Theists Need Love Too(moved to Atheist vs. Theist)

dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Theists Need Love Too(moved to Atheist vs. Theist)

So, I understand a lot of folks here are impatient with theists, especially fundies. I hear ya, but if you didn't grow up in that environment, it can be hard to comprehend.

My family of origin came from SERIOUSLY messed up families--childhoods that I'm learning were *totally fuct*. Fundyism was a crutch--they could have run to drugs, other religions, etc. So, in reality, they are mentally ill, just not organic brain trauma like schizophrenia, etc. And since lots of people would fall into that category (loss of spouse, family, need more meaning), why not tolerate them? We don't mock people w/ schizophrenia, right?

I understand the whole schools/politics etc agenda fundies have and that whole issue, but are they really gonna take over? doubt it.

However, yeah, if a JW comes to my door, expect a slam in yer face. Hare Krishna approaches? You'll be lucky to not get yelled at.

Thoughts?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
They've already "taken over"

They've already "taken over" enough. Look at the denial of funding for stem cell research. Researchers see a potential here for treatments for all kinds of neurological diseases: MS, ALS, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, etc. Guess why government funding has been denied this cause. According to Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith," the researchers would be getting the stem cells from collections of 150 cells arranged in a sphere. For perspective, he said there are 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. Conservative claptrap suggests you can't do stem cell research because one of those cloned embryos might grow up to be John F. Kennedy, or something. There are people alive right now that are waiting for cures for their ailments, who may get worse or die in the intervening time, and we're torturing them based on a notion of conception and the soul pulled out of someone's ass in the freaking iron age?
People like Sam Harris are partly stating the obvious. Religious moderates and atheists need to make their presence known, and distinguish themselves from their lunatic neighbors, so we can get out of this dangerous "end times" holding pattern the fundies have dragged us into.


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: So, I

dassercha wrote:

So, I understand a lot of folks here are impatient with theists, especially fundies. I hear ya, but if you didn't grow up in that environment, it can be hard to comprehend.

My family of origin came from SERIOUSLY messed up families--childhoods that I'm learning were *totally fuct*. Fundyism was a crutch--they could have run to drugs, other religions, etc. So, in reality, they are mentally ill, just not organic brain trauma like schizophrenia, etc. And since lots of people would fall into that category (loss of spouse, family, need more meaning), why not tolerate them? We don't mock people w/ schizophrenia, right?

I understand the whole schools/politics etc agenda fundies have and that whole issue, but are they really gonna take over? doubt it.

However, yeah, if a JW comes to my door, expect a slam in yer face. Hare Krishna approaches? You'll be lucky to not get yelled at.

Thoughts?

 

Right, but a person with schizophrenea literally has NO control over their condition.  I would disagree with anyone who says the same about theists.  People are indeed raised to be theists, but so are some raised(essentially) to be chauvanists, or racists.  Should we afford those people the same tolerance?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There's a fundamental

There's a fundamental difference between tolerating anothers beliefs, and allowing those beliefs to corrupt society.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: There's a

Vastet wrote:
There's a fundamental difference between tolerating anothers beliefs, and allowing those beliefs to corrupt society.

Well said. (You beat me to the punch of saying the same thing.)

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Thanks. :)

Thanks. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
My understanding of the

My understanding of the religious position on stem cell research is that we have to kill unborn children in order to obtain the cell samples.  Obviously, no one believes that this is actually murder since, as Mr. Harris points out, there is only a cluster of 150 cells that we're killing.

My understading of the scientific defination of LIFE is that the organism must Grow, Respond to its environment, consume and metabolize Energy, produce and remove Waste, and be capaple of Reproducing itself.

I know even a single human cell is capable of all of that.  Are 150 cells in cluster not capable of those things?

At what point, then, does this become murder? 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
http://josiahcm.wordpress.co

http://josiahcm.wordpress.com/2007/03/17/well-i-couldnt-resist/

 

Don't be coy. Just say it. You believe the 150 cloned cells have a soul.

 

Pre-emptive war that kills tens of thousands? Sure. AIDS epidemic in Africa? No condoms. Condoms bad. Systematic molestation within the church? "I'm sorry, brother, but we'll have to transfer you." A potential cure for people who, unlike the 150 cloned cells are without a doubt sentient and suffering? HELL NO.

 

But you'll pray for them, right? At what point does your apathy become intolerable?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
At what point, then, does

At what point, then, does this become murder?

The progenitor blastocyte has not undergone neurogenesis by the time the doctors extract the human embryonic stem cells. The 150 cells have not undergone anything that could remotely be considered full cellular differentiation. They have nothing that could remotely be considered conciousness. They cannot feel pain. That is, in essence, the sentient decision that a moral person what make. Can it suffer? The hESC cluster cannot.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: My

Cory T wrote:

My understading of the scientific defination of LIFE is that the organism must Grow, Respond to its environment, consume and metabolize Energy, produce and remove Waste, and be capaple of Reproducing itself.

I know even a single human cell is capable of all of that. Are 150 cells in cluster not capable of those things?

If that's the case, no one should ever get a tumor removed. 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yiab
Posts: 73
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: My

Cory T wrote:
My understading of the scientific defination of LIFE is that the organism must Grow, Respond to its environment, consume and metabolize Energy, produce and remove Waste, and be capaple of Reproducing itself.

 

1) This definition applies quite well to both cancer and fire and while a case can be made for cancer being alive, I hope nobody is making that claim of fire. Plus, I'm fairly certain that this definition can even be applied to galaxies, possibly with a slight stretch.

2) Okay, 150 cells arranged in a sphere are "alive" in some meaningful sense of the word. We experiment on rats on a daily basis and pretty consistently on monkeys as well - both of which are capable of feeling and expressing pain and suffering, unlike 150 cells arranged in a sphere. Surely the monkeys deserve to be recognized as moral agents before the days-old fetus does.

3) If these cells are not used for stem cell research, what happens to them? They get thrown out. Isn't it generally considered more respectful for the corpse of a living thing to make use of as much of it as possible so that it's death wasn't as much in vain? Shouldn't this idea alone say that regardless of the stature of an aborted fetus scientific research should always remain an option (to be decided by the non-mother)?

4) Looking at your picture, you trim your beard and cut your hair. You are murdering innocent cells for aesthetic reasons alone! (Note: I shave and cut my hair as well, I'm just pointing out the bizarre hypocrisy involved in these arguments not trying to make you feel guilty.)


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yiab wrote: Cory T

Yiab wrote:

Cory T wrote:
My understading of the scientific defination of LIFE is that the organism must Grow, Respond to its environment, consume and metabolize Energy, produce and remove Waste, and be capaple of Reproducing itself.

 

1) This definition applies quite well to both cancer and fire and while a case can be made for cancer being alive, I hope nobody is making that claim of fire. Plus, I'm fairly certain that this definition can even be applied to galaxies, possibly with a slight stretch.

Works perfectly on stars too.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Cory, if taht were the

Cory, if taht were the case, then not only would you have to become a Vegan, you would have to stop eating any life, including plants.

 Good luck with that.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
magilum

magilum wrote:

http://josiahcm.wordpress.com/2007/03/17/well-i-couldnt-resist/

 

Don't be coy. Just say it. You believe the 150 cloned cells have a soul.

 

Pre-emptive war that kills tens of thousands? Sure. AIDS epidemic in Africa? No condoms. Condoms bad. Systematic molestation within the church? "I'm sorry, brother, but we'll have to transfer you." A potential cure for people who, unlike the 150 cloned cells are without a doubt sentient and suffering? HELL NO.

 

But you'll pray for them, right? At what point does your apathy become intolerable?

Certainly there is a school of thought that states the soul enters the body at conception. If that were the case here, then we'd have a case of murder.

Wouldn't practicing abstinence be the only sure way to contain an AIDS epidemic? Condoms are not 100% effective. I'm not suggesting that we ignore the epidemic in Africa, but we should fight it with the only thing that works 100% of the time: ABSTINENCE. Condoms may alleviate the problem, but they won't make it go away.

I'm sorry, I have no answer for the systematic molestation within the Catholic Church. You have me confused with Cory Cardinal Tucholski.

I have no position on stem cell research. The point of my last post is to get you to think. Blasting me for all the failures of the Christian churches is not nice.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Cory T

Susan wrote:
Cory T wrote:

My understading of the scientific defination of LIFE is that the organism must Grow, Respond to its environment, consume and metabolize Energy, produce and remove Waste, and be capaple of Reproducing itself.

I know even a single human cell is capable of all of that. Are 150 cells in cluster not capable of those things?

If that's the case, no one should ever get a tumor removed.

 

Oh, c'mon.  You know that isn't what I'm suggesting. 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Yiab wrote: 3) If these

Yiab wrote:

3) If these cells are not used for stem cell research, what happens to them? They get thrown out. Isn't it generally considered more respectful for the corpse of a living thing to make use of as much of it as possible so that it's death wasn't as much in vain? Shouldn't this idea alone say that regardless of the stature of an aborted fetus scientific research should always remain an option (to be decided by the non-mother)?

Touche... kind of like dying a hero's death.  Sacrificing oneself for the greater good of the cause.

Something to think about. 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: Wouldn't

Cory T wrote:
Wouldn't practicing abstinence be the only sure way to contain an AIDS epidemic? Condoms are not 100% effective. I'm not suggesting that we ignore the epidemic in Africa, but we should fight it with the only thing that works 100% of the time: ABSTINENCE. Condoms may alleviate the problem, but they won't make it go away.

So you're essentially saying that these people aren't actually aware that despite going through an AIDS epidemic, they don't actually realise they are getting it from sex?  You'd think that pointing out to them how bad the epidemic is and pointing out to them that it spreads through sex would be enough.  You're saying you'd prefer all or nothing.  No point in lessening the problem, it has to be wiped out completely.  So, if someone gets an injury and a doctor can't bring them back to 100% health or they're simply getting old and are no longer at 100% health should doctors kill them?  

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Certainly there is a school

Certainly there is a school of thought that states the soul enters the body at conception. If that were the case here, then we'd have a case of murder.

Which was the question you were begging, coy asshole. Stop being such a twat. Speak plainly, and let go of this nauseating, tin-eared philosophical drivel.

Wouldn't practicing abstinence be the only sure way to contain an AIDS epidemic?

Wouldn't this totally infeasible scenario be the best solution?

Condoms are not 100% effective.

Neither are seat belts. Let's take 'em out and tell people to “drive better.”

I'm not suggesting that we ignore the epidemic in Africa, but we should fight it with the only thing that works 100% of the time: ABSTINENCE.

I'm not suggesting we ignore it, I'm just advocating a spicy blend of total ignorance of condom use and pure religious bullshit.

Condoms may alleviate the problem, but they won't make it go away.

We can hit those naughty people with a rolled up newspaper. “Bad brown person!”

I'm sorry, I have no answer for the systematic molestation within the Catholic Church. You have me confused with Cory Cardinal Tucholski.

Sorry, I didn't know at the time about your dropping the fish-heads for the mayonaissers. It's a world of difference (like KRAFT yellow versus white cheese).

I have no position on stem cell research.

Liar.

The point of my last post is to get you to think.

No, you're still begging the question. “If they might have a soul, then they do, then it's murder.” There's no way to argue this based on evidence; it requires the predisposition to make assumptions about the validity of claims coming from a certain book. It's not coming from a “school of thought,” but a “church of dogma.” Just like intelligent design or “critical analysis of evolution” as it's been re-branded. You already have a conclusion you want me to reach (which I won't, because it requires several unwarranted assumptions), but you're too dickless to admit it. You already made smug remarks on your blog about the poor misguided atheist “seekers” who just haven't benefitted from your particular brand of apologetics, yet you condescend as though you're open to any conclusion reason can reach, not just the ones you like. You can try to muddy the waters, such as in your half-assed definition of life argument--which has been swiftly refuted--but it's just an appeal from ignorance. Just like the Christian “competing theory” for life on earth.

Blasting me for all the failures of the Christian churches is not nice.

Not really a denial then, just a dissociation.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Cory, If you believe we

Cory, If you believe we should be preaching abstinence in Africa, you are either insane, depraved, or just horribly naive. I would opt for the latter. That would be impossible. Absolutely impossible. Families are forced to have as many children as possible for agricultural reasons, prostitution is often a nasty necessity. Teaching people condom use is absolutely essential because there is no alternative. You cannot preach abstinence. You might as well preach that people shouldn't eat. A few months ago I was in Nairobi and before travelling up through Masai Mara, I was shocked by how truly terrible the situation has become.

Thank no God that people like you are not running the effort to stem the Human Immune Deficiency virus. Have you no idea the reprecussions of what you are suggesting?

I have a suprise for you:

Cory T's Idealism versus The most powerful instinct in evolution?

Evolution 1

Cory T: 0 and about a quarter million dead children 

You make me sick.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: Susan

Cory T wrote:
Susan wrote:
Cory T wrote:

I know even a single human cell is capable of all of that. Are 150 cells in cluster not capable of those things?

If that's the case, no one should ever get a tumor removed.

Oh, c'mon. You know that isn't what I'm suggesting.

I know that's not what you were suggesting because you are argument against stem cell research.  However, it is still the same argument.  They're just a clump of cells, incapable of suffering, have no self awareness and incapable of existing without the host body.  

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
thingy wrote: Cory T

thingy wrote:

Cory T wrote:
Wouldn't practicing abstinence be the only sure way to contain an AIDS epidemic? Condoms are not 100% effective. I'm not suggesting that we ignore the epidemic in Africa, but we should fight it with the only thing that works 100% of the time: ABSTINENCE. Condoms may alleviate the problem, but they won't make it go away.

So you're essentially saying that these people aren't actually aware that despite going through an AIDS epidemic, they don't actually realise they are getting it from sex?  You'd think that pointing out to them how bad the epidemic is and pointing out to them that it spreads through sex would be enough.  You're saying you'd prefer all or nothing.  No point in lessening the problem, it has to be wiped out completely.  So, if someone gets an injury and a doctor can't bring them back to 100% health or they're simply getting old and are no longer at 100% health should doctors kill them?  

You're right; we should just give them condoms and not teach them any other alternatives to stop the disease. Life, or freedom to have sex whenever and with whoever. I pick total freedom! That's the clear way to go here.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: You're right;

Cory T wrote:
You're right; we should just give them condoms and not teach them any other alternatives to stop the disease. Life, or freedom to have sex whenever and with whoever. I pick total freedom! That's the clear way to go here.

What abstinence only education proponents fail to grasp is, abstinenece only fails. The rates of HIV infection and pregnancy skyrocket in areas where abstinence only is taught. Here is a fact, people have urges, sometimes these urges are given in to, that is reality. You seem all too comfortable condemning people to death for being human. Teaching condom use is not encouraging promiscuity, it is educating people what precautions to take if temptation becomes too much or if they just plain decide they want to have sex. As much as you want the rest of the world to live by your "moral code", you should not be so ready to watch people die because of it.

To me, and I hope many here, that type of morality and prejudgement is evil and shows one of the worst effects of dogma on society.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Cory, Freethinking

Cory,

Freethinking Anonymous is labelled as:

A haven for those who are without a belief in god, to discuss and the theorize, think freely, and debate any issue. No taboo issue in here.

Since you are posting in this forum, can I suppose that you have abandoned your position as a 'big league apologetic'? 

I realize the 'latest posts' selection is handy. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Cory T

Susan wrote:
Cory T wrote:
Susan wrote:
Cory T wrote:

I know even a single human cell is capable of all of that. Are 150 cells in cluster not capable of those things?

If that's the case, no one should ever get a tumor removed.

Oh, c'mon. You know that isn't what I'm suggesting.

I know that's not what you were suggesting because you are argument against stem cell research.  However, it is still the same argument.  They're just a clump of cells, incapable of suffering, have no self awareness and incapable of existing without the host body.  

The question is one of one the soul enters the body. If the answer, as I suspect, is at conception, then destroying this clump (weather able to suffer or live without a host body) becomes murder. A tumor would never have a soul, so that is an irrelevant argument.

This would be an invalid argument if atheists don't believe that we humans are more than the sum of our parts. But I suspect you believe on some level or another that we are more than just a biological machine that accepts stimuli and reacts to it by instinct, here only to fill a niche created by "evolution."

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Cory, If

deludedgod wrote:

Cory, If you believe we should be preaching abstinence in Africa, you are either insane, depraved, or just horribly naive. I would opt for the latter. That would be impossible. Absolutely impossible. Families are forced to have as many children as possible for agricultural reasons, prostitution is often a nasty necessity. Teaching people condom use is absolutely essential because there is no alternative. You cannot preach abstinence. You might as well preach that people shouldn't eat.

Families are forced to have as many children as possible? Are you suggesting that condoms are the way to do that?

What I'm suggesting is that we preach abstinence outside of marriage. We can still produce many children to work on the farm. I'm sorry that it makes harder for a few prostitutes to make a living; I guess they'll just have to get jobs on those farms you're referring to so that they can eat, too.

What you're really shooting for here is the freedom to have sex whenever and with whoever. This is nothing less than situational ethics.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: [ The

Cory T wrote:
[

The question is one of one the soul enters the body. If the answer, as I suspect, is at conception, then destroying this clump (weather able to suffer or live without a host body) becomes murder. A tumor would never have a soul, so that is an irrelevant argument.

This would be an invalid argument if atheists don't believe that we humans are more than the sum of our parts. But I suspect you believe on some level or another that we are more than just a biological machine that accepts stimuli and reacts to it by instinct, here only to fill a niche created by "evolution."

You're right. It's an invalid argument. I do not believe there is such a thing as a soul.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: The

Cory T wrote:
The question is one of one the soul enters the body.

Assuming there is such a soul. This is as yet unproven.

Quote:
If the answer, as I suspect, is at conception, then destroying this clump (weather able to suffer or live without a host body) becomes murder.

Could there be a time when this alleged 'soul' enters at a different time?

Quote:
A tumor would never have a soul, so that is an irrelevant argument.

Yet the 'soul' remains unproven so also does this assertion that a tumor does not have one. 

Quote:
This would be an invalid argument if atheists don't believe that we humans are more than the sum of our parts.

It is an invalid argument because it uses a presupposition of a 'soul'.

Quote:
But I suspect you believe on some level or another that we are more than just a biological machine that accepts stimuli and reacts to it by instinct, here only to fill a niche created by "evolution."

Oh really? And what, pray tell, would lead us to believe that we are more than a   'biological machine' that survived the process of evolution? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
CoryT wrote: What I'm

CoryT wrote:
What I'm suggesting is that we preach abstinence outside of marriage. We can still produce many children to work on the farm. I'm sorry that it makes harder for a few prostitutes to make a living; I guess they'll just have to get jobs on those farms you're referring to so that they can eat, too.

Or perhaps Burger King? Or perhaps they could become apologetics? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: You're right;


Cory T wrote:
You're right; we should just give them condoms and not teach them any other alternatives to stop the disease. Life, or freedom to have sex whenever and with whoever. I pick total freedom! That's the clear way to go here.

BGH wrote:
What abstinence only education proponents fail to grasp is, abstinenece only fails. The rates of HIV infection and pregnancy skyrocket in areas where abstinence only is taught. Here is a fact, people have urges, sometimes these urges are given in to, that is reality. You seem all too comfortable condemning people to death for being human. Teaching condom use is not encouraging promiscuity, it is educating people what precautions to take if temptation becomes too much or if they just plain decide they want to have sex. As much as you want the rest of the world to live by your "moral code", you should not be so ready to watch people die because of it.

To me, and I hope many here, that type of morality and prejudgement is evil and shows one of the worst effects of dogma on society.

Care to respond Cory? 


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh

darth_josh wrote:

Cory,

Freethinking Anonymous is labelled as:

A haven for those who are without a belief in god, to discuss and the theorize, think freely, and debate any issue. No taboo issue in here.

Since you are posting in this forum, can I suppose that you have abandoned your position as a 'big league apologetic'? 

I realize the 'latest posts' selection is handy. 

Sorry. I just saw the title, "Theists need love too" in the recent post section. I didn't really pay attention to where this was located.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: CoryT

darth_josh wrote:

CoryT wrote:
What I'm suggesting is that we preach abstinence outside of marriage. We can still produce many children to work on the farm. I'm sorry that it makes harder for a few prostitutes to make a living; I guess they'll just have to get jobs on those farms you're referring to so that they can eat, too.

Or perhaps Burger King? Or perhaps they could become apologetics? 

We're always hiring at BK! It's a fun place to work! Especially when I'm the manager, but I'm probably biased on that.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Cory T

BGH wrote:

Cory T wrote:
You're right; we should just give them condoms and not teach them any other alternatives to stop the disease. Life, or freedom to have sex whenever and with whoever. I pick total freedom! That's the clear way to go here.

BGH wrote:
What abstinence only education proponents fail to grasp is, abstinenece only fails. The rates of HIV infection and pregnancy skyrocket in areas where abstinence only is taught. Here is a fact, people have urges, sometimes these urges are given in to, that is reality. You seem all too comfortable condemning people to death for being human. Teaching condom use is not encouraging promiscuity, it is educating people what precautions to take if temptation becomes too much or if they just plain decide they want to have sex. As much as you want the rest of the world to live by your "moral code", you should not be so ready to watch people die because of it.

To me, and I hope many here, that type of morality and prejudgement is evil and shows one of the worst effects of dogma on society.

Care to respond Cory? 

Later tonight I will... right now I'm multitasking. Smiling It's a good argument and it derserves a reasoned response that I don't have time to give.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
No problem. Perhaps you

No problem. Perhaps you would like to address the thread topic instead of the many things discussed with just you?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, I have thoughts on

Yeah, I have thoughts on that, too. I doubt that we (theists) are ever going to take over politics. In fact, despite our fights to prevent it, I foresee our influence overall will continue to shrink and shrink until it becomes almost nonexistent. I believe that you (atheists) will continue to gain greater influence over politics and society, and our numbers will dwindle. Science will make it easier not to believe in God as human understanding of biology increases. Eventually, as the fossil record becomes more complete, evolution will (despite several flaws and biological challenges) increase in status from theory to law, finally forcing out any last arguments theists have to teach intelligent design in classrooms. And all this within our lifetimes.

Why do I believe this? Bible prophecy friends.

Perhaps I can take more time to give a more detailed explanation in a different forum, one where that would be more suited to the topic. Suffice it to say here that I believe theistic political influence will dwindle considerably and atheistic influence will increase exponentially.

Right now, I have cash drawers to count and floors to sweep! (I told you I was multitasking Smiling

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
You're right; we should

You're right; we should just give them condoms and not teach them any other alternatives to stop the disease. Life, or freedom to have sex whenever and with whoever. I pick total freedom! That's the clear way to go here.

Actually, yes.  Humans have few inate urges that influence them as much as the one to copulate.  Within reason, societal limits can be placed on sex, but as you see every day, even those fail very frequently(i.e., dont have sex with someone's spouse, or dont have sex with minors, or dont have sex on a crowded subway.)  When caution is exercised, and common sense leads the way, there is absolutely nothing wrong with screwing whomever you find that considers you worthy of the same.  

That being said, I'll move one to the idea that abstinence is the way to prevent an AIDS epidemic.  As someone has already pointed out, EVERY attempt to control sexual activity via abstinence has failed--miserably.  Texas?  one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the nation.  The "Ring Thing?" those kids are MORE likely to have sex within 2 years than other kids.  The list is endless.  Here's an analogy for you; The only lake in an impoverished, desolate country has a virus in it that kills %50 of those that drink from it.  Rather than give the residents the vaccine for the virus, you'd preach that the people should just not drink from the lake.  Problem is, the people are very thirsty, and the lake is right there.  Yes, water is necessary for life, and sex isn't(for the individual), but the urges are similar in strength, are they not? 

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
You're right; we should

You're right; we should just give them condoms and not teach them any other alternatives to stop the disease. Life, or freedom to have sex whenever and with whoever. I pick total freedom! That's the clear way to go here.

That's a strawman, you pussy. Could you be any more stupid?

The question is one of one the soul enters the body. If the answer, as I suspect, is at conception, then destroying this clump (weather able to suffer or live without a host body) becomes murder. A tumor would never have a soul, so that is an irrelevant argument.

Which is what I've been trying to get your sorry ass to say in first place. You believe experimenting on 150 cells is murder as specifically defined by your magic book. There is nothing in science to support this. You pretend to raise some universally relevant question with your ambiguous language, when your argument is pure theological claptrap. If you would've just leveled with us about it I might not have instantly lost any potential respect I might have for the crap dribbling out of your mouth.

This would be an invalid argument if atheists don't believe that we humans are more than the sum of our parts. But I suspect you believe on some level or another that we are more than just a biological machine that accepts stimuli and reacts to it by instinct, here only to fill a niche created by “evolution.“

Some people don't have the luxury of worrying whether they're some deity's playthings or not (a concept so self-evidently insipid I couldn't even take it seriously in elementary). They just want a REAL fucking cure for their REAL fucking problems. They're looking to something that might actually work, as opposed to your philosophical apologetic masturbation. That you put evolution in quotes suggests to me you're even more mind-bendingly ignorant than I could have imagined.

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
[...] Eventually, as the

[...]

Eventually, as the fossil record becomes more complete, evolution will (despite several flaws and biological challenges) increase in status from theory to law, finally forcing out any last arguments theists have to teach intelligent design in classrooms. And all this within our lifetimes.

Ah, yes! Those wonderful Christian alternatives! Pick at the itty bitty gaps in empirical data for the theory of evolution and create a giant chasm to call “god.” I feel like I'm talking to a fucking caveman here.

Why do I believe this? Bible prophecy friends.

You're pathetic. People like you scare the living daylights out of me. You live this tortured, contorted little Christian lives, talking about compassion, but you really just want the world crusting over in cinders as you fly up bodily into space.

(Get rid of that photo -- I'm losing my lunch over here.)


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Wouldn't practicing

Quote:

Wouldn't practicing abstinence be the only sure way to contain an AIDS epidemic? Condoms are not 100% effective. I'm not suggesting that we ignore the epidemic in Africa, but we should fight it with the only thing that works 100% of the time: ABSTINENCE. Condoms may alleviate the problem, but they won't make it go away.

I'm sorry but you're just misinformed ... When it comes to Africa, the policy that all the experts support (WHO, UN, etc.) is called ABC ... Abstinence, Be Faithful and Condom-use.  Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has tied provisions into their aid to Africa vis-a-vis HIV/AIDS that force countries to follow and Abstinence Only policy, which has been proven time and time to be a failure - in reference to transmission of HIV/AIDS, other STIs, lack of knowledge of birth control, out-of-wedlock births, etc.  A comprehensive AIDS prevention package would include abstinence and birth control/controseptive information ... as well as counselling for pair-bonds to cut down on promiscuity.

 Also, a great deal of new infections are transmitted thourgh married men who are promiscuous, have sex with prostitues, etc. - this often happens in culture where men are allowed to rape their wives (becuase of backwards, religious dogmas attached to marraige), which is just a sick and twisted side-note.

The knowledge of and availability of condoms would greatly reduce new infections as well as the spread of infection to children whose moter, father, or both are infected with HIV. 

Your comment that condoms are not %100 effective is, er, correct but misleading ... they are %99.9 effective, which is better then %0 (when a person taught Abstinence ONLY and that condom use is sinful) at preventing infection, pregnency, etc.  the %0.1 uneffectiveness usually occurs when the condom breaks, which is usually a result of lack of lubrication or improper use ... this disappears when an informed individual or couple uses condoms.

 

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Spewn wrote: dassercha

Spewn wrote:
dassercha wrote:

So, I understand a lot of folks here are impatient with theists, especially fundies. I hear ya, but if you didn't grow up in that environment, it can be hard to comprehend.

My family of origin came from SERIOUSLY messed up families--childhoods that I'm learning were *totally fuct*. Fundyism was a crutch--they could have run to drugs, other religions, etc. So, in reality, they are mentally ill, just not organic brain trauma like schizophrenia, etc. And since lots of people would fall into that category (loss of spouse, family, need more meaning), why not tolerate them? We don't mock people w/ schizophrenia, right?

I understand the whole schools/politics etc agenda fundies have and that whole issue, but are they really gonna take over? doubt it.

However, yeah, if a JW comes to my door, expect a slam in yer face. Hare Krishna approaches? You'll be lucky to not get yelled at.

Thoughts?

 

Right, but a person with schizophrenea literally has NO control over their condition. I would disagree with anyone who says the same about theists. People are indeed raised to be theists, but so are some raised(essentially) to be chauvanists, or racists. Should we afford those people the same tolerance?

Because of my fundy upbringing I suspect I have less patience for fundies than most.  I know first-hand the damage they cause for their relatives and friends; for their country; for the world.  Fundies from the Abrahamic religions are the biggest threat to the continued existence of our planet. 

I'm starting to pull back from the anger a bit, but part of me is still rather peeved that other fundies remain so entrenched. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: Wouldn't

Cory T wrote:

Wouldn't practicing abstinence be the only sure way to contain an AIDS epidemic?

Yes, much like not getting hit by a bullet is the only sure way to avoid dying via a bullet wound.

Quote:
 

Condoms are not 100% effective.

Bulletproof vests are, in-fact, merely Bullet-resistant.  I don't see soldiers forgoing them in favor of avoiding the bullets altogether. 

Quote:
 

I'm not suggesting that we ignore the epidemic in Africa, but we should fight it with the only thing that works 100% of the time: ABSTINENCE.

 

There's a difference between abstinence-only education, and a society of people who actually practice continuous abstinence.  Abstinence-only education has been proven over and over again to be a failure, not only in preventing the spread of disease but in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

 If you go to planned parenthood(http://www.plannedparenthood.org/), what is the only method of birth control listed as 100% effective against both STD's and pregnancy? http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/continuous-abstinence.htm

The fact that abstinence is the only 100% effective method is readily available from everyone who is willing to help you with other methods of birth control.  This is not a new or surprising fact.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: You're right.

Susan wrote:

You're right. It's an invalid argument. I do not believe there is such a thing as a soul.

Susan, how would you explain this: My sister, who is an honest, trustworthy person, was flying across the Atlantic ocean on her way to Europe when my grandmother died. On the plane, a feeling came over her, and instantly she knew my grandmother was dead. She immediately broke down in tears, and later confirmed with a phone call that my grandmother had in fact passed away. She was flying with a group of people who have confirmed she became upset, seemingly out of nowhere...

How did she know about my grandmother when she was miles away? Logic tells me, there is something going on beneath the surface of this reality, beyond what I can see, taste, smell, hear...


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Susan

sugarfree wrote:
Susan wrote:
You're right. It's an invalid argument. I do not believe there is such a thing as a soul.
Susan, how would you explain this: My sister, who is an honest, trustworthy person, was flying across the Atlantic ocean on her way to Europe when my grandmother died. On the plane, a feeling came over her, and instantly she knew my grandmother was dead. She immediately broke down in tears, and later confirmed with a phone call that my grandmother had in fact passed away. She was flying with a group of people who have confirmed she became upset, seemingly out of nowhere... How did she know about my grandmother when she was miles away? Logic tells me, there is something going on beneath the surface of this reality, beyond what I can see, taste, smell, hear...

Salvadore Dali claimed that he and his wife, Gala, could achieve simultaneous orgasms, while in different rooms at their vast estate in Catalonia, Spain - He was not known to be a liar, just an eccentric artist ...

I would agree that there are events and phenomena that are unexplained (perhaps even unexplainable).  But why would you assume (or ignorantly deduce) a supernatural explanation for an unexplained event, or claim that the inexplicable nature of this event is evidence for the construct of the "soul"?  [This is like primitive man hearing thunder, seeing lightning and saying, "there must be something up in the sky that did this ... And his name is Zeus!" ]

Also, how would a supernatural explanation lead us to understand the causality or the process by which the inexplicable event occured?

What you have proposed is a God of the Gaps, nothing more.

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Wow! So this went off in a

Wow! So this went off in a million different directions.

Anyway, saw someone post this comment today elsewhere that sums up my OP, sorta countering the theme that if we rid the world of theism, then life will be great, right? Wrong. Here was the quote:

"...the human animal is not sophisticated enough yet for 'peace'. Our intellect has not sufficiently evolved beyond the id's influence over it. As long as we have ego, we will have conflict. It's one of the nasty side effects of having a more highly developed brain."

Hamby suggested awhile back to a theist that he read, "The Lucifer Principle." I would too. Great read. Eradicating theism may *HELP* but it will not bring peace. Ergo, my OP. Show 'em some love. They need it. Eye-wink 

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Conn_in_Brooklyn

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:

Also, how would a supernatural explanation lead us to understand the causality or the process by which the inexplicable event occured?

What you have proposed is a God of the Gaps, nothing more.

I didn't propose anything about God, I was talking specifically about the human soul and whether or not it exists.  I related that story because I think it hints to the fact that might be more than just our bodies. 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Susan

sugarfree wrote:
Susan wrote:
You're right. It's an invalid argument. I do not believe there is such a thing as a soul.
Susan, how would you explain this: My sister, who is an honest, trustworthy person, was flying across the Atlantic ocean on her way to Europe when my grandmother died. On the plane, a feeling came over her, and instantly she knew my grandmother was dead. She immediately broke down in tears, and later confirmed with a phone call that my grandmother had in fact passed away. She was flying with a group of people who have confirmed she became upset, seemingly out of nowhere... How did she know about my grandmother when she was miles away? Logic tells me, there is something going on beneath the surface of this reality, beyond what I can see, taste, smell, hear...

First, was your grandmother ill or in poor health?  Isn't it possible that your sister experienced more of a subconscious logical progression of thought rather than some kind of esp?

Besides, even if you believe in telepathy, that has nothing to do with whether or not something such as a soul exists. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: First, was

Susan wrote:

First, was your grandmother ill or in poor health? Isn't it possible that your sister experienced more of a subconscious logical progression of thought rather than some kind of esp?

Besides, even if you believe in telepathy, that has nothing to do with whether or not something such as a soul exists.

Exactly Susan, like they say people tend to remember the hits and forget the misses. I have had feelings over the course of my life that something bad happened to someone I dearly cared for and luckily it was never true. If grandmother is sick, or just very old those feelings become more frequent because I think we know subconciously the end is near. This may be a case of coincedence, the thoughts were more frequent, the worry took over and unfortunately this the feeling was right. It does not indicate a "soul" however.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: Wow! So

dassercha wrote:

Wow! So this went off in a million different directions.

Anyway, saw someone post this comment today elsewhere that sums up my OP, sorta countering the theme that if we rid the world of theism, then life will be great, right? Wrong. Here was the quote:

"...the human animal is not sophisticated enough yet for 'peace'. Our intellect has not sufficiently evolved beyond the id's influence over it. As long as we have ego, we will have conflict. It's one of the nasty side effects of having a more highly developed brain."

Hamby suggested awhile back to a theist that he read, "The Lucifer Principle." I would too. Great read. Eradicating theism may *HELP* but it will not bring peace. Ergo, my OP. Show 'em some love. They need it. Eye-wink

Don't you hate when that happens?  Sorry about your thread. Smiling

I actually think eradicating theism would help a lot, but like bringing about peace, it may not be completely possible, at least not yet. However, that doesn't mean we should just piss and moan about theism and wars.  Europe has managed to mostly do away with both for the past few decades.  Maybe it had something to do with the two world wars fought on European soil.  I don't know.  

Regardless, I don't think we have any choice but to try to make society less religious and more peaceful.   

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Susan

sugarfree wrote:
Susan wrote:
You're right. It's an invalid argument. I do not believe there is such a thing as a soul.
Susan, how would you explain this: My sister, who is an honest, trustworthy person, was flying across the Atlantic ocean on her way to Europe when my grandmother died. On the plane, a feeling came over her, and instantly she knew my grandmother was dead. She immediately broke down in tears, and later confirmed with a phone call that my grandmother had in fact passed away. She was flying with a group of people who have confirmed she became upset, seemingly out of nowhere... How did she know about my grandmother when she was miles away? Logic tells me, there is something going on beneath the surface of this reality, beyond what I can see, taste, smell, hear...

It's interesting that theists tend to interpret anything "strange" that happens according to a supernatural world view.  I used to do the same.  "Miracles" and weird shit like this happened to me all the time.  I used to think I could predict the future via a direct link from God because I'd had a few experiences like this. I once had a premonition about the death of somebody's father.  When my sister-in-law was in labor, I started crying because I "knew" something bad was going to happen to the baby.  Something bad did happen.  The baby died.  However, if nothing had happened I would have forgotten all about my premonition.

Since losing my religion I've had premonitions, but the odds of them coming to pass are about the same as chance.  I had one awhile back, maybe a few months ago.  What was it?  Damn, what was it?  I was upset enough that I almost cried, but here I am, sitting at my computer and I can't even remember what the premonition was.  Why?  It didn't happen. Smiling

In fact, it was a whacky coincidence like this that led to my final surrender of belief in god or the supernatural.  It was the penultimate nail in the coffin of my credulity. 9-11 was the final nail.   The experience of which I speak happened in May of 2001.  I wrote about it.  Here it is:

Iruka Naminori wrote:

I had a kind of interesting experience yesterday. I was driving home from my creative writing class when I saw what looked like a stick in the road. I'm very tuned in to wildlife, so I immediately thought "snake" and slowed down and stopped. It was a snake and it was in a very bad location on the road.

There was a lady behind me and when I got out of my car, she started screaming at me: "What are you doing? What the hell are you doing?"

I reached down and in true Crocodile Hunter form, grabbed the 3-foot-long gopher snake by the tail. I hurried back to my car, noticing that I'd created a minor traffic jam.

I held the snake up so the lady could see it. "It's a snake!" I shouted. "I didn't want him to get squished on the road."

Her eyes got really big. She looked interested so I took the snake over for her to see. "Geez, you're brave," she said. "Will it bite you?"

I told her it didn't matter if it did because it was a non-venomous species. Actually it was quite calm, only rattling its tail for a few seconds and threatening me with a couple of hisses.

Interestingly enough, I had my "Crocodile Hunter" T-shirt on. The lady got a huge kick out of that.

I ended up driving home with the snake wrapped around my wrist. I'll probably end up releasing it in a safe spot this weekend after I show it to my nephew.

-------------

 

If you're squeamish, don't read this post.

I had a rough experience today. As you may have figured out from some of my posts, I'm a real animal lover. I even love snakes. Remember that gopher snake I saved last week? Well, today I decided to drive him way out into the country where he would be safe from cars and people and could hopefully have a good shot at life.

As I was driving, I started feeling spiritual. I don't want to talk about religion much because that topic seems to push people's buttons. Look at all the wars that take place because both sides adamantly believe theirs is the only true religion. Anyway, to make a long story short, I was thinking that as I released the snake, I would say something like this: "God, if you exist, look down here and see that I care about this snake. Watch over it. Protect it. And watch over me, too."

As I thought this, the old negative feelings crept in. I thought--for the millionth time--that if there is a God, he hates my guts (it's a long story).

Then I thought about a story my brother told me. After some grade school kids helped finance a sea lion's recovery, they went on a boat to release it. It had been convalescing for months and thousands of dollars had been spent on its rehabilitation. As the sea lion was released, the children cheered--then shrieked as a huge orca surged from the depths to eat their pinniped friend. My brother thinks this is a funny story. I don't.

I thought, Wouldn't it be ironic if I ran over a snake on my journey to release this one?

I'm sure you've already guessed what happened. I ran over a gopher snake that was about a foot longer than the one I was going to release. I stopped the car, opened the door and looked back. A tire-width section on the snake's body had been flattened. Scarlet innards were spilling out of the flattened section and the force of the tires had expelled the snake's intestines out its cloaca, but dammit, it was still alive!

It tried to get away and was actually making progress toward the side of the road. For a moment I thought about finding it a vet, but the snake was doomed. Parts of its innards had stuck to the road and peeled off when it tried to crawl away. There was only one thing I could do. I turned the other snake loose, then lined up the mortally wounded snake so I could run over him and finish the job, put him out of his misery.

Damn, why was it so easy when I wasn't trying and so hard when I was? I back up and rolled forward about fifteen times before I finally I hit it just right and it stopped moving. I got out of the car and saw that more of its innards had squirted out, including its heart, which--can you believe it?--was still beating. I took a twig and squished the heart, then threw the unfortunate snake off the road. I don't know how many times I told it I was sorry.

I drove from that remote canyon to Jack in the Box, of all places. The girl running the drive-through window noticed I was crying. What was I supposed to tell her? That I was crying over a dead snake? A lot of people wouldn't understand that.

I guess I was crying over the dead snake and the strange sense that someone in a position of celestial power is out to get me. I waxed spiritual for the first time in months and immediately got the message that the universe really is a cold and uncaring place. Ouch. I don't mind telling you it hurt.

I guess I'll just cling to the number 42, mourn the snake and get on with my life.


 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Susan

BGH wrote:
Susan wrote:

First, was your grandmother ill or in poor health? Isn't it possible that your sister experienced more of a subconscious logical progression of thought rather than some kind of esp?

Besides, even if you believe in telepathy, that has nothing to do with whether or not something such as a soul exists.

Exactly Susan, like they say people tend to remember the hits and forget the misses. I have had feelings over the course of my life that something bad happened to someone I dearly cared for and luckily it was never true. If grandmother is sick, or just very old those feelings become more frequent because I think we know subconciously the end is near. This may be a case of coincedence, the thoughts were more frequent, the worry took over and unfortunately this the feeling was right. It does not indicate a "soul" however.

There are some great examples of "intuition" in The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. Folks who "just knew" something, but couldn't put their finger on why they knew.

My favorite involved a statue that was suspected of being a forgery, but no one could prove it. (I think it was eventually authenticated, but I don't remember for sure) Anyway, one expert took one look and said, "It's a fake" but couldn't explain why. He was certain it was a fake. They finally figured out that there was a tiny detail with the fingers or fingernails (Again, I don't remember the exact details) that proved it a fake. Apparently his eye and mind took in the information and processed it in a split second and he came to the correct conclusion even though he was unaware of the process.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Sorry it took me forever to

Sorry it took me forever to respond to this.  I got sick yesterday.  It really wasn't much fun.  Anyway, here are my thoughts on this: 

 

BGH wrote:

Cory T wrote:
You're right; we should just give them condoms and not teach them any other alternatives to stop the disease. Life, or freedom to have sex whenever and with whoever. I pick total freedom! That's the clear way to go here.

BGH wrote:
What abstinence only education proponents fail to grasp is, abstinenece only fails. The rates of HIV infection and pregnancy skyrocket in areas where abstinence only is taught. Here is a fact, people have urges, sometimes these urges are given in to, that is reality. You seem all too comfortable condemning people to death for being human. Teaching condom use is not encouraging promiscuity, it is educating people what precautions to take if temptation becomes too much or if they just plain decide they want to have sex. As much as you want the rest of the world to live by your "moral code", you should not be so ready to watch people die because of it.

To me, and I hope many here, that type of morality and prejudgement is evil and shows one of the worst effects of dogma on society.

Care to respond Cory?

Abstaining from sex means that you are NOT exposing yourself to potential infection, and that NO pregnancy could possibly occur.  Teaching abstinance and practicing abstinence are, admittedly, much different animals.  The failures you mention are humans being humans and having sex regardless of the risk.  Inability to practice self-control is one of the hallmarks of our species.  That doesn't mean that the system is flawed, it just means that people are.  That isn't a revelation; the Bible teaches that as much as history teaches that, and my personal experience has DEFINATELY taught me that.

I'm not comfortable at all with the idea of condemning anyone to death.  People, both in this thread and in general, think that Christians want to laugh our asses off while the rest of you burn in hell.  This couldn't be farther from the truth, though I much doubt that you're actually going to believe me.  I think that hell is the worst fate for anyone to suffer, and I don't want to see anyone suffer it that doesn't have to.  I'm here as an apologist hoping that my thoughts make enough sense to you so that you're willing to make the commitment to Christ, and avoid that fate.

As a Christian, I'm supposed to be salt (preservative) and light (guide) to the world.  Not judge, jury, and executioner as so many atheists paint us.

One would have supply an entirely new moral code for abstinence to work.  Abstinence until marriage, then remain faithful after marriage.  In the long run, those ideas are much better than just handing them condoms; although I will concede that that would be a good short term solution. 

Roisin Dubh wrote:

That being said, I'll move one to the idea that abstinence is the way to prevent an AIDS epidemic.  As someone has already pointed out, EVERY attempt to control sexual activity via abstinence has failed--miserably.  Texas?  one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the nation.  The "Ring Thing?" those kids are MORE likely to have sex within 2 years than other kids.  The list is endless.  Here's an analogy for you; The only lake in an impoverished, desolate country has a virus in it that kills %50 of those that drink from it.  Rather than give the residents the vaccine for the virus, you'd preach that the people should just not drink from the lake.  Problem is, the people are very thirsty, and the lake is right there.  Yes, water is necessary for life, and sex isn't(for the individual), but the urges are similar in strength, are they not?

I disagree with your analogy.  Because I would no problem with a vaccine that would do the trick.  The problem is that condoms are short term solution; abstince and monogamy are the only sure-fire long term solutions.   That would be like shipping in an alternative, safer, albeit slightly harder to obtain drinking source in your example.  It would be worth it to go the extra mile to obtain the althernative drinking source, if it meant better quality of life overall, would it not?  The problem is no one sees it as such; they want the vaccine or just drink out of the poison well because both are easier to get. 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: The failures

Cory T wrote:

The failures you mention are humans being humans and having sex regardless of the risk. Inability to practice self-control is one of the hallmarks of our species. That doesn't mean that the system is flawed, it just means that people are.

 

Like Communism?