later recognize God's leading in the academic route he followed... Harrassment over his religious beliefs compelled him to leave Gratz [Austria] in 1597. He spent some time in Prague, but community opposition to his Lutheranism eventually drove him from there as well. The persecution led him to his big break. Kepler began working with Tycho Brahe..
.
[page 48] All of Kepler's writings and letters displayed deep religious convictions. He held that Scripture used the common expressions of mankind when it spoke about mundane things as opposed to spiritual matters. Hence, he perceived the Bible to be a spiritual and not a scientific guide. He held reason to be above authority in matters of natural philosophy, while authority (that is, church and Scripture) ruled in matters of religion. Beneath it all, he saw himself as a priset of nature whose discoveries glorified the name of God.
Firmly believing that God created the universe, Kepler sought to discover how it was set in motion. "I wanted to become a theologian," he wrote. "For a long time I was restless. Now, however, behold how through my effort God is being celebrated in astronomy...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible, as he considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture.[3] Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[4][5]

Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith [Arian variety] that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[6] in recent times he has been described as heretical to orthodoxy.[7]

Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."[8] He spent a great deal of time trying to discover hidden messages within the Bible.

===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Gingerich

Gingerich believes “there is a God as a designer, who happens to be using the evolutionary process to achieve larger goals — which are, as far as we human beings can see, [the development of] self-consciousness and conscience.” He has written that “I ... believe in intelligent design, lowercase ‘i’ and ‘d.’ But I have trouble with Intelligent Design — uppercase ‘I’ and ‘D’ — a movement widely seen as anti-evolutionist.” He indicated that teleological arguments, such as the apparent fine tuning of the universe, can count as evidence, but not proof, for the existence of God. He said that “a common-sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a superintelligence.” [10]

Accepting the common descent of species, Gingerich is a theistic evolutionist. Therefore, he does not accept metaphysical naturalism, writing that
Most mutations are disasters, but perhaps some inspired few are not. Can mutations be inspired? Here is the ideological watershed, the division between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution, and frankly it lies beyond science to prove the matter one way or the other. Science will not collapse if some practitioners are convinced that occasionally there has been creative input in the long chain of being.[11]


==
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=231
[what % of astronomers are xian?]

I know there have been a lot of surveys done over the years about these questions (at least polls of scientists in the United States - I'm not sure how much it's been done in other countries). As with all surveys, their methodologies are open to question so it's not always easy to say how reliable the results are. I am aware of at least one survey published in the scientific journal Nature a few years ago which showed that around 60% of leading American scientists (astronomers and otherwise) either do not believe in or doubt the existence of God.

[[pure: allowing 10% for "i don't know", that would suggest about 30% have some sort of theistic belief]]

 

[amicus]

Thank you, Pure, for a little random serendipity here as I was musing how to entice those who have both faith and a respect for science, reason, logic, rationality, to offer their thoughts on this thread.

Not quite sure how to condense that, perhaps that middle category of people who fully realize that religion cannot and does not attempt to explain those laws of nature that conflict with faith, but also realize that science does not answer moral or ethical questions, the ones that arise in day to day living.

How does one justify holding those two premises at the same time?

Amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

This ranks right up there with the most stupid things I've ever seen you say.

A fact? Seriously?

Have you talked to every single woman who has ever had an abortion at the age of 18 and had every single one of them confirm your so-called "fact"? How about when the woman/girl is 16? Does it ruin her life, too?

I'm calling bullshit on your "fact" that you pulled out of your ass like so many others. I'm living proof.

I had an abortion at 16. It was one of the absolute best decisions I made at that age, and I don't regret it for a single minute - never have. I was horribly unsuited to have and raise a child at that age. I would have not only destroyed my own future, but most likely destroyed the child's future, as well. As it was, when my daughter came along three years later, I was still wobbly as hell when it came to kids.

I tell you this because hopefully the newbs around will see what a bullshitter you are, and a really bad one, at that. At least make up something halfway believable. Hell, my 10-year-old can lie better than you can.

My life has been far from "ruined." In fact, its been quite a good life so far, and I see more of the same good life to come. You can make up all the "facts" you like (just like you always have), but to be quite honest, I don't give a good god damn what you think of me, because - to use the local vernacular - you ain't shit to me.




A fact....my tight red ass. b

You go girl........abortion is a subject that no man is qualified (nor has a right to) discuss/opinionate; it just doesn't affect us as intimately as it does a woman.....only a woman has the right to her body....(and any one else she assents to).....the A-Coot reveals his deep, twisted, unnatural religious leanings by his bullshit................

 

[amicus]

Cloudy....some time back on the Forum, I posted links to and excerpts from several post abortion clinical studies that indicated severe and lasting trauma, even suicide as a result of your revered 'choice' agenda.

You can be as mean and nasty and dismissive of every one who holds life as sacred, as you do and never wonder what led you to such bitterness and disdain for others?

You are harsh, vindictive and cruel to anyone who dares disagree with you; ever ask yourself why you are so self righteous and egotistically inclined?

Your symptoms are clear to everyone. Look in the mirror.

Amicus

 

[sr71plt]

Off to pop some popcorn before the main event starts.

 

[1sickbastard]

Thank you, Pure, for a little random serendipity here as I was musing how to entice those who have both faith and a respect for science, reason, logic, rationality, to offer their thoughts on this thread.

Not quite sure how to condense that, perhaps that middle category of people who fully realize that religion cannot and does not attempt to explain those laws of nature that conflict with faith, but also realize that science does not answer moral or ethical questions, the ones that arise in day to day living.

How does one justify holding those two premises at the same time?

Amicus

I chose to be irrational about the whole thing. No, don't look at me like that, it was a logical decision.
I can happily embrace logic and rational thought whenever those are the best tools-I like science & don't get threatened by expanding human knowledge/understanding of the natural world.
And I can just as happily set those tools aside when trying to process anything metaphysical or supernatural.
And because I'm irrational, I see no need to try and resolve apparent conflicts between mutually exclusive realms.

Sanity is sooooo limiting.

 

[Guest]

*deleted*

 

[estragon]

You go girl........abortion is a subject that no man is qualified (nor has a right to) discuss/opinionate; it just doesn't affect us as intimately as it does a woman.....only a woman has the right to her body....(and any one else she assents to).....the A-Coot reveals his deep, twisted, unnatural religious leanings by his bullshit................

Or as C. S. Lewis, a Christian and a combat infantryman, put it "I do not write polemics against an enemy I never met in the field." Let those who can never become pregnant cast the first fucking stone--and then fucking duck real quick.

 

[estragon]

Thank you, Pure, for a little random serendipity here as I was musing how to entice those who have both faith and a respect for science, reason, logic, rationality, to offer their thoughts on this thread.

Not quite sure how to condense that, perhaps that middle category of people who fully realize that religion cannot and does not attempt to explain those laws of nature that conflict with faith, but also realize that science does not answer moral or ethical questions, the ones that arise in day to day living.

How does one justify holding those two premises at the same time?

Amicus

How do you spell "cognitive dissonance"? Or as the White Queen (take it easy, troops, I mean Dodgson's character, not your dreamtoy) said, "sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

And to correct a previous misquote of C. S. Lewis, Christian and combat infantryman, "I will not indulge in futile phillipics against enemies I never met in battle." He was talking about homosexuality, but the statement applies to many other things as well, like abortion.

 

[amicus]

How do you spell "cognitive dissonance"? Or as the White Queen (take it easy, troops, I mean Dodgson's character, not your dreamtoy) said, "sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

And to correct a previous misquote of C. S. Lewis, Christian and combat infantryman, "I will not indulge in futile phillipics against enemies I never met in battle." He was talking about homosexuality, but the statement applies to many other things as well, like abortion.

~~~

"People tend to seek consistency in their beliefs and perceptions. So what happens when one of our beliefs conflicts with another previously held belief? The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. When there is a discrepancy between beliefs for behaviors, something must change in order to eliminate or reduce the dissonance."

Since 1973 when the DSM IV went all wishy washy and relative, dictionary definitions have followed suit with warm and fuzzy definitions and explanations for mental disorders...see how nicely I slipped that in to define cognitive dissonance?

The Tucson shooter would no doubt be described as suffering from cognitive dissonance as he correctly felt the 'genocide' being committed by the Community College he was attending, mental genocide in the pap belched out by third rate educators earning wages at a teaching job....the poor bloke was and is correct concerning the dissonant message being preached by PC educators and social manipulators...his poor mind could not accept conflicting inputs and retreated into an extreme mental disorder to preserve a tiny corner of reality in his mind.

Sooo...slough off cognitive dissonance as inconsequential in behavioral terms but recognize the inevitable percentile of those so afflicted who will turn to violence seeking resolution of the conflicts in their minds.

Amicus

 

[PoppingTom]

Cloudy....

You are harsh, vindictive and cruel to anyone who dares disagree with you; ever ask yourself why you are so self righteous and egotistically inclined?

Sorry, amicus, but if cloudy's speaking is "harsh, vindictive and cruel" in your recognization - how do you expect a disagreement to your opinions to be?

If you can't take it then don't dish it out.

 

[stephen55]

Cloudy....some time back on the Forum, I posted links to and excerpts from several post abortion clinical studies that indicated severe and lasting trauma, even suicide as a result of your revered 'choice' agenda.

You can be as mean and nasty and dismissive of every one who holds life as sacred, as you do and never wonder what led you to such bitterness and disdain for others?

You are harsh, vindictive and cruel to anyone who dares disagree with you; ever ask yourself why you are so self righteous and egotistically inclined?

Your symptoms are clear to everyone. Look in the mirror.

Amicus

Jeez....talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

ami, while you may not be the meanest and nastiest SOB on the board, you're certainly in a tie for top spot. "bitterness and disdain for others"...you define the concept.

"harsh, vindictive and cruel to anyone who dares disagree with you"...look in your own mirror, ami.

 

[squarejohn]

SquareJohn...may I recommend a reading of the non fiction works of Ayn Rand, as many as you can find? You present good questions but you present them as if they cannot be answered.

regards...

ami

I thought I made it clear that questions of this sort are beyond the ability of man to answer. Look at the numerous "major" religions, and the innumerable subdivisions of each of these. None have found "the Answer;" all have faith that there is an answer.

Humans, by divine design, are barred from finding this answer. That is mentioned in Genesis (I can't cite chapter and verse but it is at the part where Adam and Eve were turned out of the Garden. Here God refers to himself in the plural and says (paraphrasing) "We had better not let them have that ability or they will become like us.").

The thing to keep in mind when pondering any god-question, is that God does not think as we think. As for me, I have lived a full live and have suffered and rejoiced as much as anyone. Now, in my senior years, I can say that my last breath will be a sigh of relief.

 

[1sickbastard]

I thought I made it clear that questions of this sort are beyond the ability of man to answer. Look at the numerous "major" religions, and the innumerable subdivisions of each of these. None have found "the Answer;" all have faith that there is an answer.

Humans, by divine design, are barred from finding this answer. That is mentioned in Genesis (I can't cite chapter and verse but it is at the part where Adam and Eve were turned out of the Garden. Here God refers to himself in the plural and says (paraphrasing) "We had better not let them have that ability or they will become like us.").

The thing to keep in mind when pondering any god-question, is that God does not think as we think. As for me, I have lived a full live and have suffered and rejoiced as much as anyone. Now, in my senior years, I can say that my last breath will be a sigh of relief.

Genesis 3:22

 

[lovecraft68]

Or as C. S. Lewis, a Christian and a combat infantryman, put it "I do not write polemics against an enemy I never met in the field." Let those who can never become pregnant cast the first fucking stone--and then fucking duck real quick.

Gonna regret this I'm sure but I guess at the end of the day I am a masochist. I am a man and as far as abortion goes I believe wholeheartedly in it being legal and the woman's choice. It is your body, the baby is in you, possession is 9/10ths of the law. I am a big proponent of it especially in the cases of rape/ incest possible birth defects or threat to the mothers health.
However I still in case of a simply "unwanted" pregnancy can't help but feel that the woman should carry and possibly give up to adoption to someone who would give anything to have that gift. I also get upset when I hear that a woman has had multiple abortions (maybe she's a pro or a crackhead or just doesn't care) I think something should be done about "serial abortions" Maybe after the second you either have to have the third or get you damn tubes tied
My main question to you however just out of curiosity is in the cases there is a willing father shouldn't he get half the say as it's his baby as well?

 

[1sickbastard]

My main question to you however just out of curiosity is in the cases there is a willing father shouldn't he get half the say as it's his baby as well?

My own opinion-
A woman's body is her personal, private property. Whether or not she is required to share it with any other being is her choice alone.
If the man want's a say in bringing the featus to term, then he need to come up with the means to gestate the thing. Find a surrogate, find technological means, whatever.

As to the serial abortions-personally I find it reprehensible, but I also see the slippery slope of imposing any set of rules that violates a woman (or any person) having absolute say over what goes on in, with, or to her own body.

The way out is developing the technical means to gestate any featus ex-utero

Sure we could get into the eugenics debate, but that's another thread.

 

[squarejohn]

Genesis 3:22

That is the reference I meant. Thank you.

 

[stephen55]

String Theory, Chaos and Uncertainty, even the billions spent to discover the 'God Particle' at CERN, are little more than intellectual masturbation to avoid really introspective thoughts applied to human ethics and morals minus a God figure.
Amicus

Congratulations, ami. That is quite simply the stupidest thing I have ever read. Ever.

And as for you stating "I don't have an overblown ego", well...

 

[amicus]

Thank you for your words of greeting.

One can learn to control one's emotions, or rather some can, other's maybe not so much.
After you learned to control your emotions, did you never feel them, or that you can and do feel them, but can turn them on and off at will
Or is it that you felt emotions, but controlled your reactions to them?

~~~

Formally, it is a complex subject, especially as the professionals, whose roots are in Pavlov and B.F Skinner, 'behaviorists', tend to treat human emotions as relative to a dog's learning to salivate at the sound of a bell in anticipation of being fed.

A child 'learns' of the warmth and softness of its mother's breast and, that it satisfies hunger. The 'desire', the emotional need for such sustenance becomes an automatic emotional response to the stimulation of 'seeing' a breast, or even the mound beneath the material, that we each carry with us for life, in one fashion or another.

Now, I personally don't reach out for every bobbing breast within my sight and reach, although the thought does cross my mind in some circumstances; so yes, we experience emotions and yes we can control them, dampen them, and yes our self will can control our reactions to emotions.

And yes, contol of one's emotions is an individual characteristic, varying between all, there are rapists and murderers and then there are not. It is within the purview of the individual to strive for honor and integrity in one's actions, by acting on one's thoughts and emotions in a beneficial manner. As in all aspects of human life, it is a matter of individual choice.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

Pure, Post 149, rethink that, rewrite that, with attention paid to 'sentient', self awareness and see where you end up. Values, ethics, morals, arise only from sentient, self aware critters, not rocks & toads & bean sprouts.

I never suggest a falling rock has a moral purpose, why do you?

Amicus

 

[1sickbastard]

~~~

Formally, it is a complex subject, especially as the professionals, whose roots are in Pavlov and B.F Skinner, 'behaviorists', tend to treat human emotions as relative to a dog's learning to salivate at the sound of a bell in anticipation of being fed.

A child 'learns' of the warmth and softness of its mother's breast and, that it satisfies hunger. The 'desire', the emotional need for such sustenance becomes an automatic emotional response to the stimulation of 'seeing' a breast, or even the mound beneath the material, that we each carry with us for life, in one fashion or another.

Now, I personally don't reach out for every bobbing breast within my sight and reach, although the thought does cross my mind in some circumstances; so yes, we experience emotions and yes we can control them, dampen them, and yes our self will can control our reactions to emotions.

And yes, contol of one's emotions is an individual characteristic, varying between all, there are rapists and murderers and then there are not. It is within the purview of the individual to strive for honor and integrity in one's actions, by acting on one's thoughts and emotions in a beneficial manner. As in all aspects of human life, it is a matter of individual choice.

Amicus

And you managed to avoid the question.
When you say you control your emotions; do you mean that you control whether you have an emotion, based on a rational decision, or do you mean you feel the emotion, but control your reaction to it?

 

[amicus]

Well, let's spin the Wheel.

You say, they don't need (your?) understanding.

But this means also, they don't need to understand YOU. Whether they do or not, they will be exterminated (by you?).

This means that every penalty to them don't deserve its name, cause it's pure revenge, and you don't expect any meaningful consequences for this by them.

Or you have to tell me the sense of penalties at all.[/QUOTE]

~~~

I quoted the entire content as someone else may be able to interpret what you said, I cannot.

A small, miniscule actually, percentage of all humans commit crimes against others. Every society of record has a means of dealing with such criminals.

My use of 'exterminate' was for shock value; usually society just incarcerates criminals and only occasionally takes their lives with capital punishment and even that is subject to debate.

We have judges and juries for such matters, but if I find you in my home standing over a child's bed, I will decide your future.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

Genesis 3:22

~~~

SquareJohn, if you are bowing out...I bid thee a fond adieu....1sickbastard, Genesis 3:22, if you say so, refers to consuming fruit from the 'tree of knowledge'; man's original sin was then, to think, and to not 'obey', perhaps the most evil concept in Christianity.

I point that out because it represents a degenerative, mutation of humanity that has a decomposing thread in almost every major religion and philosophy in human history. That of self sacrifice to a higher power.

My daughter has a course in the History of Astronomy this semester, so I am brushing up a bit on Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, and the Astronomer the Catholics burned at the stake for heresy for challenging Aristotles Heliocentric Cosmic Theory.

While the sphincter retentive self adorned moderators on this forum attempt censorship of this tiny microcosm of discussion, it still represents the Inquisition where one could be punished to death for expressing one's own opinion or thoughts.

Gnats on an elephants ass are those who attempt to quell the spirit of humankind, be gone with ye!

(I seldom find a place for my eloquent verbiage in my fiction, so this is my only outlet, unless I talk to my plants...)

Amicus

 

[amicus]

I chose to be irrational about the whole thing. No, don't look at me like that, it was a logical decision.
I can happily embrace logic and rational thought whenever those are the best tools-I like science & don't get threatened by expanding human knowledge/understanding of the natural world.
And I can just as happily set those tools aside when trying to process anything metaphysical or supernatural.
And because I'm irrational, I see no need to try and resolve apparent conflicts between mutually exclusive realms.

Sanity is sooooo limiting.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Egads, so Ken Kesey and Ginsburg, so Sartre & Nietzsche, and, forgive me, so self-destructive.

Irrationality, by definition, can never be a 'logical' decision; contradiction in terms.

'Meta' physical, means simply, beyond physics, it does not include the 'supernatural', which is t he province of astrologers and women.

You are free to see no need to be rational, hence, sane, but insanity is the inevitable result and incarceration or death are your only options.

Many, if not most, who inhabit insane asylums, have an outlook equal to yours, they pick and choose those parts of reality they will deal with and ignore the rest. The human mind will not accommodate contradictions; it will rebel and refuse to function in a rational manner and you will be left slobbering in a drug induced coma, still claiming your righteousness.

Such is the fate of the Progressive as they dance naked around a campfire in the wilderness of their minds.

Such a deal...count me out.

Amicus