Fine tuning Food for thought Intelligent Design Purpose of life

At Evolution News: Recognizing Providence in the History of Life Is a Hint About Our Own Lives

Spread the love

An arena of fine-tuning we can all appreciate, not quantitatively but qualitatively, is how in most events of our lives, things go right, when there are so many more ways that they could go wrong. Just consider how most of the time we arrive safely to where we’re going when we take a trip by car, even in rush-hour traffic. Or, how electricity keeps flowing to our homes, without which we’d be pushed quickly into survival mode. Or how our sense of balance facilitates efficient movement of our physical bodies throughout the day.

David Klinghoffer gives his perspective on this topic, reaching a different conclusion than Dartmouth College physicist Marcelo Gleiser.

Dartmouth College physicist Marcelo Gleiser, writing at Big Think, asks, “Does life on Earth have a purpose?” Obviously, this is more than just a scientific question. It’s a very personal one for each of us. Given the venue, Gleiser’s answer of course is going to be no.

Gleiser’s own case rests on the part played by chance in life’s history. For example, the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs:

If we changed one or more of the dramatic events in Earth’s history — say, the cataclysmic impact of the asteroid that helped eliminate the dinosaurs 66 million years ago — life’s history on Earth would also change. We probably would not be here asking about life’s purpose. The lesson from life is simple: In Nature, creation and destruction dance together. But there is no choreographer.

His argument: The Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction cleared the field for mammals, allowing ultimately for the rise of “intelligent, technology-savvy humans.” No asteroid –> no humans. The asteroid was a chance, unchoreographed event. Therefore, says Dr. Gleiser, no “choreographer” intended our existence.

The Role of Providence

This is a remarkably shallow conclusion. As luck would have it (if you want to put it that way), I’ve been thinking about the role of providence, as I see it, in my own path of life. Any of us can point to certain pivotal events in our past — a seemingly chance meeting, a piece of advice received, an idea that came to us unbidden — that need not have occurred, but did. And because they did, we found the path to our current place (marriage, relationships, friendships, work, the whole thing) laid out before us.

Gleiser’s argument about the history of life is just a separate application of the depressing view that denies anything in our life paths could have been intended for us. That the view is depressing doesn’t mean that it is mistaken. That it can be asserted doesn’t mean that it is correct.

Purposeful Information

To decide about providence in the rise of complex life, you would have to look at a much wider suite of evidences than the fact that an asteroid doomed the dinosaurs. Scientific proponents of intelligent design have done this, noting vast evidence of extraordinarily careful tuning in physics, chemistry, and biology, from the Big Bang itself, to the origin of life, to the series of biological “big bangs” through which bursts of purposeful information infused the biosphere. 

The most recent treatments of this theme include biologist Michael Denton’s The Miracle of Man and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis. Meyer’s book points to three scientific discoveries that demand a conclusion of purpose behind the cosmos (that the universe has a beginning, that it was fine-tuned for life from the start, that life is a form of information-processing technology). On the radical discontinuities in evolution that bespeak purpose and creativity, see Meyer and paleontologist Günter Bechly’s chapter (“The Fossil Record and Universal Common Ancestry”) in the volume Theistic Evolution.

“The Wheel Has Turned”

From a different perspective, Denton explains this beautifully and profoundly. What Gleiser terms “intelligent, technology-savvy humans” are exactly what almost countless coincidences in nature have been set just so in order to permit. As Dr. Denton has written here about this “prior fitness” for human beings, creatures capable of manipulating fire, and therefore of engaging in technological invention:

Even though many mysteries remain, we can now, in these first decades of the 21st century, at last answer with confidence Thomas Huxley’s question of questions as to “the place which mankind occupies in nature and of his relations to the universe of things.” As matters stand, the evidence increasingly points to a natural order uniquely fit for life on Earth and for beings of a biology close to that of humans, a view which does not prove but is entirely consistent with the traditional Judeo-Christian framework….

“Mysteries remain,” as Denton acknowledges. Yet, “The wheel has turned.” Modern science calls us to recognize the role of providence in the history of the cosmos, of our planet, and of life. If that is true in cosmology and biology, it’s a hint that it might be true, too, on the far smaller scale of our individual biographies.

Full article at Evolution News.

183 Replies to “At Evolution News: Recognizing Providence in the History of Life Is a Hint About Our Own Lives

  1. 1
    chuckdarwin says:

    What does the capital of Rhode Island have to do with ID?

  2. 2
    relatd says:

    CD at 1,

    Riddle me this Chuck Man. How much wood could a Darwinist chuck if a Darwinist could chuck wood?

  3. 3
    chuckdarwin says:

    A cord to a cord and a half per hour, depending on the type of wood……

  4. 4
    relatd says:

    CD at 3,

    Excellent. To your comment, Providence refers to:

    Definition of providence

    1a) often capitalized : divine guidance or care
    b) capitalized : God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny

  5. 5
    chuckdarwin says:

    I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Klinghoffer got a religious studies degree from Brown, which happens to be located in, you guessed it, Providence….

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    ChuckyD, (in response to the fact that the universe is found to be not only fine-tuned for life, but that it is found to be fine tuned “for beings of a biology close to that of humans”), jokes, “What does the capital of Rhode Island have to do with ID?”

    Which, I suppose, might be good for a chuckle, but such class-clown antics from ChuckyD ignores the very real fact that such “anthropic prior fitness” for human beings is a VERY surprising finding in science which is completely antithetical to something that lies at the heart of the atheist’s worldview.

    How We Moved Beyond Darwin to the Miracle of Man – Michael Denton – May 11, 2022
    Concluding paragraph: “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”
    And it is not only our biological design which was mysteriously foreseen in the fabric of nature. As The Miracle of Man shows, nature was also strikingly prearranged, as it were, for our unique technological journey from fire making, to metallurgy, to the advanced technology of our current civilization. Long before man made the first fire, long before the first metal was smelted from its ore, nature was already prepared and fit for our technological journey from the Stone Age to the present.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/how-we-moved-beyond-darwin-to-the-miracle-of-man/

    The Miracle of Man: Extraordinary “Coincidences” All the Way Down –
    – June 9, 2022
    Excerpt: On a new episode of ID the Future, Miracle of Man author and biologist Michael Denton continues his conversation with host Eric Anderson. Here Denton offers a review of several more anthropic “coincidences” in chemistry, biochemistry, and Earth sciences that are fine tuned to allow air-breathing, bipedal, technology-developing terrestrial creatures like ourselves to exist and thrive. The fine tuning, what Denton calls anthropic prior fitness, would seem to require foresight and planning on literally a cosmic scale.
    – Podcast: – The Miracle of Man: Extraordinary “Coincidences” All the Way Down
    https://idthefuture.com/1609/

    First three parts of the interview with Dr. Denton are here

    1
    https://idthefuture.com/1601/
    2
    https://idthefuture.com/1604/
    3
    https://idthefuture.com/1606/

    Namely, such ‘anthropic prior fitness’ for humans is a VERY surprising finding in science that is completely antithetical to the Copernican Principle, and/or the Principle of mediocrity, which holds that there is nothing special about the earth, and especially, nor is there anything special about humans in particular.

    Copernican principle
    Excerpt: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, is an alternative name of the mediocrity principle,,, stating that humans (the Earth, or the Solar system) are not privileged observers of the universe.[1]
    Named for Copernican heliocentrism, it is a working assumption that arises from a modified cosmological extension of Copernicus’s argument of a moving Earth.[2] In some sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle.
    – per wikipedia

    Carl Sagan coined the term ‘principle of mediocrity’ to refer to the idea that scientists should assume that nothing is special about humanity’s situation
    https://books.google.com/books?id=rR5BCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA187#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Mediocrity principle
    Excerpt: The (Mediocrity) principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, Earth’s history, the evolution of biological complexity, human evolution, or any one nation. It is a heuristic in the vein of the Copernican principle, and is sometimes used as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior.[2][3]
    – per wikipedia

    And yet, despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians today, presently hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, (and therefore concede the necessary premise of the Principle of Mediocrity to atheists), the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principal, as Denton and others have shown, is now shown, via our most powerful theories in science, to have been a false assumption in science.
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/neil-thomas-on-evolutionary-theory-as-magical-thinking/#comment-748883

    This overturning of the Copernican principle is NOT just some minor development in science but is a major development in science that overturns centuries of, supposedly, established scientific fact that had denigrated man to the point of being “insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud”, having “no more meaning than that of slime mould”, “just a chemical scum on a moderate size planet”, and a “mosquito”.

    You Chemical Scum, You
    Raymond Tallis engages with the dregs of philosophy
    Excerpt: Voltaire got things off to a jolly secular start quite a while back, by instructing the eponymous hero of his novel Zadig (1747) to visualise “men as they really are, insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud.” The notion of the Earth as ‘an atom of mud’, or at least as a not-very-special address, was prompted by a growing appreciation of the implications of the first scientific revolution. This had begun with Copernicus demoting the Earth to just one among many bits of matter circling in empty space; and led, via Kepler, Galileo, Newton and a few other giants of early modern physics, to an image of the universe as a gigantic clockwork machine, in which our planet, and consequently its inhabitants, cut a pretty small figure. But the competition to find the most scathing description of humanity seems to have intensified, particularly over the last few decades.
    Biology has been the inspiration in some cases. The philosopher and professional misanthrope John Gray has argued that Darwin has cured us of the delusions we might have had about our place in the order of things – we are beasts, metaphysically on all fours with the other beasts. “Man” Gray asserts in Straw Dogs (2003), “is only one of many species, and not obviously worth preserving.” And in case you’re still feeling a bit cocky, he adds: “human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.” Slime mould? Yikes! Can it get any worse?
    Yes it can. For physics has again been recruited to the great project of disproving our greatness. Stephen Hawking’s declaration in 1995 on a TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken, that “the human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate size planet, orbiting round a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a billion galaxies” is much quoted. If we beg to differ, perhaps is it only because we are like the mosquito who, according to Nietzsche, “floats through the air… feeling within himself the flying centre of the universe”? (‘On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense’, 1873.)
    https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/You_Chemical_Scum_You

    This false ‘scientific’ denigration of man to the point of being slime mold and chemical scum has not been without drastically tragic consequences for man

    Atheism’s Body Count *
    It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world.
    – per scholar’s corner

    Yet thankfully, and as much as it may hurt an atheist’s feelings to know this, and as far as our best science can now tell us, we are not merely to be considered “chemical scum” as Hawking, via the Copernican Principle, tried to imply that we were.

    “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,”
    – Stephen Hawking – 1995 TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken,

    But there is instead, as far as our best science can now tell us, very strong scientific reasons to believe that there is indeed something special about the earth, and even special about man, in the universe.

    Hopefully atheists will, in short order, get over their disappointment that humans are not to be considered merely ‘chemical scum’, and/or insects, but that they are, instead, made in the image of God.

    Genesis 1:1
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Genesis 1:27
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

  7. 7
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77/6

    Genesis 1:27
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    This is a great example of Nietzsche’s observation, which I’ve quoted before, that “it is a curious thing that when God decided to become an author that he learned Greek–and did not learn it better.”
    With a good editor, the Bible could be shortened by at least 50% and made reader friendly. People might actually read it…..(http://poncefoundation.com/chr.....eir-bible/)

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    ChuckyD, skipped discussing the science, and goes directly to quoting my passage from Genesis, Gen 1:27, and then he remarks, via the ‘Madman’ Nietzsche, “when God decided to become an author that he learned Greek–and did not learn it better.”

    Yet, “the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament, was originally written almost entirely in Hebrew, with a few short elements in Aramaic”
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-translation

    Also of note to ChuckyD’s source for his off the mark quote, , Nietzsche,

    “God is dead”
    Friedrich Nietzsche – The Parable of the Madman – (1882)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHvHGf2OpZs

    On August 25, 1900, Friedrich Nietzsche, who had famously announced the death of God, had himself died.,,
    Nietzsche had suffered a major mental breakdown in 1888, just as his ideas were catching fire outside of academic circles. The once brilliant scholar and philosopher, reduced to the mental cognition of a child, had no understanding of how famous he’d become.
    https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2012/julyaugust/feature/nietzsche-dead

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    Chuckdarwin/7

    With a good editor, the Bible could be shortened by at least 50% and made reader friendly.

    Back in the day, when I was Christian because I didn’t know any better, I read the KJV Bible but it was heavy going, almost opaque in some places. I agree, it could certainly have benefited from a good editor.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Hence Seversky and ChuckyD, since they both have now skipped the science and focused on criticizing the Bible, have confirmed Dr. Hunter’s observation that Darwinism is best understood, not as a science, but as a “theological research program”

    Evolution as a Theological Research Program – by Cornelius Hunter – August 2021
    Introduction Excerpt:
    ,,, theological claims are common in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), where they are essential to his science. The religion is not a tangential message, and one need not read between the lines to see it. In the Origin, it would not be an exaggeration to say the religion drives the science. Darwin’s religion is not merely present, it is prominent and has primacy over the science. The religion is foundational.
    The importance of religion in Darwin’s theory is also apparent in the science he presented. As Section 5 shows, Darwin did not have sufficient scientific arguments and evidence to advance his theory. Finally, as Section 6 and Section 7 demonstrate, these roles and relationships between religion and science persisted after Darwin. This religious foundation was by no means peculiar to Darwin’s thought. It has remained foundational since Darwin in motivating and justifying the theory. What we find in Darwin continued in later evolutionary thought. Therefore, the thesis of this paper is that evolution is best understood as a theological research program.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/694/htm

    Of related note, Dr. Hunter is hardly alone in his criticism that Darwinism is not a science,

    Early in his career, Karl Popper noted that Darwinian evolution is “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”
    Popper was attacked by the Darwinian Gestapo for these criticisms. So Popper, in approx 1978,, took his criticisms of Darwinism back. But when John Horgan interviewed Popper in 1992, Horgan noted that Popper “blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.”

    Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution – John Horgan – July 6, 2010
    Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.
    http://blogs.scientificamerica.....evolution/

    Tom Bethell also interviewed Karl Popper after the Darwinian Gestapo attacked him and Popper once again reiterated his claim that Darwinism was not a testable scientific theory.

    Tom Bethell on Karl Popper’s rejection of Darwinian Evolution as a testable scientific theory – 5:54 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/MLdZzf8HoUU?t=352

    In his autobiography, Karl Popper said he had come to the conclusion that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”8 To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment “is almost tautological,” he wrote. “Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival. There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.”
    Further controversy ensued, for Popper—apparently under pressure in England—partially recanted in 1978. Later, in 1988, I had a chance to interview Popper myself, when he spent a week at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. I immediately brought up the issue of natural selection. He told me that his opinion had not changed. He also said he thought that natural selection had in fact been falsified “by Darwin’s own theory.” Distortions introduced by sexual selection sometimes meant that offspring were not better adapted than their parents, he said.
    When I mentioned that Darwinism had evidently benefited from the idea of Progress, widely accepted in the mid-nineteenth century but widely rejected in the late twentieth, Popper said that “I have been one of the people who have destroyed it.” He said he had “preached” along those lines in his book The Poverty of Historicisms.
    Tom Bethell, Darwin’s House of Cards (2016) (pp. 14–15)

    In fact it turns out that Popper did not really ever take back his criticism of Darwinism but instead he, being someone who grew up under communist repression, cleverly rephrased his wording so as to merely give Darwinists the superficial appearance that he had taken back his criticism of Darwinism,,,

    Laszlo Bencze: Karl Popper Never Really Retracted His Doubt Of Darwin – November 9, 2020
    Most of us know that at one point Karl Popper turned his attention to evolution and made the following statement:
    “…Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.”
    — Unended Quest An Intellectual Autobiography, Karl Popper, p. 168
    The statement aroused so much controversy and animosity amongst his academic colleagues that he was forced to “recant” in the following statement:
    “I have in the past described the theory as ‘almost tautological’, and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.
    “I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.”
    — Popper Selections, Karl Popper (edited by David Miller), p. 242
    Note that his choice of the word “recantation” is significant. He might well have used “reevaluation” or “disavowal” or “repudiation.” I believe he chose recantation deliberately to ally himself with Galileo and to make clear that he was being persecuted by misguided and dimwitted authorities just as Galileo was. Furthermore, he writes that natural selection is “a most successful metaphysical research program.” Wait a minute. Wasn’t that what he was to apologize for? So within his recantation he is reaffirming his original point of view, the very one that got him in trouble.
    He goes on to say that he is glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. Sure he is. He would much prefer to have a root canal without anesthesia than to recant a statement integral to his life’s work as philosopher. Finally, in his summary sentence he is “glad to contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.” So what did he contribute? He contributed the understanding of natural selection as a metaphysical research program.
    I never noticed these points until a friend pointed them out to me. Now they jump forth as obvious.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/laszlo-bencze-karl-popper-never-really-retracted-his-doubt-of-darwin/

  11. 11
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77/10
    My mother has been afflicted with Alzheimer’s for a decade and her cognition is less than that of a child–would you condemn her for that?
    I quote Nietzsche for two reasons. First, his point is spot on. I know, as he knew, that the OT was primarily written in Hebrew, and his remarks are directed more at the NT. But the point that the Bible is, as Sev points out, (to put it kindly) opaque in parts and beyond most people’s grasp does not speak well of its authors. They set the stage for countless disputes (even wars) over the “true” word of God, disputes that still continue.
    Second, Nietzsche, as far as I am concerned, is the most significant thinker of the 19th century. He is also the greatest literary stylist in the German language. The older I get, the more his analysis of the evolution of Western culture seems true. But that’s just my personal opinion. That he is an easy target for ignoramuses is unfortunate–he even anticipated that. That he has been misrepresented, misappropriated and mis-affiliated is also unfortunate, but he also knew that that goes with the territory.

    There is no science in the OP or commentary that I’ve “skipped,” just one more DI attempt to make science the handmaiden of Christianity.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, actually, an anti-theology academic movement. KF

    PS, documenting, from Darwin’s Oct 13 1880 letter to Aveling:

    http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12757

    . . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [–> NB: free-thought is an old synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [–> NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.

    Fair comment, this letter makes it utterly clear that a key background motive for Darwin’s theorising on origins science was to put God out of a job, thus indirectly undermining the plausibility of believing in God. In thinking and acting like this, he probably believed that he was championing enlightenment and science-led progress in their path to victory over backward, irrational but emotionally clung-to beliefs. And so his strategy was to lead in a science that was in his mind showing just how outdated and ill-founded the Judaeo-Christian theism that had dominated the West since Constantine in the 300’s was.

    PPS, in that context we can see why, manifestly unable to address fine tuning, they pull stunts to evade, divert attention and polarise. Do I need to call the name, Alinsky?

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, your rhetorical stunts continue, failing to recognise that the design inference on fine tuning stands on its own merits and your repeated evasion speaks inadvertently to that. Such does raise worldview issues and it is appropriate to discuss same. Where, also, we need to recognise as a matter of fact of history that the Christian synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome shaped the civilisation we inherited. I repeatedly find that anti-christian hostility too often becomes misanthropic anti civilisational nihilism, a point that is extremely relevant to themes raised by Nietzsche. The self referential incoherence of evolutionary materialistic scientism, associated radical relativism, doors opened to will to power and more can be seen echoed in too many headlines. KF

  14. 14
  15. 15
    relatd says:

    CD at 7,

    Remember, God will not be mocked.

    Galatians 6:7

    “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.”

  16. 16
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 8,

    “God is dead.” Nietzsche

    “Nietzsche is dead.” God

  17. 17
    relatd says:

    CD at 11,

    Why not overthrow the Marxist-Atheist reeducation camps? Why not present the truth? The low-level hatred of Christianity presented here cannot hide the truth. The words typed here were not produced by monkeys but by human beings. Humans are capable of abstract thought. Of creating word symbols and intelligently stringing them together in the correct sequence so that they can be understood by other human beings. That is Intelligent Design. That is the code in every living cell. It cannot be denied.

    By the way, let me know when the Atheist Utopia appears.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    At 11 ChuckyD defends Nietzsche’s mental breakdown as such,

    My mother has been afflicted with Alzheimer’s for a decade and her cognition is less than that of a child–would you condemn her for that?

    First off I did not condemn Nietzsche for his mental illness. For crying out loud that was beyond his control. And was certainly beyond your mother’s control. I merely noted that the hero philosopher of many atheists suffered a complete mental breakdown prior to his death. Make of it what you will.

    But what I do wholeheartedly condemn Nietzsche for is for his putrid philosophy of ‘enslavement’,

    The Dehumanizing Impact of Modern Thought
    Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and Their Followers – July 21, 2008
    By RICHARD WEIKART
    Excerpt: While many modern thinkers, especially scientists, psychologists, and social scientists, have embraced one form of determinism or another, many thinkers have followed the nineteenth-century philologist and philosopher Nietzsche in rebelling against determinism. Nietzsche attempted to rescue humanity from scientific reductionism by positing radical individual freedom. He believed that all knowledge and truth are created by humans, not imposed on us by some external reality. We cannot blame the environment, nor biology, nor God for our character and behavior. Nietzsche rejected the idea that humans have fixed natures or essences. Rather, the choices we make as individuals shape our destiny. Many subsequent existentialists and post-modern thinkers have exulted in Nietzsche’s liberation from reductionism and determinism.
    While Nietzsche’s emphasis on free will might seem to rescue humanity from the degrading philosophies of environmental or biological determinism, it does nothing of the sort. It only elevates a small elite of humanity, whom Nietzsche called the Superman, or more literally, Overman. Nietzsche’s freedom was freedom only for these Supermen, the creative geniuses (like himself) who would rise above the hoi polloi. He had nothing but disdain for the masses, whom he thought incapable of exercising true freedom. What Nietzsche contemptuously called the herd instinct of the masses fitted them for nothing other than submission to the domination of the Superman.
    Despite its stress on freedom, then, Nietzsche’s philosophy is really a philosophy that aims at enslavement. Power ultimately decides, not only who rules politically, but also what counts as truth. Nietzsche rejected any form of fixed truth or morality, thus undermining the very notion of humanity and human rights. Nietzsche despised weakness, compassion, and humanitarianism, preferring strength and domination. He was especially vehement in his rejection of Christian ethics, because it catered to the weak and downtrodden. His aristocratic morality aimed at justifying and benefiting the strong and powerful.,,,
    https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=2274

    Did Nietzsche, Foucault, and Postmodernism open the door for the Death of Humanity? – video – Richard Weikart
    Excerpt: Nietzsche, subsequent existentialists, Foucault, and other postmodernists have contributed to the secular assault on the Judeo-Christian sanctity-of-life ethic. Nietzsche had utter contempt for the masses of humanity and argued that Superman figures should oppress and even eradicate those deemed inferior. Foucault admitted that the Nietzschean death of God also meant the death of humanity, and Foucault glamorized suicide as a result. Both existentialists and postmodernists reject any human rights or objective morality.
    https://youtu.be/tRgjzAoVIxc

    That ChuckyD would claim that Nietzsche is “the most significant thinker of the 19th century” is simply, besides laughably wrong, pathetically sad.

    Moreover, as to ChuckyD’s overriding theme in trying to defend Nietzsche’s complete mental breakdown, i.e. that there are no negative consequences to be had in this life for people who reject God, well that overriding theme is now known to be false.

    As Professor Andrew Sims, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, states, “The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.”,,, “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life;,,”

    “I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion.
    The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – preface

    “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100

    In fact, “Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation.”

    Of snakebites and suicide – February 18, 2014
    RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation.
    http://uncommondescent.com/int.....d-suicide/

    Atheism and suicide
    “Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization’s report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.”[3]
    https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_suicide

    As well, in the following study it was found that, “those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%.” and “Religiously affiliated people lived “9.45 and 5.64 years longer…”

    Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes – June 1, 2017
    Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the “Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults” study May 16.
    “For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year,” Bruce said.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/

    Study: Religiously affiliated people lived “9.45 and 5.64 years longer…”
    July 1, 2018
    Excerpt: Self-reported religious service attendance has been linked with longevity. However, previous work has largely relied on self-report data and volunteer samples. Here, mention of a religious affiliation in obituaries was analyzed as an alternative measure of religiosity. In two samples (N = 505 from Des Moines, IA, and N = 1,096 from 42 U.S. cities), the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated. Additionally, social integration and volunteerism partially mediated the religion–longevity relation.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/study-religiously-affiliated-people-lived-religiously-affiliated-lived-9-45-and-5-64-years-longer/

    Thus contrary to what ChuckyD wants to believes, there are, in fact, fairly severe negative consequences to be had, both mentally and physically, for people who reject God.

    As I told Seversky a few years ago, ,,, “shoot, from a purely practical, pragmatic, point of view you ought to believe in God since it will greatly increase your chances of living longer here on this earth.” (Not to mention eternal life in heaven after this earthly life).

    John 1:4
    In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  19. 19
    relatd says:

    When man becomes the center, and even with relatives and friends, he will miss the ultimate big picture. Death is not the end. Your eyes close and nothing happens is not the truth. You, and everyone else will stand before God. To all reading: Jesus Christ is waiting for you to say yes to a relationship with Him.

  20. 20
    Seversky says:

    Chuckdarwin/7

    With a good editor, the Bible could be shortened by at least 50% and made reader friendly.

    Didn’t a guy called Thomas Jefferson take a stab at it a while back?

  21. 21
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/17

    Why not overthrow the Marxist-Atheist reeducation camps?

    You mean replace them with the kind of boarding-schools to which Native American children were sent to be “assimilated” into Christian society – whether they liked it or not?

    Why not present the truth?

    It is.

    The low-level hatred of Christianity presented here cannot hide the truth.

    I don’t see a hatred for Christianity per se. As for the sanctimonious bigotry and nationalism that passes for Christianity in some parts of the country, however, that’s a different matter.

    The words typed here were not produced by monkeys but by human beings.

    I’m not so sure.

    Humans are capable of abstract thought. Of creating word symbols and intelligently stringing them together in the correct sequence so that they can be understood by other human beings.

    Sometimes.

    That is Intelligent Design.

    I don’t think anyone has ever denied that anthropic intelligent design exists.

    By the way, let me know when the Atheist Utopia appears.

    That won’t happen until the Federation is set up at the earliest. Let us know when you receive a postcard from Heaven.

  22. 22
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/18

    In fact, “Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation.”

    Note that he wrote that the benefits accrued to religious affiliation generally, not Christianity only. You and I could probably become a Satanist or Jedi Knight or Pastafarian and enjoy the same advantages.

    Thus contrary to what ChuckyD wants to believes, there are, in fact, fairly severe negative consequences to be had, both mentally and physically, for people who reject God.

    As I told Seversky a few years ago, ,,, “shoot, from a purely practical, pragmatic, point of view you ought to believe in God since it will greatly increase your chances of living longer here on this earth.”

    That was certainly true in the past when being an atheist could seriously damage your health if you fell into the hands of the more zealous believers who held that the only good atheist was a dead atheist. And it still is now in some parts of the world.

  23. 23
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/10

    When man becomes the center, and even with relatives and friends, he will miss the ultimate big picture.

    I agree that a little more humility would not be such a bad idea.

    To all reading: Jesus Christ is waiting for you to say yes to a relationship with Him.

    I think if He’s still pursuing OT policies then I would have to say “no” but, like a said before, I’m happy to talk if He wants to drop in for a chat.

    Verse Matthew 5:17

    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, pardon your anti-Christian, anti-civilisation, anti-, anti-education bias is showing. You know full well that even were the schools in Canada abusive as you imply, that would have been exceptional. And there is evidence already raised here at UD that the picture painted is distorted. The ongoing, accelerating manipulation, indoctrination and too often moral desensitisation, corruption and outright grooming under colours of science, wokism, secularism etc is manifestly indefensible and should be properly and duly reformed. KF

    PS, Have you read the Sermon on the Mount, the context for your clip? What is Jesus’s summary of the ethics of the law and the prophets therein?________ What key OT principle in Lev 19:9 – 18 is he pointing to? ________ And what does that teach about first duties? ________

  25. 25
    AndyClue says:

    @Seversky:

    I agree that a little more humility would not be such a bad idea.

    First step would be to ditch the so-called prophets and start having a relationship with god. However in this regard christianity is rotten from the core, since it is built on men and their ideologically tainted writings.

    I think if He’s still pursuing OT policies then I would have to say “no” but, like a said before, I’m happy to talk if He wants to drop in for a chat.

    You’re on the right path: The idea is to ask god, instead of men.

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    AC, your own tendencies are here on display. Perhaps, the statement of the prophets would be of help. KF

    PS, first, Isaiah:

    Isa 5: 18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood,
    who draw sin as with cart ropes,
    19 who say: “Let him be quick,
    let him speed his work
    that we may see it;
    let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near,
    and let it come, that we may know it!”
    20 Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
    who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
    who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter!
    21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
    and shrewd in their own sight!
    22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine,
    and valiant men in mixing strong drink,
    23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
    and deprive the innocent of his right!
    24 Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours the stubble,
    and as dry grass sinks down in the flame,
    so their root will be as rottenness,
    and their blossom go up like dust;
    for they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts,
    and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

    Then, Micah:

    Micah 6: 8 He has told you, O man, what is good;
    and what does the LORD require of you
    but to do justice, and to love kindness,2
    and to walk humbly with your God?

    And of course, Moses on just what neighbour love implies:

    Lev 19: 9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.
    11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. 12 You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
    13 “You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired worker shall not remain with you all night until the morning. 14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
    15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. 16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life1 of your neighbor: I am the LORD.
    17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

  27. 27
    AndyClue says:

    @kairosfocus:

    AC, your own tendencies are here on display. Perhaps, the statement of the prophets would be of help. KF

    What tendencies? And help for what? I’m not a mind reader.

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    At post 22 Seversky ignores the very real practical and pragmatic benefits of believing in God, i.e. greater benefits for mental and physical health, and states, “That was certainly true in the past when being an atheist could seriously damage your health if you fell into the hands of the more zealous believers who held that the only good atheist was a dead atheist.”

    Yet, (besides the fact that I was talking about ‘normal life spans’, and wasn’t even talking about persecution), what Seversky fails to ever honestly acknowledge in his hate filled diatribes against Christianity is that Christians have, historically, suffered exponentially worse at the hands of atheists, and non-believers in general, than atheists have ever suffered at the hands of Christians.

    Atheism’s Body Count *
    It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world.
    – per scholar’s corner

    Among the Disbelievers:
    Why atheism was central to the great evil of the 20th century
    – GARY SAUL MORSON / SEPT. 17, 2018
    Excerpt: In its 300-year history in Spain, Portugal, and the New World, the Spanish Inquisition killed a few thousand, perhaps even a few tens of thousands, while in the atheist Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, that was the average toll every week or two. To this objection, the atheist has a ready reply: Atheism had nothing to do with Bolshevik carnage. As Richard Dawkins explains in The God Delusion: “What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does.” This comment displays an ignorance so astonishing that, as the Russian expression goes, one can only stare and spit.,,,
    Bolshevik ideology demanded that religion be wiped out. Perhaps even more than constructing dams and factories, creating a population of atheists became the regime’s most important criterion of success. “Atheism [was] the new civilization’s calling card,” as S.A. Kuchinsky, director of the Leningrad State Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism, explained.
    Communist society could be built only by a new kind of human being, one who would at every moment be guided by partiinost (party-mindedness), a singular devotion to the Party’s purposes. Partiinost demanded militant atheism (mere unbelief was not enough), and atheism became, as Smolkin observes, “the battleground on which Soviet Communism engaged with the existential concerns at the heart of human existence: the meaning of life and death.”
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/among-the-disbelievers/

    Knowing our world: The three major reasons for persecution of Christians worldwide – Denyse O’Leary
    Excerpt: The world-wide picture is sobering. Pew Research Center, Newsweek, and The Economist all agree that Christians are the world’s most widely persecuted group.
    Marshall and team offer information about three quite different reasons for persecution by different types of regimes (pp. 9–11):
    First, there is post-Communist persecution, following the collapse of Communism in the late 1980s, where the regimes
    ” … have since retreated to an onerous policy of registration, supervision, and control. Those who will not be controlled are sent to prison or labor camps, or simply held, abused, and sometimes tortured.”
    The most intense persecutor is the still Communist (not post-Communist) regime, North Korea (pp. 9–10). There, “Christians are executed or sent to prison camps for lengthy terms for such crimes as the mere possession of a Bible.”
    Second, in some countries, “Hindu or Buddhist religious movements equate their religion with the nature and meaning of their country itself.” They persecute minority tribes as well as religions (pp. 10–11). These countries include Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan.
    Third, of course the Muslim world where
    “Even though the remaining Communist countries persecute the most Christians, it is in the Muslim world where persecution of Christians is now most widespread, intense, and, ominously, increasing. Extremist Muslims are expanding their presence and sometimes exporting their repression of all other faiths. … Even ancient churches, such as the two-thousand-year-old Chaldean and Assyrian churches of Iraq and the Coptic churches of Egypt, are under intense threat at this time. (p. 11).”
    http://www.thebestschools.org/.....worldwide/

    In fact, it can be forcefully argued, and is a self-evident fact, that governments based on Judeo-Christian principles lead to more freedom for all people, including atheists, whilst governments founded on atheistic principles lead to totalitarian hellholes that are horrible places to live, even horrible places for atheists to live in.

    POVERTY, HUNGER AND OTHER EVILS OF COMMUNISM
    By Stephen Chapman – Jan 25, 1990
    Excerpt: The Soviet ambassador to the U.S. dramatized the point a couple of years ago by giving a $5,000 donation to homeless activist Mitch Snyder.
    That gesture, like the entire communist enterprise, was a hollow fraud. The Soviet people and their fellows in Eastern Europe, it`s become clear, were even worse off than the fiercest anticommunists imagined. Communism may be vanishing, but before it goes, the full scope of its debacle ought to be known.
    For years, the evidence has been trickling in that even by the standards of success established by the Left, East bloc socialism has been a disaster. In 1984, Harvard scholar Nicholas Eberstadt exposed the health crisis afflicting the Russian people. Life expectancy, he pointed out, was six years lower than in Western Europe. Infant mortality was three times higher. Death rates were rising for every age group.
    ”Measured by the health of its people,” he wrote, ”the Soviet Union is no longer a developed nation.” And things were getting worse, not better.,,,
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1990-01-25-9001070410-story.html

    – Atheism’s Tendency Towards Totalitarianism Rather Than Freedom
    What is so strange and odd that in spite of their outward rejection of religion and all its superstitions, they feel compelled to set up cults of personality and worship of the State and its leaders that is so totalitarian that the leaders are not satisfied with mere outward obedience; rather they insist on total mind control and control of thoughts, ideas and beliefs. They institute Gulags and “re-education” centers to indoctrinate anyone who even would dare question any action or declaration of the “Dear Leader.” Even the Spanish Inquisition cannot compare to the ruthlessness and methodical efficiency of these programs conducted on so massive a scale. While proclaiming freedom to the masses, they institute the most methodical efforts to completely eliminate freedom from the people, and they do so all “on behalf” of the proletariat. A completely ordered and totally unfree totalitarian State is routinely set up in place of religion, because it is obviously so profoundly better society. It is also strange that Stalin was a seminarian who rejected Christianity and went on to set up himself as an object of worship. It seems that impulse to religious devotion is present in all, whether that be in traditional forms or secular inventions.
    https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/

    So tell me Seversky, do you really want to go back to those good ole days of atheistic utopias where those supposedly evil Christians were rounded-up, reeducated, and/or killed?

    Jeremiah 29:11
    11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

  29. 29
    Alan Fox says:

    …do you really want to go back to those good ole days of atheistic utopias where those supposedly evil Christians were rounded-up, reeducated, and/or killed?

    In countries in Western Europe where formal religion has declined to a minority activity and cultural tradition, Christians are still safer walking the streets than in the US

  30. 30
    Alan Fox says:

    Atheistic utopia must be a synonym for totalitarian regime, I guess. Putin uses the Russian Orthodox Church as a political wing. Quelle différence from Kim Jong Un?

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    So Christianity is now to be put on par with Kim Jong Un’s North Korea?

    You can’t be serious?

    Apparently militant atheism, besides leading to totalitarian hellholes, also leads to the mental retardation of its proponents.

    In 2020, It was estimated that 60% of the total population of North Korea lives below the poverty line,,.,

    What do we know about poverty in North Korea? – 2020
    Excerpt: Our results, which are robust to the use of different methods to approximate the income distribution in the country, indicate that the share of persons living in extreme poverty in North Korea may be larger than previously thought. We estimate a poverty rate for the country of around 60% in 2018 and a high volatility in the dynamics of income at the national level in North Korea for the period 2012–2018. Income per capita estimates tend to decline significantly from 2012 to 2015 and present a recovery since 2016.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0417-4

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    AC, BA77 is right, you have lost it. The Christian faith and its now waning heritage in Europe are not to be equated to the track record of atheistical totalitarians collectively responsible for north of 100 million dead by democides. A more fair understanding is, to be human is to struggle morally, but there are first principles, which the Hebraic-Christian Jerusalem root of our Civilisation endorses and has taught for millennia, often falling short but also leading to sound reformation that on the whole has made a positive difference. There is a book at the heart of that, which you evidently despise to the point you cannot acknowledge its core moral teachings. You seem to imagine that a shift to evolutionary materialistic scientism and linked secular humanism etc are beneficial. The history of the jacobins and other similar radicals says somewhat differently. I suggest you reconsider. KF

  33. 33
    AndyClue says:

    @kairosfocus:

    AC, BA77 is right, you have lost it.

    I think you’re talking about AF, right?

  34. 34
    relatd says:

    AF at 30,

    You just won the 2022 International Troll Award. It should be arriving shortly.

  35. 35
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 31,

    I saw a photo of two teenage girls shoveling coal out of the back of a truck. North Korea needs money for missiles capable of hitting the United States. That way, they can fill boats with hungry people and send them over. Pure insanity.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    This testimony just brought tears to my eyes.

    How Jesus saved a (very stubborn) atheist on her death bed 🙂
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4UClSWEU4M

  37. 37
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77,

    Wow, me too. Thanks for sharing this testimony! I especially appreciated when she related that when Jesus said, “It is finished,” it meant the end of (human-based) religion.

    When I was in college, a friend of mine was in a large lecture class listening to a professor criticize the Christian faith. Finally, my friend raised his hand to ask a question. The professor recognized him, and my friend stood up, took out an orange and started peeling it.

    “What’s your question?” asked the prof.

    “Just a minute,” answered my friend, who then took a big bite of the orange.

    After chewing an swallowing, he asked the prof, “My question is, was the orange sweet or sour?”

    “How should I know,” answered the annoyed prof.

    “Exactly,” said my friend and sat down.

    -Q

  38. 38
    Alan Fox says:

    Good grief, you guys can’t handle nuance, can you? You’re so tribal. My point is that political opportunists exploit whatever means to power is available to them. Putin uses Patriarch Kirill, Trump exploits the religious right, Kim Jong Un relaxed restrictions on religious activity to demonstrate his benign generosity to his people. Jesus was no totalitarian; he rejected the offer in Sinai.

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    There is a nuance to be had for 250 million dead at the hands of atheistic totalitarian regimes which find their roots in Darwinian ideology?

    Atheism’s Body Count *
    It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world.
    – per scholar’s corner

    Chairman MAO: Genocide Master (Black Book of Communism)
    “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….”
    http://wadias.in/site/arzan/bl.....de-master/

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their political ideologies
    March 2022
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/david-berlinski-the-bad-boy-philosopher-who-doubts-darwinism-is-back/#comment-749756

    Verse:

    John 10:10
    The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

  40. 40
    AndyClue says:

    @Alan Fox

    Atheistic utopia must be a synonym for totalitarian regime, I guess.

    Apparently militant chirstianism has lead its worshippers to mental retardation, that they now claim, that murdering millions is an utopia. That may explain why the christianists have slaughtered millions of children on the altar of abortion.

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    AC: “That may explain why the christianists have slaughtered millions of children on the altar of abortion.”

    Christians support abortion? Huh??? What???

    If by ‘christianists’ you actually mean people who are Christians in name only, but are not Christians in practice, you should make that point clear.

    Abortion has been widely, and historically, opposed by Christianity. In fact, It is no exaggeration to say that Christianity has been the primary and main cultural force that has been steadfastly opposed to abortion.

    In fact, Abortion, like the totalitarian hellholes of Communism and Nazism, finds its roots in Darwin’s atheistic ideology,

    Birth control leader Margaret Sanger: Darwinist, racist and eugenicist
    by Jerry Bergman
    Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, the leading organization advocating abortion in the United States today. Darwinism had a profound influence on her thinking, including her conversion to, and active support of, eugenics. She was specifically concerned with reducing the population of the ‘less fit’, including ‘inferior races’ such as ‘Negroes’. One major result of her lifelong work was to support the sexual revolution that has radically changed our society.,,,
    As Sanger stressed in a talk given at the Fifth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference, the end goal of her movement was to produce a superior race: ‘To-day the average reliance of civilization is based upon iron and steel, bricks and mortar, and we must change this to the construction and evolution of humanity itself 24 ’.
    To do this she advocated euthanasia, segregation in work camps, sterilization and abortion.25 She was very successful in achieving this goal—more than half of the American states launched programs that sterilized their ‘unfit … with Virginia, California, and Kansas leading the way’.25,,,
    Many churches opposed Sanger because she championed ‘sex without consequences’, eugenics, abortion and concentration camps for the unfit—all practices that Christianity has historically opposed.42 She stressed that she was against especially the Catholic Church because they opposed ‘science’, evolution, eugenics and race improvement.43 Sanger sought out allegiances with eugenicists to help blunt the opposition to her from the religious community.44 The church’s view that the handicapped, diseased and deformed were all equals in the eyes of God ‘struck Sanger as anathema to the dictates of the Brave New World’ that she wanted to create.45 She even argued that persons ‘whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers’ were ‘irresponsible and reckless’ and that the ‘procreation of this group should be stopped’.46
    https://creation.com/margaret-sanger-darwinian-eugenicist

    The Historic Connection Between Eugenics and Abortion
    JUSTIN TAYLOR | JANUARY 27, 2017
    Excerpt: many (Darwinists) believed that eugenics required the restriction of births by inferior people.,,,
    Sanger noted elsewhere, “Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly. The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the overfertility of the mentally and physically defective.” Sanger went on to found the American Birth Control League (1921), which became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1946.
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/evangelical-history/the-historic-connection-between-eugenics-and-abortion/

    How Darwin’s Theory Changed the World
    Rejection of Judeo-Christian values
    Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide.
    “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75).
    Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.).
    http://www.gnmagazine.org/issu.....-world.htm

    Again, the ‘slaughter of millions of children on the altar of abortion’ finds its roots in Darwin’s ‘death as the creator’ ideology. And certainly does not find its roots within Christianity.

    How Has Darwinism Negatively Impacted Society? – John G. West – January 11, 2022
    Excerpt: Death as the Creator
    A third big idea fueled by Darwin’s theory is that the engine of progress in the history of life is mass death. Instead of believing that the remarkable features of humans and other living things reflect the intelligent design of a master artist, Darwin portrayed death and destruction as our ultimate creator. As he wrote at the end of his most famous work: “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”13
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/how-has-darwinism-negatively-impacted-society/

    Verse:

    Psalm 139:13-14
    For You formed my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are Your works, and I know this very well.

  42. 42
    AndyClue says:

    @bornagain77:

    Christians support abortion? Huh??? What???

    USA has been ruled by christians for decades. The supreme court has been stacked with christians for decades. There are millions of christians at arms. Chrstianity is the biggest religious group.
    Yet the holocaust has been ongoing for decades.

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    AC, you might want to check your history a little more closely before you try to lay abortion at the feet of Christians.

    Like the removal of prayer from school, abortion was never put up for a vote before the American people. Much less was it ever put up for a vote before Christians in particular. Abortion was ‘legalized’ in 1973 by judicial fiat, i.e. legislation from the bench, by a left leaning, i.e. secular, Supreme Court which struck down a Texas law banning abortion. And all subsequent legal challenges to abortion, via Christians and others, in the following decades were effectively shut down by the same left-leaning, secular, Supreme Court. It was only by patiently waiting, and eventually securing a conservative majority on the Supreme Court that Christians were finally able to have a voice on abortion.

    In short, a few secular minded justices have refused to ever give the Christian majority of America a fair say on abortion, (much less a fair say on prayer in school).

    Moreover, both secular decisions on prayer and abortion by the Supreme Court have had devastating effects on America. Plus 60 million deaths in America due to abortion since 1973 hardly needs to be belabored and makes Hitler’s holocaust look tame in comparison.

    As well, the removal of prayer from public schools by the secular leaning Supreme Court, like abortion, has also had tragic consequences.

    The Devastating Effects When Prayer Was Removed From School in America in 1962-63 – David Barton – video
    (excerpted from Barton’s “America’s Godly Heritage’ lecture)
    https://youtu.be/1No–GpdqCY

    If anyone doubts those sobering numbers cited by David Barton, here is the raw data on crime statistics for America from 1960 to 2019:

    United States Crime Rates 1960 – 2019 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in the violent crime rate at the mid 90s is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes (i.e. New York’s ‘spitting on the sidewalk’ enforcement).
    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

  44. 44
    AndyClue says:

    @bornagain77:

    Abortion was ‘legalized’ in 1973 by judicial fiat, i.e. legislation from the bench, by a left leaning, i.e. secular, Supreme Court

    I’ve never said anything about liberal, conservatives or whatever political party they were part of. The court was always stacked by christians. It was christians who legalized abortion. That’s a fact.

  45. 45
    asauber says:

    “USA has been ruled by christians for decades.”

    AC,

    Perhaps they called themselves Christians. But when you become part of the ruling class these days, you have to modify and/or eliminate a lot of what would make a person a serious Christian. For instance, a commitment to the truth would have to be discarded.

    Andrew

  46. 46
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/24

    Sev, pardon your anti-Christian, anti-civilisation, anti-, anti-education bias is showing.

    I’m not anti-Christianity nor anti-civilization nor education.

    I’m anti-Christian nationalism, anti-theocracy and anti government-mandated indoctrination of children in a state-sponsored religion or political ideology.

    You know full well that even were the schools in Canada abusive as you imply, that would have been exceptional. And there is evidence already raised here at UD that the picture painted is distorted.

    There is more than sufficient evidence for the abusive and unethical nature of these schools in both Canada and the US.

    The ongoing, accelerating manipulation, indoctrination and too often moral desensitisation, corruption and outright grooming under colours of science, wokism, secularism etc is manifestly indefensible and should be properly and duly reformed.

    There is a long-standing campaign in the US to sweep under the carpet the worst excesses of racial violence, the abuse of women and the oppression of minority ethnic groups. Of all people, I would have hoped Christians would be vociferous in exposing and condemning these offenses not trying to hide from them.

  47. 47
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77/43
    Answer a couple questions for me straight up without a bunch of embellishment: Are you in favor of prayer in public schools? How do you square prayer in public schools with the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment?

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    AC: “It was christians who legalized abortion. That’s a fact.”

    correction.

    It was (secularists who claimed to be) christians who legalized abortion. That’s a fact.

    There, all better.

    Moreover, since we are on the subject of secularists on the Supreme Court, and what led to the removal of prayer from school ruling, and the abortion ruling, the entire ‘separation of church and state’ issue that lies at the heart of those rulings is interesting to look at.

    Hugo Black and the real history of “the wall of separation between church and state” – 2011
    Excerpt: So how does this invocation of “wall of separation between church and state” become Supreme Court doctrine, extending from a casual phrase by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to an obscure comment in an 1878 Supreme Court ruling on bigamy to a pervasive doctrine of anti-religious censorship in the public square in the 21st century?
    Here’s how:
    On August 11, 1921 Fr. James Coyle, a Roman Catholic priest in Birmingham, Alabama, was shot to death on the porch of his rectory by E.R. Stephensen, a local Ku Klux Klansman. Fr. Coyle had just performed a wedding between Stephensen’s daughter and her Puerto Rican husband.
    Stephenson was defended by five lawyers, four of whom were Klan members. The fifth lawyer who volunteered to defend Stephenson was Hugo Black, a prominent local attorney. Despite the fact that the Catholic priest was unarmed and the murder was committed in public in front of witnesses, Stephensen was acquitted of murder based on “self-defense”and “temporary insanity”.
    Defense attorney Black joined the Ku Klux Klan after the trial. In the Klan, Black was a Kladd of the Klavern, which was an initiator of new Klansmen.
    From The Volokh Conspiracy:
    … Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”… Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed…
    Several years later, Black ran for U.S. Senate from Alabama. He barnstormed the state, campaigning on a virulent anti-Catholic platform and demanding “a wall of separation between church and state”. His strongest support came from his Klan base, and he gave many anti-Catholic “wall of separation” speeches to Klan meetings across Alabama.
    Black, a Democrat, won the Alabama senate seat in 1926, defeating his Republican opponent with 80.9 % of the vote. He easily won re-election in 1932, with 86.3 % of the vote. He was a staunch defender of FDR’s New Deal and of Roosevelt’s court-packing plan.
    In 1937 Roosevelt appointed Black to the Supreme Court. Despite controversy about his Klan history, Black was easily confirmed. He quickly acquired a reputation for idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution.
    In 1947, Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education, the landmark Establishment Clause Supreme Court decision that barred use of tax revenues to transport children to religious (Catholic) schools.
    Justice Black wrote:
    No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.'” 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 [emphasis mine]
    In 1962, Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale, the landmark Establishment Clause Supreme Court decision that outlawed prayer in public schools.
    Justice Black wrote:
    The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents’ prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State’s use of the Regents’ prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government. [emphasis mine]
    Justice Hugo Black began his political career in the wake of his successful defense of a Klansman who murdered a Catholic priest. The modern application of the non-Constitutional doctrine “a wall of separation between church and state” derives from Black, a former Kladd of the Klavern of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan, who used his Klan base to secure a Senate seat and ultimately an appointment on the Supreme Court.
    The phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” played little role in jurisprudence until the mid-20th century. The doctrine has long played a large cultural role, preserved by pervasive anti-Catholic bigotry through organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, and became a ‘Constitutional principle’ through the jurisprudence of an anti-Catholic bigot. It is used today to suppress prayer and religious expression in all public schools in the United States.
    Why is it that discussions of the “separation of church and state” don’t generally include the cultural and political history of the “doctrine”? Why is the central role that “separation” played in the political and judicial rise of Justice Black– the father of modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence– never seems to show up in New York Times Op-Ed columns or NPR’s “All Things Considered”? Ever see a press release by Americans United for Separation of Church and State note the fact that “an eternal separation of church and state” was a part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda and the Klansmen’s Creed, and that one of those Klansmen jurists wrote the Supreme Court opinions establishing “separation of church and state” as the law under which we live?
    http://egnorance.blogspot.com/.....ll-of.html

    Charlie Daniels: Separation of Church & State Is Not About ‘Religion’; It’s a Battle Against Christianity By Charlie Daniels | September 18, 2017
    Excerpt: Many people think there is a section in the Constitution, or somewhere in the federal papers that demands separation of church and state, but there is no such terminology.
    The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
    Separation of church and state is part of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, whose original intent was far from what the enemies of public displays of religion would have you believe.
    https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/charlie-daniels/charlie-daniels-separation-church-state-not-about-religion-its-battle

    Of related note to the removal of prayer from public schools, (and as David Barton pointed out in the video I listed previously in post 43), in public schools SAT scores have dropped precipitously from the number 1 spot in the world since the removal of prayer from schools, whereas in private Christian schools they have stayed at the same high, i.e. number 1, level as they were prior to the removal of prayer from public schools. In fact, “Classical, Christian Education (score) Higher SAT Scores Than All Other School Types “Without Even Trying”

    Classical, Christian Education: Higher SAT Scores Than All Other School Types “Without Even Trying”
    – Tom Owens on Jan 17, 2020
    One of the distinguishing features of classical education is we refuse to “teach to the test.” Instead, we immerse students in the great conversation of Western, Christian Civilization, exposing them early and often to the best minds humanity has ever produced. We seek the intellectual, moral, and spiritual development of our students above all, but when it comes to the standardized tests obsessed over in conventional schools, we are content to “let the chips fall where they may.”
    Yet, in following the wisdom of the ancients in our approach, the results speak for themselves. Member schools of the Association of Christian & Classical Schools (ACCS) produce students whose SAT scores are, on average, 325 points higher than public schools, 191 points higher than conventional religious schools, and 138 points higher than secular private high schools.
    How does this happen when most classical schools don’t formally prep for the SAT as part of the curriculum? Why does it seem like ACCS students easily handle the SAT “without even trying?”
    https://www.dominionschool.com/dominion-blog/classical-christian-education-higher-sat-scores-than-all-other-school-types-without-even-trying

    Verse:

    John 13:13
    “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.

  49. 49
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/28

    At post 22 Seversky ignores the very real practical and pragmatic benefits of believing in God, i.e. greater benefits for mental and physical health, and states, “That was certainly true in the past when being an atheist could seriously damage your health if you fell into the hands of the more zealous believers who held that the only good atheist was a dead atheist.”

    Yes, Christians, amongst others, suffered at the hands of atheist political ideologies in the twentieth century but atheists, if they were foolish enough to admit to their lack of belief, were reviled and killed by Christians for thousands of years before. And they still are today in some parts of the world. In the US, until very recently, the chances of an admitted atheist being elected to high public office was in the snowball-in-hell range.

    In fact, it can be forcefully argued, and is a self-evident fact, that governments based on Judeo-Christian principles lead to more freedom for all people, including atheists, whilst governments founded on atheistic principles lead to totalitarian hellholes that are horrible places to live, even horrible places for atheists to live in.

    Where in the Bible is there an endorsement of representative democracy, a wall of separation between church and state, an independent judiciary and statutory protections for rights such as freedom of thought and expression?

    And there are choices other than theocracies or brutal totalitarian regimes. There are relatively benign socialist democracies in Europe that offer better and more equitable standards of living, depending on how you measure such things, than the US.

    So tell me Seversky, do you really want to go back to those good ole days of atheistic utopias where those supposedly evil Christians were rounded-up, reeducated, and/or killed?

    There’s never been an atheist Utopia, so there’s nothing to look back to.

  50. 50
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/36

    This testimony just brought tears to my eyes.

    How Jesus saved a (very stubborn) atheist on her death bed ?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4UClSWEU4M

    I have two questions about that video.

    First, how do you know it’s true and not made up for the purpose of social media celebrity? We know there are people who will say and do almost anything for fame of some sort.

    Second, why would God send an “angel” to help just her and not all other other unfortunates who live with the discomfort or even agony of Crohn’s?

    It’s just another example of someone thanking God for their miraculous delivery from death and forgetting about all the others in the same situation who died instead. Surely, if God was responsible for saving the life of one person He is also responsible for allowing the deaths of all the others that He could have saved but didn’t.

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, 250 million dead at the hands of atheistic tyrants who were influenced by Darwinian ideology speaks for itself and there is really nothing left to be said. That you would even try to muster a defense against such unimaginable horror tells far more of your own hostile anti-Christian bias than it does anything else.

    Sev, as to the ‘miracle’ video I listed. Miracles, (even though one miracle would be enough to refute your atheistic worldview), are far more common than you believe.

    Do Miracles Happen Today? Yes! The Latest Evidence. – Dr. Craig Keener – Oct. 2021
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBFZJ5M53r4

  52. 52
    Seversky says:

    How Many People Have Been Killed in the Name of Religion?

    The Crusades: 6,000,000

    Thirty Years War: 11,500,000

    French Wars of Religion: 4,000,000

    Second Sudanese Civil War: 2,000,000

    Lebanese Civil War: 250,000

    Muslim Conquests of India: 80,000,000

    Congolese Genocide (King Leopold II): 13,000,000

    Armenian Genocide: 1,500,000

    Rwandan Genocide: 800,000

    Eighty Years’ War: 1,000,000

    Nigerian Civil War: 1,000,000

    Great Peasants’ Revolt: 250,000

    First Sudanese Civil War: 1,000,000

    Jewish Diaspora (Not Including the Holocaust): 1,000,000

    The Holocaust (Jewish and Homosexual Deaths): 6,500,000

    Islamic Terrorism Since 2000: 150,000

    Iraq War: 500,000

    US Western Expansion (Justified by “Manifest Destiny”):20,000,000

    Atlantic Slave Trade (Justified by Christianity): 14,000,000

    Aztec Human Sacrifice: 80,000

    AIDS deaths in Africa largely due to opposition to condoms: 30,000,000

    Spanish Inquisition: 5,000

    TOTAL: 195,035,000 deaths in the name of religion.

  53. 53
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 46,

    You know how you come off?

    I am 100% Perfect. I have been certified 100% Perfect by the Official Board of Perfectionists.

    AND I am a self-appointed Official Accuser (TM).

    “I’m anti-Christian nationalism”

    How about Marxist-Atheist Nationalism? Yes or no.

    “anti-theocracy”

    How about atheism as the State religion?

    “anti government-mandated indoctrination of children in a state-sponsored religion or political ideology.”

    Too late. The state within a state has turned schools into Marxist-Atheist reeducation camps. Just like the Hippies who told young people to not listen to their parents and religious leaders.

    “There is a long-standing campaign in the US to sweep under the carpet the worst excesses of racial violence”

    Be specific. Who is doing this? Name them.

    “the abuse of women”

    OOOOOH, the abuse of women. You know who abused women? Radical feminists pushing birth control and abortion – without apology. To make baby killing an acceptable pagan practice. And the same people behind No-Fault Divorce.

    “oppression of minority ethnic groups.” I’m a member of a minority ethnic group but I probably fall outside of the Accusation Zone because I’m white.

    And now for The BIG LIE.

    “Of all people, I would have hoped Christians would be vociferous in exposing and condemning these offenses not trying to hide from them.”

    Who is hiding from them? Me? Name names. Do It! If you’re going to accuse a group of people, name names as opposed to THEY’RE ALL LIKE THAT! Do the police arrest an entire apartment building because of a crime that happened on the first floor and there were no actual witnesses?

    But you. You live in Perfect Land where everything is perfect. And if it wasn’t for those CHRISTIANS standing in the way, we could make more progress in turning this country into an Atheist-Sexual Pervert Paradise!

  54. 54
    AndyClue says:

    @bornagain77:

    It was (secularists who claimed to be) christians who legalized abortion. That’s a fact.

    And yet they swore on the bible. I think it’s normal for christians to claim to be christian. Plus sin and error are common among christians. It’s weird that you try to dismiss and deny the testimony of your fellow christianists and still talk about “christians” in all your posts. We can see a clear sign of selective hyperscepticism acting here. Chrstianity is all about Jesus, bro.

  55. 55
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 52,

    Mass Killings under Communist Regimes

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes

  56. 56
    relatd says:

    AC at 54,

    You are uninformed. Every trick in the book had to be used to legalize pagan baby killing.

    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55401/an-ex-abortionist-speaks

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    In order to try to counterbalance the unmitigated horror committed by the atheistic/Darwinian regimes of the Nazis and Communists over the last century, Seversky reaches over the entire span of Christianity’s 2000 years of existence and cherry picks atrocities to try to claim that Christianity is as murderous as the atheistic/Darwinian regimes have been over the last century. And although I would contest many of his examples, (like slave trade for instance), In rebuttal to Sev’s preposterous claim that Christianity is a murderous let me first point out that Christ himself, rather than call down 12 legions of angels to slay his enemies submitted himself instead to death on a Cross by the hands of his enemies:

    Matthew 26:52-53
    “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him. “For all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

    Moreover, Christ himself commanded his followers to not return evil for evil but to return good for evil:

    Matthew 5:38-40
    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

    In fact, Jesus instead of commanding his followers to kill those who did not believe, (as Mohammad told his followers to do), instead told his followers to endure persecution.

    John 15:20
    Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.

    In fact, all the disciples, save for John, suffered martyrs deaths.

    Did the Apostles Really Die as Martyrs for their Faith? By Sean McDowell
    http://magazine.biola.edu/arti.....r-their-f/

    Martyrdom has been a staple of Christianity throughout Christian history:

    The New Encyclopedia of Christian Martyrs – September 1, 2001
    https://www.amazon.com/New-Encyclopedia-Christian-Martyrs/dp/0801012252

    Modern Atheists, starting with the French revolution, to Communist Russia to present day China have been particularly brutal and murderous of professing Christians. The murderous brutality of present day Muslims against Christians in the middle east hardly needs to be mentioned since they often behead their Christian victims on TV.

    In fact, Christianity easily qualifies for the most persecuted religion in the world today:

    Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christians
    http://www.amazon.com/Persecut.....1400204410

    Knowing our world: The three major reasons for persecution of Christians worldwide – Denyse O’Leary
    Excerpt: The world-wide picture is sobering. Pew Research Center, Newsweek, and The Economist all agree that Christians are the world’s most widely persecuted group.
    Marshall and team offer information about three quite different reasons for persecution by different types of regimes (pp. 9–11):
    First, there is post-Communist persecution, following the collapse of Communism in the late 1980s, where the regimes
    ” … have since retreated to an onerous policy of registration, supervision, and control. Those who will not be controlled are sent to prison or labor camps, or simply held, abused, and sometimes tortured.”
    The most intense persecutor is the still Communist (not post-Communist) regime, North Korea (pp. 9–10). There, “Christians are executed or sent to prison camps for lengthy terms for such crimes as the mere possession of a Bible.”
    Second, in some countries, “Hindu or Buddhist religious movements equate their religion with the nature and meaning of their country itself.” They persecute minority tribes as well as religions (pp. 10–11). These countries include Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan.
    Third, of course the Muslim world where
    “Even though the remaining Communist countries persecute the most Christians, it is in the Muslim world where persecution of Christians is now most widespread, intense, and, ominously, increasing. Extremist Muslims are expanding their presence and sometimes exporting their repression of all other faiths. … Even ancient churches, such as the two-thousand-year-old Chaldean and Assyrian churches of Iraq and the Coptic churches of Egypt, are under intense threat at this time. (p. 11).”
    http://www.thebestschools.org/.....worldwide/

    That hardly sounds like Christianity is the murderous religion that Seversky is falsely trying to portray Christianity as being.

    Thus in conclusion, for Seversky to cherry pick atrocities throughout Christian history that were done by people in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ, is to be severely biased against Christianity and is to blatantly ignore the true ‘persecuted’ history of Christianity. In fact, Christianity, and Christianity alone, far from being a extremely murderous religion as Atheism and Islam are, has instead been the foundation from which the world has been blessed with much goodness time and time again:

    21 Positive Contributions Christianity Has Made Through the Centuries By D. James Kennedy (excerpted from “What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?”)
    (1) Hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages.
    (2) Universities, which also began during the Middle Ages. In addition, most of the world’s greatest universities were started for Christian purposes.
    (3) Literacy and education for the masses.
    (4) Capitalism and free enterprise.
    (5) Representative government, particularly as it has been seen in the American experiment.
    (6) The separation of political powers.
    (7) Civil liberties.
    (8) The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in more modern times.
    (9) Modern science.
    (10) The discovery of the New World by Columbus.
    (11) The elevation of women.
    (12) Benevolence and charity; the good Samaritan ethic.
    (13) Higher standards of justice.
    (14) The elevation of common man.
    (15) The condemnation of adultery, homosexuality, and other sexual perversions. This has helped to preserve the human race, and it has spared many from heartache.
    (16) High regard for human life.
    (17) The civilizing of many barbarian and primitive cultures.
    (18) The codifying and setting to writing of many of the world’s languages.
    (19) Greater development of art and music. The inspiration for the greatest works of art.
    (20) The countless changed lives transformed from liabilities into assets to society because of the gospel.
    (21) The eternal salvation of countless souls.
    https://verticallivingministries.com/tag/benefits-of-christianity-to-society/

    From ‘Evidence for Christianity’, Josh McDowell, in giving examples of the influence of Jesus Christ, also cites many examples of Christianity’s positive influence on the world. Here are just a few:
    1. Hospitals
    2. Universities
    3. Literacy and education for the masses
    4. Representative government
    5. Separation of political powers
    6. Civil liberties
    7. Abolition of slavery
    8. Modern science
    9. The elevation of the common man
    10. High regard for human life

    Verse and Video:

    John 1:29
    The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

  58. 58
    relatd says:

    AC at 40,

    Quit generalizing, OK? Don’t do it. Be specific. How do you know millions of Christians have been involved in abortions? All I’m saying is to cite a credible source before you throw a general accusation out there.

    To everyone reading. Certain pagan-atheist groups have been trying to make abortion seem like it’s no big deal. As if a baby does not die during an abortion. THEY are hoping that saying the same lie year after year after year after year will convince women that A) It’s OK to have sex with any random guy I want, and B) Abortion is OK.

    Do you know what the BIG problem is in the West right now? No proper dating, leading to healthy marriages, leading to children. By sacrificing babies to the pagan god of Secularism, too many women have fallen for the lie. Too many women have deluded themselves into thinking “I don’t need a man.” Look at the prison population in the U.S. Do you know what was lacking in the lives of many of those young men? Fathers. Men willing to take responsibility for getting the woman pregnant after establishing a stable, normal household.

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

    AC at 54 states: “And yet they (the Supreme Court justices) swore on the bible. I think it’s normal for christians to claim to be christian.”

    And I may claim to be a brain surgeon after reading a book on brain surgery, yet if I do not actually do the work of brain surgery then surely I am not really a brain surgeon.

    Such as it is with Christianity. As Jesus Himself said

    Matthew 7: 21
    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

  60. 60
    AndyClue says:

    @Relatd:

    Quit generalizing, OK? Don’t do it. Be specific. How do you know millions of Christians have been involved in abortions? All I’m saying is to cite a credible source before you throw a general accusation out there.

    Ok. I’ll be specific. However I’ll ignore bornagain77s selective hyper scepticism, which implies the absurdity that christianity might be a religion without any followers: You can actually use google to easily find polls about women having abortions by religious affiliation (do I really need to google it for you??). The numbers might surprise you.

    Also your ruling politicians and supreme justices, nearly everyone of them christian, have fought to make abortions legal. We have seen what the greatest generation did to nazis. They didn’t have a nice chat with Hitler. They didn’t whine on an internet forum. Instead they did what needed to be done to stop the insanity. Now, what did the current generation do to stop the slaughter in their own country?

  61. 61
    AndyClue says:

    @bornagain77:

    And I may claim to be a brain surgeon after reading a book on brain surgery, yet if I do not actually do the work of brain surgery then surely I am not really a brain surgeon.

    You’ve ignored the part “sin and error are common among christians”. We again can see a clear sign of selective hyperscepticism with absurd implications. You yourself have used the word “christian” many times in this thread wihtout having any clue about the works of those people. It’s clear that even for you a christian is someone who identifies as a christian. Otherwise what the hell were you talking about??

  62. 62
    bornagain77 says:

    AC, Jesus himself said that many people will claim to have known Him, i.e. to be Christians, but He will reply that “I never knew you”

    Matthew 7:23
    Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    i.e. According to Jesus Himself, signing your name on a Church membership list is not enough. So tell me AC, who should I believe? You, when you say anyone can be a Christian no matter what they do or how they act, or Jesus when He says that only those who do the will of the Father shall enter heaven?

    Matthew 7: 21
    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

  63. 63
    relatd says:

    AC at 60,

    They were lied to by the National Association to Repeal Abortion Laws, founded in 1968. So was the press and the rest of America. In 1972, I was watching TV and a nice woman appeared. She told people watching that abortion was a good idea. A family I knew, neighbors of mine, had a little girl, about 7. She walked up to my mom and said the following: “My mom was going to have a baby brother or baby sister but now she’s not going to have one.” I heard this in the 1970s.

    This isn’t just about abortion. A group of radical, self-proclaimed feminists did everything they could to convince women in the 1970s that men, all men, were evil. That they would use you and abuse you and kick you and the kids to the curb in a heartbeat. Feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, said: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” I heard another neighbor of mine who had just had a baby, tell someone standing close by: “I don’t need a man in my life.” The minds of women were fed poison. That was followed by No-Fault Divorce and the cheapening of the marriage commitment. I saw ads like the following spread throughout the Classifieds in the local newspaper in the 1980s: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.”

    Worse were the so-called Adult Bookstores that sprang up in the 1970s. Aside from selling images of graphic intercourse, they had a thick publication filled with photos of nude and partly nude women looking for no strings attached sex, and their contact information.

    So those who were fighting against porn were met by lawyers defending the pornographers. Those who fought against abortion were met by supporters. People who no longer had to pay to fly to Mexico to get an abortion. By groups like Planned Parenthood, which apparently got money from nowhere, who opened clinics to help women get what they called “health care.” The only reason to go to a doctor is if you are sick or have a broken limb. Abortion is not health care. The baby growing inside is not causing any problems for the woman in the majority of cases. But the 1970s created confusion for some people, and that was compounded with the idea that it was OK to have sex outside of marriage. That was the goal.

    So I urge you to never, ever describe this issue as a quick, easy, flip a switch and pass a law situation. If it WAS that easy, abortion would have been gone decades ago.

  64. 64
    JVL says:

    Related & Bornagain77: Seversky, 250 million dead at the hands of atheistic tyrants who were influenced by Darwinian ideology speaks for itself and there is really nothing left to be said.

    You are aware that woman and mid-wives were inducing abortions for centuries before Darwin was even born. And that such practices were commonly tolerated up to a point in English common law.

    Do you know when abortion was made illegal in the USA? I bet you don’t.

    Abortion has existed in North America since the European colonization of the Americas, was a fairly common practice, and was not always illegal or controversial. In the early 1800s, methods were published for accomplishing abortion early in pregnancy. By common law, abortion was legal, and only after quickening it was not allowed; quickening indicated the start of fetal movements, usually felt 14–26 weeks after conception, or between the fourth and sixth month. Its determination was generally at the discretion of the pregnant woman, but the rules were unstated or unclear in written statues. When the United States became independent, most U.S. states continued to apply English common law to abortion. According to legal scholar Sheldon Gelman, the right to bodily integrity including abortion can be traced back to the Magna Carta (1215), which was imported in the U.S. Constitution from English law. William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) stated that life “begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.” This view was shared by James Wilson. As for legal penalties, Blackstone wrote they applied only “if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb.”

    Within the context of a sex scandal, Connecticut was the first state to regulate abortion in 1821; it outlawed abortion after quickening and forbade the use of poisons to induce one post-quickening. In 1829, New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor. This was followed by 10 of the 26 states creating similar restrictions within the next few decades, in particular by the 1860s and 1870s. The first laws related to abortion were made to protect women from real or perceived risks, and those more restrictive penalized only the provider. According to several legal scholars, some of the early anti-abortion laws punished not only the doctor or abortionist but also the woman who hired them, and while women could be criminally tried for a self-induced abortion, they were rarely prosecuted in general; dating back to Edward Coke in 1648, whether abortion was performed before or after quickening determined if it was a crime. By 1859, abortion was not a crime in 21 out of 33 states, and was prohibited only post-quickening, while penalties for pre-quickening abortions were lower. This changed starting in the 1860s under the influence of anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic sentiment.

  65. 65
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you know better. KF

  66. 66
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: you know better.

    Just pointing out some historical facts. We should be interested in facts, things that happened. When things happened.

  67. 67
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, so, as a Darwinist with no objective moral foundation, are you for killing unborn babies up until birth? If not, why not?

    Dr. David McKnight, who is a board certified OB/GYN released this statement; (Jan 24, 2019)
    “It appears that the State of New York has legislated that an unborn baby can now be killed at term. They did this joyfully and celebrated by illuminating the Freedom Tower in pink light. As a board-certified OB/GYN physician for over 30 years, I need to say publicly and unequivocally, that there is NEVER a medical reason to kill a baby at term. When complications of pregnancy endanger a mother’s life, we sometimes must deliver the baby early, but it ALWAYS with the intent of doing whatever we can to do it safely for the baby too. The decision to kill an unborn baby at term is purely for convenience. It is murder. And now it won’t be long before a struggling mother with a 1-month old baby will argue for the right to kill her baby too, because taking care of him or her is just too difficult and inconvenient. When you are willing to rationalize murder, why be subject to a timeline? God help us.”
    https://www.empirestateconservativenetwork.com/blog/2019/1/24/why-the-reproductive-health-act-is-abhorrent-trash

    Hillary Clinton is Wrong: OBGYN Says Abortion is Never Necessary to Save the Life of the Mother – MICAIAH BILGER OCT 24, 2016
    Dr. Lawrence Koning, an OB-GYN in Corona, California, said Clinton also is wrong about late-term abortions being necessary to save a woman’s life or health, according to Christian News Network.
    “As an OB/GYN physician for 31 years, there is no medical situation that requires aborting/killing the baby in the third trimester to ‘save the mother’s life,’” Koning wrote on social media after the debate. “Just deliver the baby by C-section and the baby has 95+% survival with readily available NICU care even at 28 weeks. C-section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother.”
    https://catholiccitizens.org/views/68533/hillary-clinton-wrong-obgyn-says-abortion-never-necessary-save-life-mother/

    Board Certified OB/GYN Drops Truth Bomb on New York Abortion Law – COURTNEY KIRCHOFF THURSDAY JANUARY 24 2019
    I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt.
    I’m a Board Certified OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies.
    There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no.
    – Omar L. Hamada, MD, MBA
    https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/board-certified-ob-gyn-drops-truth-bomb-on-new-york-abortion-law/

    Will Laws Protecting the Unborn Endanger Mothers?
    Michael Egnor – August 2, 2022
    Excerpt: Medically Necessary?
    The vast majority of abortions committed in the U.S. are elective and are done without even the pretense to protect the health of the mother. Situations in which a mother’s life is genuinely in danger and for which removal of the child is the necessary medical treatment are quite rare. Neonatologist Dr. Kendra Kolb has an excellent discussion of whether abortion can be medically necessary:
    “It is often said that abortion is sometimes medically necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. This is simply not true.
    As a neonatologist, I am regularly consulted to advise mothers with high-risk pregnancies, and I routinely care for their babies. I have also personally gone through two very difficult pregnancies each requiring hospitalization. So I have great empathy and respect for all women who are pregnant, especially those with difficult or high-risk pregnancies.
    What women deserve to know, however, is that even in the most high-risk pregnancies, there is no medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion procedure.
    In situations where the mother’s life is truly in jeopardy, her pregnancy must end, and the baby must be delivered. These situations occur in cases of mothers who develop dangerously high blood pressure, have decompensating heart disease, life threatening diabetes, cancer, or a number of other very serious medical conditions. Some babies do need to be delivered before they are able to survive outside of the womb, which occurs around 22 to 24 weeks of life. Those situations are considered a preterm delivery, not an abortion.
    These babies deserve to be treated with respect and compassion, and parents should be given the opportunity to honor their child’s life… A mother’s life is always of paramount importance, but abortion is never medically necessary to protect her life or health.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/will-laws-protecting-the-unborn-endanger-mothers/

    What about ‘post-birth’ abortions JVL? i.e. infanticide?, like Princeton bio-ethicist Peter Singer advocates for? Are you for those too?

    Australia Awards Infanticide Backer Peter Singer Its Highest Honor – 2012
    Excerpt: Singer is best known for advocating the ethical propriety of infanticide. But that isn’t nearly the limit of his odious advocacy. Here is a partial list of some other notable Singer bon mots:
    – Singer supports using cognitively disabled people in medical experiments instead of animals that have a higher “quality of life.”
    – Singer does not believe humans reach “full moral status” until after the age of two. Singer supports non-voluntary euthanasia of human “non-persons.”
    – Singer has defended bestiality.
    – Singer started the “Great Ape Project” that would establish a “community of equals” among humans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans.
    – Singer supports health-care rationing based on “quality of life.”
    – Singer has questioned whether “the continuance of our species is justifiable,” since it will result in suffering.
    – Singer believes “speciesism” — viewing humans as having greater value than animals — is akin to racism.
    http://www.lifenews.com/2012/0.....er-its-hig

    Peter Singer Thinks Intellectually Disabled Less Valuable than Pigs
    Excerpt: “Most people think that the life of a dog or a pig is of less value than the life of a normal human being.
    On what basis, then, could they hold that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being with intellectual capacities inferior to those of a dog or a pig is of equal value to the life of a normal human being? This sounds like speciesism to me, and as I said earlier, I have yet to see a plausible defence of speciesism.”
    – Peter Singer
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/peter-singer-thinks-intellectually-disabled-less-pigs/

    JVL, so do you really believe, like Singer, that healthy pigs are more valuable than handicapped humans? If not, why not?,,, and JVL, since you are a Darwinist with no objective moral foundation, then no borrowing from Judeo-Christian ethics in order to try to make your case that handicapped humans have more intrinsic dignity and worth than healthy pigs.

    Shoot, besides the handicapped having no more intrinsic value than a healthy pig, on the Darwinian, i.e. amoral, view of things, ‘healthy’ people themselves are to be considered merely, “insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud”, having “no more meaning than that of slime mould”, “just a chemical scum on a moderate size planet”, and a “mosquito”.

    You Chemical Scum, You
    Raymond Tallis engages with the dregs of philosophy
    Excerpt: Voltaire got things off to a jolly secular start quite a while back, by instructing the eponymous hero of his novel Zadig (1747) to visualise “men as they really are, insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud.” The notion of the Earth as ‘an atom of mud’, or at least as a not-very-special address, was prompted by a growing appreciation of the implications of the first scientific revolution. This had begun with Copernicus demoting the Earth to just one among many bits of matter circling in empty space; and led, via Kepler, Galileo, Newton and a few other giants of early modern physics, to an image of the universe as a gigantic clockwork machine, in which our planet, and consequently its inhabitants, cut a pretty small figure. But the competition to find the most scathing description of humanity seems to have intensified, particularly over the last few decades.
    Biology has been the inspiration in some cases. The philosopher and professional misanthrope John Gray has argued that Darwin has cured us of the delusions we might have had about our place in the order of things – we are beasts, metaphysically on all fours with the other beasts. “Man” Gray asserts in Straw Dogs (2003), “is only one of many species, and not obviously worth preserving.” And in case you’re still feeling a bit cocky, he adds: “human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.” Slime mould? Yikes! Can it get any worse?
    Yes it can. For physics has again been recruited to the great project of disproving our greatness. Stephen Hawking’s declaration in 1995 on a TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken, that “the human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate size planet, orbiting round a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a billion galaxies” is much quoted. If we beg to differ, perhaps is it only because we are like the mosquito who, according to Nietzsche, “floats through the air… feeling within himself the flying centre of the universe”? (‘On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense’, 1873.)
    https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/You_Chemical_Scum_You

    So JVL, do you really believe what your Darwinian worldview actually entails, i.e. that you have no more intrinsic dignity and worth that ‘chemical scum’ and/or slime mold?

    Surely JVL you don’t believe as such? Much less can you possibly live your life as if you and all your loved ones actually had no more moral worth than slime mold!

    “Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.”
    (per “The Heretic: Who is Thomas Nagel?” – 2013)

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    Verse:

    Genesis 1:27
    So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    Of further note, most Americans simply do not really have a real clue, (both morally and physically), as to what is really going on behind the scenes in the abortion industry,

    These Irish Eyes Don’t Blink
    Excerpt: the abortion “House of Horrors,” as the Philadelphia Women’s Medical Society at 3801 Lancaster Avenue came to be known, was also discovered quite by accident.,,,
    They walked into a veritable waking nightmare.,,,
    ,,, The most powerful testimonies in the trial, Ann said, were those of the abortion doctors themselves when describing what constituted “a good, legal abortion.” Nearly everyone on the jury was pro-choice at the outset, but some let out audible gasps as an expert witness abortionist explained in detail what she did. Nor was it just Phelim, Ann, and jury members who would reexamine their views. “Prosecutors, several journalists, and even Gosnell’s own lawyer ultimately experienced changes of heart and mind,” Ann wrote.
    “Basically, once you find out the truth about abortion, you drop the pro-choice easy narrative very quickly,” says Phelim. “Abortion is like an article of faith for some people, you know? They don’t think about it, but they just are pro-abortion. I’ll tell you, their faith was shattered. Everyone’s faith was shattered.”
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....-blink.php

    ,,, yet, even though most Americans have no real clue what is really going on behind the scenes in the abortion industry, If a psychopath did to a child what the abortion industry routinely does to unborn children, via ‘dismemberment’ abortions, the psychopath would be sentenced to death, and/or life in prison, and the vast majority of people in America would agree wholeheartedly with that punishment.

    Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A.
    Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018)
    https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf

    100 million views: People respond to the viral ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos
    Excerpt: In these videos, Dr. Levatino, who committed over 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, explains in detail what occurs when the life of a preborn child is destroyed during an abortion during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters.
    Each of the Abortion Procedures videos describes in detail how each abortion procedure is carried out and how the preborn child dies. The realization of abortion’s barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity has impacted many viewers who were not expecting to see what they saw.,,,
    https://www.liveaction.org/news/live-action-abortion-procedures-impact/

    Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk

    Watch (pro-choice) minds (immediately) change on abortion (after watching the abortion procedures video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWQHhqOAcg

    Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand)
    https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100

    Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults)
    https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/

  69. 69
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77:

    I was merely pointing out that abortion had only been outlawed in the United States for less than 200 years; in most states far less than 200 years. For a long time abortions were considered legal up to the time of ‘quickening, say around four to six months. This was also true in British Common Law. In other words, it wasn’t the advent of rampant atheism that was the original justification for allowing abortions up to about half-term.

    I find a bit of historical perspective enlightening. It seems that your Christian forebears did not have the same issues with abortion as you do. Why do you think that is?

  70. 70
    ET says:

    200 years ago, many people were scientifically illiterate. And slavery was a thing.

  71. 71
    asauber says:

    “Why do you think that is?”

    JVL,

    I think the real question is why people like you, JVL, defend such a barbaric practice?

    Andrew

  72. 72
    JVL says:

    ET: 200 years ago, many people were scientifically illiterate. And slavery was a thing.

    So, it was okay for Christians to support abortions and slavery 200 years ago because they were scientifically illiterate?

  73. 73
    JVL says:

    Asauber: I think the real question is why people like you, JVL, defend such a barbaric practice?

    200 years ago generally Christians supported abortion until the ‘quickening’ and had done for hundreds of years or it wouldn’t have become part of British Common Law. It certainly was not illegal at that time and the vast, vast majority of Americans and Brits were Christian at that time. Why do you think that was the case?

    I’m not trying to defend it; I’m merely pointing out that you are in disagreement with Christians from only two centuries ago. Why is that?

  74. 74
    JVL says:

    Oh, by the way:

    Saint Augustine believed that an early abortion is not murder because, according to the Aristotelian concept of delayed ensoulment, the soul of a fetus at an early stage is not present, a belief that passed into canon law. Nonetheless, he harshly condemned the procedure: “Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born.”(De Nube et Concupiscentia 1.17) St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Innocent III, and Pope Gregory XIV also believed that a fetus does not have a soul until “quickening,” or when the fetus begins to kick and move, and therefore early abortion was not murder, though later abortion was. Aquinas held that abortion was still wrong, even when not murder, regardless of when the soul entered the body. Pope Stephen V and Pope Sixtus V opposed abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

    So, the Catholic Church hasn’t even been consistent regarding abortion, at least as far as the Popes are concerned. And, certainly today, there is much disagreement amongst the Christian churches.

  75. 75
    asauber says:

    “200 years ago generally Christians supported abortion”

    JVL,

    Christians 200 years ago and today generally sin, yes, and sometimes support things that aren’t Christian. Completely irrelevant to whether or not killing babies in the womb should be practiced.

    Andrew

  76. 76
    asauber says:

    “I’m not trying to defend it”

    JVL,

    Yes you are or you wouldn’t be trolling about it.

    Andrew

  77. 77
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Christians 200 years ago and today generally sin, yes, and sometimes support things that aren’t Christian. Completely irrelevant to whether or not killing babies in the womb should be practiced.

    Why do you think most of the Christians of two centuries ago supported something you now consider un-Christian? And, apparently, so did some of the Popes before that.

    A practice doesn’t become part of British Common Law because a few ‘influencers’ push everyone else around based on their own agenda. It develops over decades, centuries even. In fact, when you look at it from an historical perspective, early term abortions (at least) have been considered legal far longer than they’ve been outlawed in very Christian nations.

    Why would centuries of Christians not rise up in arms over early term abortions if you think it’s clear that they should have? Why was it accepted as part of British Common Law?

    Yes you are or you wouldn’t be trolling about it.

    I’m interested in why you think most Christians in the US and Britain did not have a problem with early term abortions 200 years ago. It wasn’t illegal and, in fact, it stayed legal for quite a few decades into the 19th century. What changed between then and now?

  78. 78
    asauber says:

    “Why do you think most of the Christians of two centuries ago supported something you now consider un-Christian?”

    JVL,

    How do you know it was “most”? Anyway, they were in error, just like you are. Not rocket science.

    Andrew

  79. 79
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, you never did answer my questions, Are you for ‘dismemberment’ abortions? If not, why not? Are you for abortion up until birth? If not, why not? Are you for infanticide of the handicapped? If not, why not? And if you are not a complete psychopath and are rightly against such barbaric practices, remember that since you are a Darwinist with no objective moral foundation, then you are not allowed to ‘borrow’ from Judeo-Christian ethics in order to try to make your case against such barbaric practices.

    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
    The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video
    https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

  80. 80
    ET says:

    JVL:

    So, it was okay for Christians to support abortions and slavery 200 years ago because they were scientifically illiterate?

    Are you on drugs?

  81. 81
    asauber says:

    JVL: Unable to move a millimeter off the troll script.

    Andrew

  82. 82
    JVL says:

    Asauber: How do you know it was “most”? Anyway, they were in error, just like you are. Not rocket science.

    Seems a fair assumption it was ‘most’ (i.e. over half) since there seems to have been very few calling for the abolition of abortion.

    Clearly you think they were in error but they didn’t think they were in error. As an ‘outsider’ I find it surprising and confusing that Christians can disagree with each other so greatly. So I wonder how that could happen. Was it a doctrinal change? Was it greater medical and scientific knowledge? (Probably not since there are modern Christian denominations that support early term abortions.) It’s a real puzzle that some issues, like abortion or same-sex marriage, can generate such strong disagreement when you’re all reading from the same book.

    Unable to move a millimeter off the troll script.

    I guess I’m just more interested in the Christian disagreement than you are.

  83. 83
    asauber says:

    “As an ‘outsider’ I find it surprising and confusing that Christians can disagree with each other so greatly.”

    JVL,

    Have you ever met people? This is what people are like. They all have different interests.

    Can I help you with anything else absurdly obvious?

    Andrew

  84. 84
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: JVL, you never did answer my questions, Are you for ‘dismemberment’ abortions?

    That’s right, I didn’t.

    If not, why not? Are you for abortion up until birth? If not, why not? Are you for infanticide of the handicapped? If not, why not? And if you are not a complete psychopath and are rightly against such barbaric practices, remember that since you are a Darwinist with no objective moral foundation, then you are not allowed to ‘borrow’ from Judeo-Christian ethics in order to try to make your case against such barbaric practices.

    Actually, I’m allowed to adopt whatever moral stance rings true to me, just like you do. Other Christians have and still do disagree with you on some issues, so you too pick and choose apparently since other Christians come to different conclusions. Also, As I have pointed out in the past, many of the ‘Judea-Christian ethics’ are present in other religious belief systems so, maybe, they really are hard-wired in us.

    The reason I didn’t want to get into a discussion of my own personal preferences is because they’re not pertinent to my query: how is it that Christians two centuries ago generally felt okay with abortions before ‘the quickening’ but now many do not? As a non-Christian I’m in a poor position to examine or compare and contrast different doctrinal stances that exist now and in the past. I thought you guys might be able to address possible reason for the disagreement.

  85. 85
    asauber says:

    “I’m allowed to adopt whatever moral stance rings true to me”

    JVL,

    Again, absurdly obvious. But can you say your moral stance is anything more than a worthless opinion?

    Andrew

  86. 86
    JVL says:

    Asauber: But can you say your moral stance is anything more than a worthless opinion?

    Can you say yours is? You disagree with other people who claim to gain inspiration from the same source? Someone is picking and choosing from that source . . .

  87. 87
    Querius says:

    So many unsupported assertions generated by a trollbot app! For example

    It’s an accepted fact among ____A____, that ____B_____ are responsible for ____C_____ .

    A. Scientists, scholars, researchers, historians, gas station attendants, chiropractors, business leaders, anyone with an IQ above 90, mainstream academics, the obscenely wealthy, trusted news sources, anyone with a high school education . . .

    B: Christians, white males, lawyers, Trump supporters, surgeons, immigrants, African-Americans, Marxists, atheists, scientists, libertarians, librarians, television producers, drug companies, fat people, businesses, anarchists, vegetarians, truckers . . .

    C. Abortion, inflation, all wars, disease, famine, pimples, murders, poverty, vacuous tweets, inner-city crime, illegal drugs, random outbursts, inequality, divorce, crippling angst, projectile vomiting . . .

    For manual operation, you randomly choose a word from A, B, and C. Then post it on Uncommon Descent and watch the fun begin!

    “It’s an accepted fact among scientists, that Christians are responsible for abortion.”
    “It’s an accepted fact among trusted news sources, that librarians are responsible for inflation.”
    “It’s an accepted fact among researchers, that fat people are responsible for illegal drugs.”

    When someone responds, counter whatever they post (without reading it) with another ABC.

    -Q

  88. 88
    relatd says:

    JVL at 74,

    Angry at God? That’s how you come off. Do you live in Perfect Land like Seversky? Is that why you are also an Official Accuser (TM)? All men sin. Even Christians. You don’t get that. You think you’ve found a chink in the armor? You haven’t. And don’t come back with, So what’s the point of being a Christian? The point is to grow in holiness like Saint Augustine. To become more like Christ. To have eternal life.

    To know the Truth as opposed to the lies being spread among the people.

    1 John 1:8

    “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

  89. 89
    relatd says:

    Querius at 87,

    Don’t ever, ever, ever encourage the Trolls! Don’t give them ideas! Ever!

    Otherwise, I’m sure both major political parties in the U.S. use your example or are copying it right now…

  90. 90
    relatd says:

    ET at 80,

    Just doing his job…

  91. 91
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, you are obviously doing a dance to avoid answering the simple questions.

    Are you for ‘dismemberment’ abortions? If not, why not? Are you for abortion up until birth? If not, why not? Are you for infanticide of the handicapped? If not, why not?

    Just honestly answer the questions.

  92. 92
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Angry at God?

    Not at all. I don’t spend time being angry at things I don’t think exist.

    That’s how you come off. Do you live in Perfect Land like Seversky? Is that why you are also an Official Accuser (TM)? All men sin. Even Christians. You don’t get that. You think you’ve found a chink in the armor? You haven’t. And don’t come back with, So what’s the point of being a Christian? The point is to grow in holiness like Saint Augustine. To become more like Christ. To have eternal life.

    A worthy goal! That sounds great. There still seems to be a disagreement about what being ‘more like Christ’ means. But since I’m just making everyone angry I’ll stop asking for clarification.

  93. 93
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: you are obviously doing a dance to avoid answering the simple questions.

    I’m not dancing; I’m just flat-out not answering them and admitting it.

    I don’t see that my opinion is pertinent to the discussion. I know what you think and I’m not trying to attack your opinion. I’m just wondering why it’s possible for lots of Christians to disagree on some very important issues.

    But, again, since I seem to be making people angry I’ll just quit.

  94. 94
    relatd says:

    JVL at 93,

    Your opinion matters to you when you see some advantage in posting it here. If not…

  95. 95
    asauber says:

    “But can you say your moral stance is anything more than a worthless opinion?”

    JVL,

    Answer the question.

    Andrew

  96. 96
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Answer the question.

    Yes, my moral stance is more than a worthless opinion.

    (Here’s comes the predictable appeal to theological support for morals and ethics that most people hold even if they aren’t Christians.)

    I should think that the important point is that we agree on some key moral and ethical issues. Does it matter more how we got there over agreeing on some important topics? I guess for you it does.

  97. 97
    asauber says:

    “Yes, my moral stance is more than a worthless opinion.”

    JVL,

    Is there a reason you think that? Or is there any way you can demonstrate that? Do the math for me.

    Andrew

  98. 98
    Querius says:

    Relatd @89,

    Way too late! Bots have been used to generate news headlines (and plot developments in soap operas) for decades! You get bonus points for AABBCC combinations:

    It’s an accepted fact among Christian atheists, that vegetarian truckers are responsible for divorce inequality.

    And politics? How about . . .

    Stronger together, we’ll make America great again and build back better.

    But not all of these have worked out so well:

    Abolish the police, mandate experimental vaccines, and spend ourselves into prosperity to create an amazing new socialist workers paradise!

    And remember that it’s an accepted fact among historians that consumers are responsible for illegal drugs.

    -Q

  99. 99
    relatd says:

    Querius at 98,

    I work with professional writers and have been doing this for a long time. I know clueless hacks with no creativity want a way to get rid of people – the most expensive, to them – part of their business. They want to make the same amount of money, or more, using programs to create mediocrity. But I reject mediocrity – always will. What they forget is while they get great joy out of firing people, these are the same people they are trying to sell their product or idea to. So, to any people like that reading this, you don’t fire somebody from a job and expect him to buy your product. You don’t put junk on TV and expect everyone – or most people – to not notice.

    But at the same time, there are people who are smart, who do not tolerate mediocrity and who know how to spread false messages or push their agenda. Those in charge hope people are too dumb to notice.

    “Abolish the police” Leftists-Communists with nothing better to do.

    “mandate experimental vaccines” Who said they were experimental? I am prepared to deal with anyone who says they were not the end result of years of research.

    “and spend ourselves into prosperity” All of the credit card companies want you to do that.

    “to create an amazing new socialist workers paradise!”

    The Marxist-Atheist (wannabe) dictatorship has gone too far. People will no longer stand for their nonsense.

  100. 100
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL at 84: “Actually, I’m allowed to adopt whatever moral stance rings true to me, just like you do.”

    Well JVL, killing 6 million Jews certainly ‘rang true’ for Hitler and his henchmen. Should he have been ‘allowed’ to continue his slaughter of Jews until they were wiped off the face of the earth simply because it ‘rang true’ for him? If not, why not?

    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
    The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video
    https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

    Of note, Darwin’s theory is not only amoral, it is ANTI-moral.

    “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

    Adolf Hilter himself, (whom I think even atheists will agree was a psychopath of the first order), directly echoed Charles Darwin’s words when he stated, “Nature,,, wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”

    “A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”
    – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – pg 248

    As should be needless to say, wiping out the weak to give place to the strong is directly opposed to the primary Christian ethic of the strong looking after the weak. i.e. altruism

    Matthew 25:34-40
    “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
    “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
    “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

    As Sir Arthur Keith noted shortly after WWII, “the (moral) law of Christ is incompatible with the (moral) law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”

    “for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
    – Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15

    Moreover, Hitler was hardly the only murderous tyrant who based his worldview on Darwinian evolution. In fact all the leading Atheistic Tyrants of the communist regimes of the 20th century, who murdered tens of millions of their OWN people, based their murderous political ideologies on Darwin’s theory and the ‘ANTI-morality’ inherent therein.

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their Atheistic ideology https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/david-berlinski-the-bad-boy-philosopher-who-doubts-darwinism-is-back/#comment-749756

    Of related note, multicellular life would not even exist unless cooperative and altruistic behavior existed at the molecular and cellular level. (which is the antithesis of Darwin’s selfish ‘survival of the fittest’ presupposition)

    Richard Dawkins’s ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but ‘selfish’ as Dawkins himself held. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be exist in an extensive holistic web of mutual inter-dependence and cooperation (which is, obviously, the very antithesis of being selfish as Richard Dawkins had erroneously envisioned).

    Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis.
    But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,,
    One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out.
    Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/

    Again, such extensive, even astonishing, ‘holistic cooperation’ between genes is the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Richard Dawkins had erroneously envisioned genes to be via his Darwinian presuppositions., (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of a religion for atheists, count as yet another powerful falsification of Darwin’s theory)

    it is also interesting to note that the highest possible morality within Christian ethics is the altruistic morality of someone giving his life so that others may live.

    John 15:13
    Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

    Indeed, the medal-of-honor, which is the highest medal awarded for military service, is based on self-sacrificial, altruistic, morality where a man either dies, or puts his life in extreme jeopardy, for the sake of his fellow soldiers.

    Yet, such self sacrificial altruistic behavior, which is central, even defining, to the Christian’s entire view of objective morality, is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s one ‘general law’ of “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

    Yet, if it were not for such self-sacrificial altruistic behavior in multicellular organisms we simply would not even be here to argue whether morality was objectively real or not.

    Specifically, ‘apoptosis’, which means programmed cell death, is a necessary part of embryological development for multicellular organisms.

    Apoptosis in Embryonic Development
    Excerpt: As cells rapidly proliferate during development, some of them undergo apoptosis, which is necessary for many stages in development, including neural development, reduction in egg cells (oocytes) at birth, as well as the shaping of fingers and,, organs in humans and other animals. Sydney Brenner, H. Robert Horvitz, and John E. Sulston received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002 for their work on the genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death.
    https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/apoptosis-embryonic-development

    Thus in conclusion, multicellular life would not even possible if the cellular level of life was not, in large measure, Intelligently Designed along, and/or based upon, the highest, altruistic, moral principles found within Christian Theism of self sacrifice. i.e. altruism.

    Simply put, if certain cells did not die for the good of other cells during embryonic development, multicellular life, as we know it, simply would not exist.

    John 3:16
    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

    Of supplemental note

    Darwin’s predictions – altruism – Cornelius Hunter
    Conclusions
    “Darwin’s theory of evolution led him to several expectations and predictions, regarding behavior in general, and altruism in particular. We now know those predictions to be false.,,,”
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/altruism

  101. 101
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Is there a reason you think that? Or is there any way you can demonstrate that? Do the math for me.

    Is there a way you can demonstrate that your moral stance is not just a cultural norm that has been codified in an ancient text?

    I admit my moral and ethical views are based on my own opinion and societal norms. You assert yours are based on some unprovable creator (which I fully accept is as real as the earth and the skies to you). If you’re wrong, and your God doesn’t actually exist then you are in the same position as me.

    Even if your God exists those who profess to believe in him/her/it can’t always agree on what God’s given moral stance and ethics are. It all seems a bit murky to me.

    So, to turn things back in your direction: is there a way you can demonstrate to me that your morals are objective and eternal especially in light of the obvious fact that the people of the book can’t agree on what it says?

  102. 102
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Should he have been ‘allowed’ to continue his slaughter of Jews until they were wiped off the face of the earth simply because it ‘rang true’ for him? If not, why not?

    No because your freedoms end at the end of your nose. That is: you don’t get to impose your morals and standards on other people. That’s another one of my ethical stances. This is something you agree on: you don’t think my morals and ethics should dictate what you do and experience.

    Since human beings have chosen to live in communities, sometimes very large communities, then it’s sensible to adopt those standards and morals which the majority support. It’s not a perfect system but, given that you guys are still arguing over what was written down in the Bible over 2000 years ago, I can’t think of a better way of doing things.

    As should be needless to say, wiping out the weak to give place to the strong is directly opposed to the primary Christian ethic of the strong looking after the weak. i.e. altruism

    No one said we should just act like animals! You have this ridiculous notion that if we don’t believe in God then we have to act like lions and tigers and bears. Well, we don’t have to do that and we choose not to do that. Well, most of us anyway. And, if your God doesn’t actually exist, then you have made pretty much the same choice. You do what feels fair and civilised. I think that’s what most of us do do. And, fortunately, most of the time, a lot of us agree on a lot of things.

  103. 103
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL: “No one said we should just act like animals! You have this ridiculous notion that if we don’t believe in God then we have to act like lions and tigers and bears. Well, we don’t have to do that and we choose not to do that.”

    “we choose not to do that”?

    REALLY???

    Someone really needs to get in touch with their inner Darwin. If Darwinism is true, then we are not capable of choosing ANYTHING, much less choosing whether to act like animals or not, or whether to do something morally good or not !

    The Illusion of Free Will – Sam Harris – 2012
    Excerpt: “Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.,,,”
    – Jerry Coyne
    https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    Of note: Martin Cothran is author of several textbooks on traditional logic
    https://www.amazon.com/Martin-Cothran/e/B00J249LUA/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_book_1

  104. 104
    relatd says:

    JVL at 102,

    Sad. You ignore the core reality of Christianity: Jesus Christ was sent to die as a sacrifice for our sins. Because God so loved the world.

    That is real – not situational ethics or the words of men.

    “You do what feels fair and civilised.” Based on what? “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

  105. 105
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: If Darwinism is true, then we are not capable of choosing ANYTHING, much less choosing whether to act like animals or not, or whether to do something morally good or not !

    I don’t think that’s true. If that means I disagree with Dr Coyne or Dr Dawkins, so be it.

  106. 106
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL: “If that means I disagree with Dr Coyne or Dr Dawkins, so be it.”

    So you, a Darwinist, now believe that you have an immaterial mind?

    Free will: a source totally detached from matter (detached from nature) which is the origin (cause) of options, thoughts, feelings,… That is, the absence of (natural) laws, the existence of an “autonomous mind”, i.e. a principium individuationis.

    Dr. Michael Egnor, who is a neurosurgeon as well as professor of neurosurgery at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, lists six properties of immaterial mind that are irreconcilable with the view that the mind is just the material brain. Those six properties of the immaterial mind are, “Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,”

    The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008
    Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: –
    Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....13961.html

  107. 107
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Sad. You ignore the core reality of Christianity: Jesus Christ was sent to die as a sacrifice for our sins. Because God so loved the world. That is real – not situational ethics or the words of men.

    I know that’s what you believe. Glad it works for you.

    “You do what feels fair and civilised.” Based on what? “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

    Hardly. The most important thing is to try and see things from the other person’s point of view. And to think about how you’d like to be treated. I don’t know why you think not believing in God means you have to be some raving, baby-eating, hedonist. If you found out God didn’t exist would you all of a sudden change into someone you weren’t? Are your morals that shallow? Do you obey them only because your creator God tells you to? I don’t believe you do. I think you feel deeply that your ethics and morals are sensible and correct and fair. I don’t think you’d change if I could prove to you that God doesn’t exist. You’d stay pretty much the same person ’cause that’s who you are. You don’t need God to be loving and caring. You would be like that anyway.

  108. 108
    relatd says:

    JVL at 107,

    Using the old – and tired – baby eating hedonist argument. And the old ‘good without God.’

    Everything you do is about perception but some things are less likely to happen because you don’t just rely on how you “feel,’ like yes to hedonism, for example. You do what you “feel” and have no external standards because, well, God might not exist and I’ll go with that.

    I’ll keep this brief. You die. You end up standing before God. No one around to tell you, you just know it. Then what?

  109. 109
    JVL says:

    Relatd: I’ll keep this brief. You die. You end up standing before God. No one around to tell you, you just know it. Then what?

    If I was invited to ask questions I’ve got quite a few!!

  110. 110
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: So you, a Darwinist, now believe that you have an immaterial mind?

    No, I do not.

  111. 111
    relatd says:

    JVL at 109,

    You also realize it’s too late for questions. You, and everyone else, are judged.

  112. 112
    JVL says:

    Relatd: You also realize it’s too late for questions. You, and everyone else, are judged.

    What’s the rush; God is supposed to be eternal so he’s got plenty of time.

  113. 113
    relatd says:

    JVL at 112,

    Don’t say you weren’t warned.

    Hebrews 9:27

    “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,”

  114. 114
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL at 110, “No, I do not (believe I have an immaterial mind).

    FYI, either you believe that you are a purely physical being or you believe you have the free will necessary to overcome your ‘physical’ nature, i.e. to not ‘act like an animal’. You can’t have it both ways.

    Of note, free will, besides being a defining attribute of the immaterial mind, is also the defining attribute of agent causality. And free will, and/or agent causality, is simply denied as being real within the metaphysics of Atheistic Materialism.

    You Don’t Have Free Will By Jerry A. Coyne – March 18, 2012
    Excerpt: “Your decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transmitted from one brain cell to another. These molecules must obey the laws of physics, so the outputs of our brain—our “choices”—are dictated by those laws.”
    Jerry Coyne
    https://www.chronicle.com/article/Jerry-A-Coyne-You-Dont-Have/131165

    As Paul Nelson explains, under Atheistic, and/or Methodological, Naturalism, “You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.”

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism
    Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.
    ,,, some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/

    And as George Ellis explained, “if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level (physical) processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options.”

    Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will – July 27, 2014
    Excerpt: And free will?:
    Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will?
    Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options.
    I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....free-will/

    As should be obvious, the denial of free will, and/or agent causality, by atheists, which is forced upon them by their naturalistic metaphysics, is insane.

    As Dr. Michael Egnor noted, “Someday, I predict, there will be a considerable psychiatric literature on the denial of free will. It’s essentially a delusion dressed up as science. To insist that your neurotransmitters completely control your choices is no different than insisting that your television or your iphone control your thoughts. It’s crazy.”

    Michael Egnor: Jerry Coyne Just Can’t Give Up Denying Free Will – April 27, 2020
    Excerpt: Someday, I predict, there will be a considerable psychiatric literature on the denial of free will. It’s essentially a delusion dressed up as science. To insist that your neurotransmitters completely control your choices is no different than insisting that your television or your iphone control your thoughts. It’s crazy.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-jerry-coyne-just-cant-give-up-denying-free-will/

    Of note, in quantum mechanics Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter(s) in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past, for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Verse:

    Deuteronomy 30: 19
    This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

  115. 115
    relatd says:

    The phrase “act like an animal” needs a little context. Animals operate by extinct. They mate only under certain conditions. Their ability to think is limited. In the wild, wild animals hunt, capture and eat their prey. Humans raise livestock and fish. So to act like an animal implies some sort of out of control behavior. Animals eat enough and are satisfied. If they are meant to be fast on their feet then they can’t get fat.

    We humans are supposed to be better but whether out of need or being encouraged into criminal behavior, humans can hurt others to get what they want. To kill others who are viewed as rivals and to gain position in some group. To become the head of some group due to having decided that being a criminal and killing are valid means to attain wealth and power.

  116. 116
    asauber says:

    “If you’re wrong, and your God doesn’t actually exist then you are in the same position as me.”

    JVL,

    I would be. But I’m right. Unfortunately for you, you’ve placed yourself in a position with no hope. You already acknowledge your position has no claim of superiority. So I regard your position as worthless.

    Andrew

  117. 117
    Querius says:

    Relatd @99,

    I work with professional writers and have been doing this for a long time. I know clueless hacks with no creativity want a way to get rid of people – the most expensive, to them – part of their business. They want to make the same amount of money, or more, using programs to create mediocrity. But I reject mediocrity – always will. What they forget is while they get great joy out of firing people, these are the same people they are trying to sell their product or idea to.

    Yes, indeed! In my experience, the same is true in many fields and enterprises, including publishing, manufacturing, software, and anything innovative.

    The result is that most people, not being complete fools, stop buying their products. The corporation hacks then decide that this is not their “core business” and sell off or close the business, awarding themselves generous bonuses for making “tough decisions.”

    I call it the “reverse Midas touch.”

    Regarding experimental vaccines, I’ll have to disagree based on personal experience–too many people I know or am related to suffered vaccine damage, several seriously, and one died. None of them were reported to the VAERS database. Check this out:

    https://www.kusi.com/there-was-an-unexpected-40-increase-in-all-cause-deaths-in-2021/

    Gosh now what in the world might possibly be implicated in this medical mystery?

    March 25, 2022 – The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,195,396 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 18, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

    The data included a total of 26,059 reports of deaths — an increase of 418 over the previous week — and 211,584 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 3,375 compared with the previous week.
    . . .
    Of the 11,943 U.S. deaths reported as of March 18, 17% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 21% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 59% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

    Admittedly, this could all be a complete coincidence, right?

    -Q

  118. 118
    relatd says:

    Querius at 117,

    I won’t dispute your personal experience. No one I knew died or reported severe adverse reactions. Temporary soreness at the shoulder occurred but disappeared after two days. Here is a direct link to the CDC and their data.

    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

    As you can see, especially toward the bottom, adverse events were rare. I suggest you compare this to the annual flu and other vaccines. Though understandable in the case of the newer vaccines, other vaccines can cause adverse events. The numbers are small, as a percentage, when compared to the total doses administered.

  119. 119
    Querius says:

    Yes, adverse events are *supposed* to be rare, but then the CDC also said that the vaccine would prevent Covid-19 infections, which isn’t true. I’d truly like to trust the integrity of CDC announcements but my trust has been severely undermined. Here’s a recent news report out of San Diego, California:

    SAN DIEGO (KUSI) – Several US life insurance companies have recently revealed an overwhelming unexplained increase (40%) in “all-cause deaths” amongst 18 to 49-year-olds.
    Three physician “whistle-blowers” have just released real data from the DoD, drawn from the clinical diagnosis codes. The increases found are from 2021, compared to the five year average from 2016 to 2020.

    > Myocardial infarction: 269% increase
    > Miscarriages: 300% increase
    > Bell’s palsy: 291% increase
    > Congenital malformations: 156% increase
    > Female infertility: 471% increase
    > Pulmonary embolisms: 467% increase
    > Neurologic abnormalities: 300% increase
    > Cancers: 300% increase

    As of now, the CDC has not explained this data.

    Dr. Kelly Victory discussed the surprising findings and respond to those who believe the COVID-19 vaccines have caused these increases.

    So, several life insurance companies have noticed a significant increase in deaths from all causes in deaths of working-age Americans. For example, the yearly deaths from cancers in 2016-2020 averaged 28,000 deaths per year, but it increased to almost 120,000 deaths from cancer in 2021. This is significant.

    Three experienced military doctors found similar disturbing increases among military personnel in 2021 from the DoD database.

    Dr. Victory suggested that such anomalies should be investigated by the CDC . . . what happened in 2021 that was different from previous years?

    She speculated that maybe it could have been caused by global warming, but instead of being interested, the CDC has shut down any investigation of the subject.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if vaccine injuries are far more common than recorded in the VAERS database and my trust in the CDC has been eroded to the point where I now only trust them to lie whenever convenient.

    -Q

  120. 120
    vividbleau says:

    JVL 109

    “If I was invited to ask questions I’ve got quite a few!!”

    You obviously have not thought this through.

    Vivid

  121. 121
  122. 122
    Alan Fox says:

    Related:

    Animals operate by extinct. They mate only under certain conditions. Their ability to think is limited. In the wild, wild animals hunt, capture and eat their prey. Humans raise livestock and fish. So to act like an animal implies some sort of out of control behavior. Animals eat enough and are satisfied. If they are meant to be fast on their feet then they can’t get fat.

    Your ability to analyse animal behaviour by your astute observation is as impressive as your other skills.

  123. 123
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you still know better. You are indirectly trying to justify the ongoing 1.4+ billion holocaust, mounting up at another million per week. You also know that while all of us struggle with finitude, fallibility, moral challenge and ill will and that power tends to corrupt so the path of history will be marked by wrongs, the civilisation-ruining impact of a dominant evolutionary materialism has been known since Plato. Such evolutionary materialism is self referentially incoherent and self falsifying. KF

    PS, we note Plato:

    Ath[enian Stranger, in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos — the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity; observe, too, the trichotomy: “nature” (here, mechanical, blind necessity), “chance” (similar to a tossed fair die), ART (the action of a mind, i.e. intelligently directed configuration)] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all[–> notice the reduction to zero] in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics, so too justice, law and government: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”), opening the door to cynicism, hyperskepticism and nihilism . . . this is actually an infamous credo of nihilism . . . also, it reeks of cynically manipulative lawless oligarchy . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

    On record for 2360 years.

  124. 124
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, if mind is or is an epiphenomenon of a material computing substrate, then we including you cannot be significantly, rationally, responsibly free enough to have credible knowledge, warrant and reasoning. Computing is a GIGO-limited dynamic-stochastic process on a substrate, it is inherently non rational. Matters not, if digital, analogue, neural network or whatever. So, your dilemma is, if free enough to be rational then the mind is beyond material computation, and if you deny that transcendence then you are not free enough to make a rational, warranted judgement. KF

  125. 125
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: You are indirectly trying to justify the ongoing 1.4+ billion holocaust, mounting up at another million per week.

    No, I am pointing out that Christians, now and in the past, have disagreed strongly on this issue. Who’s to say who is right? Why should there be such a disagreement if the scriptures are clear.

    if mind is or is an epiphenomenon of a material computing substrate, then we including you cannot be significantly, rationally, responsibly free enough to have credible knowledge, warrant and reasoning.

    We’ll see. Sadly, if I am right I shan’t be in a position to say: I told you so!

  126. 126
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL yawns at the “1.4+ billion (abortion) holocaust, mounting up at another million per week”, and nonchalantly states, “Who’s to say who is right?”

    Hmm, well golly gee whiz JVL, perhaps a few abortion survivors can give you a small clue as to why it just might be morally wrong to kill your own children on such a massive scale, and in such gruesome manners, (i.e. dismemberment abortions, etc..)?

    abortion survivor stories
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=abortion+survivor+stories

    An Abortion Survivor’s Story (Living with Facial Paralysis and Other Conditions)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPC2mUpu2D4

    Abortion survivors, Melissa Ohden, Claire Culwell, and Josiah Presley share their remarkable stories at Alive from New York – a special pro-life event held in the heart of Times Square on May 4, 2019.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJalO5MYrPQ

  127. 127
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: JVL yawns at the “1.4+ billion (abortion) holocaust, mounting up at another million per week”, and nonchalantly states, “Who’s to say who is right?”

    It’s not me, it the Christians, current and past, who disagree(d) with you that you should be worried about. I’m just one person but there’s a lot of people of your own faith who feel differently from you. Why don’t you go berate them for awhile?

  128. 128
    bornagain77 says:

    BA77, “,,,JVL yawns at the “1.4+ billion (abortion) holocaust, mounting up at another million per week”, and nonchalantly states, “Who’s to say who is right?””

    JVL: “It’s not me, it (is) the Christians, current and past, who disagree(d) with you with you that you should be worried about. I’m just one person but there’s a lot of people of your own faith who feel differently from you. Why don’t you go berate them for awhile?”

    Well first off, in post 62 as I told AC, I’ve already pointed out that professing to be a Christian and actually being a Christian are, as Jesus Himself pointed out, two very different things,

    Matthew 7:23
    Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    Matthew 7: 21
    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

    But more importantly, are you, in so many words, finally honestly admitting the blatantly self-evident truth that it is objectively morally wrong to kill you own children on such a massive scale and in such gruesome manners?

    If so, welcome to Theism

    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
    The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video
    https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

  129. 129
    asauber says:

    “It’s not me, it the Christians, current and past”

    Sure JVL, just blame Christians. What else is there to do with your time? You’re a Chatty Troll with no off button.

    Andrew

  130. 130
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, actually, we can already see as JBS Haldane pointed out:

    [JBSH, REFACTORED AS SKELETAL, AUGMENTED PROPOSITIONS:]

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For

    if

    [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain

    [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, “my brain,” i.e. self referential]
    ______________________________

    [ THEN]

    [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.

    [–> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?]

    [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.

    And hence

    [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [–> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]

    [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]

    In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

    KF

  131. 131
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/111

    You also realize it’s too late for questions. You, and everyone else, are judged.

    We can also judge, witness Saint Richard of Dawkins

    The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

    If atheists must confront the evils committed by the atheistic dictatorships of the twentieth century then so must Christians confront the evils described in the Old Testament

    Matthew 7: 1-5

    [1] Judge not, that ye be not judged.
    [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
    [3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    [4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
    [5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

  132. 132
    bornagain77 says:

    I bet Seversky has that ‘inspirational’ quote from Dawkins framed on his wall somewhere. 🙂

    Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

    Of note: Apparently Dawkins’s supposed ‘science’ is as shoddy as his Theology:

    Specifically, in 1976 Dawkins put forth the ‘selfish gene’ concept,

    Yet, at the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that Dawkins’s idea of the selfish gene ‘inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences’, for over 30 years:

    Second, third, fourth… genetic codes – One spectacular case of code crowding – Edward N. Trifonov – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDB3fMCfk0E

    Of related note:

    ,, In the following video around the 2:00 minute mark, Dr Denis Noble, (President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences), states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”.
    Denis Noble – Rocking the foundations of biology – video – 2:00 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/UeqEBrnai4s?t=121

  133. 133
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/128

    BA77, “,,,JVL yawns at the “1.4+ billion (abortion) holocaust, mounting up at another million per week”, and nonchalantly states, “Who’s to say who is right?””

    BA77 blithely ignores the uncounted billions of children lost by miscarriage. According to you, the human reproductive system was designed by your God. Apparently, He’s not bothered by that appalling wastage due to His negligence, so why should we be concerned about abortion?

    Well first off, in post 62 as I told AC, I’ve already pointed out that professing to be a Christian and actually being a Christian are, as Jesus Himself pointed out, two very different things,

    No True Scotsman

    But more importantly, are you, in so many words, finally honestly admitting the blatantly self-evident truth that it is objectively morally wrong to kill you own children on such a massive scale and in such gruesome manners?

    I think we can almost all of us would agree it’s morally wrong to kill anyone without good cause but does that consensus make it objective or just a lot of subjective opinions that happen to coincide?

    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

    Even if God does exist, that doesn’t necessarily mean morals are objective.

    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.

    No, they don’t.

    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

    Non sequitur The argument fails.

  134. 134
    bornagain77 says:

    Objective moral values and duties do exist.

    Sev: No, they don’t.

    Really??? You do realize that you, in your post, just presupposed the existence of objective morality in your ‘argument from evil’ against God do you not?

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?
    – CS Lewis

    But anyways, I disagree with Sev, and can prove so ‘scientifically’. But seeing that Sev, as a Darwinist, could care less what the scientific evidence actually says, I invite Sev to come over to my basement and debate this point a little more personally? 🙂

    I bet I can make him ‘see the light’ 🙂

    Cruel Logic
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x__pGaIXKic

    Of related note:

    More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”

    Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”
    – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 1983 Templeton Address
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/aleksandr-solzhenitsyn-men-have-forgotten-god-speech/

  135. 135
    relatd says:

    Querius at 121,

    Substack? Any talentless yahoo can post there.

  136. 136
    relatd says:

    JVL at 127,

    Nope. We’re too busy watching you berate Christians.

    It appears that the core of your argument is: “CHRISTIANS AREN”T PERFECT !!! OH MY DARWIN !!!”

    Allow me to rephrase: Human Beings Aren’t Perfect.

  137. 137
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 131,

    Back to being a Bible scholar? Forget it. You’re just here to berate Christians like that other guy. And to berate God.

  138. 138
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 133,

    Is that an exact count? You got your numbers from where? Still mad at God? Get over it.

    It appears the core of your argument is: “EVERYTHING ISN”T PERFECT !!! I BLAME GOD !!!”

    ‘By the way, abortion is OK. Because uh… uh… something, something. I think…’

  139. 139
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: But more importantly, are you, in so many words, finally honestly admitting the blatantly self-evident truth that it is objectively morally wrong to kill you own children on such a massive scale and in such gruesome manners?

    If you don’t see the confusion that arises from different Christians having different opinions about whether or not early term abortion is murder then I don’t know what to say. My opinion is not what’s in question here. You’re opinion is not what’s in question here. The question is: if Christians disagree and have done for hundreds of years are the God-given morals and ethics clear enough?

  140. 140
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Sure JVL, just blame Christians. What else is there to do with your time? You’re a Chatty Troll with no off button.

    You don’t think there’s a theological confusion when Christians disagree on the same important issue over centuries? Could it be that the God-given morals and ethics are completely clear on the topic?

    I’m not blaming anyone. I’m just saying your own house isn’t in agreement. Maybe you should talk amongst yourselves first before you start berating those not in the faith.

  141. 141
    JVL says:

    Relatd: It appears that the core of your argument is: “CHRISTIANS AREN”T PERFECT !!! OH MY DARWIN !!!”

    My query is: why is there no unified and clear moral and ethical standard within the Christian church regarding abortion? Could it be that the God-give morals and ethics are not that clear?

    If your own house isn’t in agreement then why are you berating those outside the faith? There are more Christians than non-Christians; if you were unified you’d win hands down.

  142. 142
    relatd says:

    JVL at 141,

    In the Catholic Church, it’s all very clear. I cannot speak for other Christian denominations. Those outside the faith have been working very hard to distort Catholic teaching and to bring some Catholics into error. That cannot be ignored. Outsiders working to turn believers away from the truth through subtle arguments and some more overt.

    Pope Francis is aware of the need for Christian unity, as described here:

    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-01/pope-francis-general-audience-christian-unity-grace.html

  143. 143
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL ,”If you don’t see the confusion that arises from different Christians having different opinions about whether or not early term abortion is murder then I don’t know what to say. My opinion is not what’s in question here.

    But alas, I have now questioned you repeatedly specifically about your opinion. So your opinion is most definitely in question. Moreover, I did not question you about early term abortion. But I asked you specifically about, let us say, far less grey areas than argumentative early term abortions.

    I specifically asked, “Are you for ‘dismemberment’ abortions? If not, why not? Are you for abortion up until birth? If not, why not? Are you for infanticide of the handicapped? If not, why not?”

    The first two positions are positions that are currently legal in all left leaning states and also legal in quite a few right leaning states. The third position is what Princeton bio-ethicist Peter Singer currently argues for, via his Darwinian morality(see post 67).

    I hold that the reason you refuse to honestly answer the simple questions that I put to you is because you intuitively know that it is objectively wrong to kill ‘late-term’ babies in such a gruesome manner as dismemberment abortion. Shoot, it is downright psychopathic. And yet if you honestly admitted to ANY objective moral standard of right and wrong, i.e. that ripping living babies limb from limb is objectively wrong, then you know that, as an atheist, is for you to admit that your ‘subjective-moral’ position of atheism is false.

    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
    The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video
    https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

    And to repeat post 68, most Americans simply do not have a real clue, (both morally and physically), as to the horror of what is actually going on behind the scenes in the abortion industry,

    These Irish Eyes Don’t Blink
    Excerpt: the abortion “House of Horrors,” as the Philadelphia Women’s Medical Society at 3801 Lancaster Avenue came to be known, was also discovered quite by accident.,,,
    They walked into a veritable waking nightmare.,,,
    ,,, The most powerful testimonies in the trial, Ann said, were those of the abortion doctors themselves when describing what constituted “a good, legal abortion.” Nearly everyone on the jury was pro-choice at the outset, but some let out audible gasps as an expert witness abortionist explained in detail what she did. Nor was it just Phelim, Ann, and jury members who would reexamine their views. “Prosecutors, several journalists, and even Gosnell’s own lawyer ultimately experienced changes of heart and mind,” Ann wrote.
    “Basically, once you find out the truth about abortion, you drop the pro-choice easy narrative very quickly,” says Phelim. “Abortion is like an article of faith for some people, you know? They don’t think about it, but they just are pro-abortion. I’ll tell you, their faith was shattered. Everyone’s faith was shattered.”
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....-blink.php

    ,,, yet, even though most Americans have no real clue what is really going on behind the scenes in the abortion industry, If a psychopath did to a child what the abortion industry routinely does to unborn children, via ‘dismemberment’ abortions, the psychopath would be sentenced to death, and/or life in prison, and the vast majority of people in America would agree wholeheartedly with that punishment.

    Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A.
    Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018)
    https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf

    100 million views: People respond to the viral ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos
    Excerpt: In these videos, Dr. Levatino, who committed over 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, explains in detail what occurs when the life of a preborn child is destroyed during an abortion during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters.
    Each of the Abortion Procedures videos describes in detail how each abortion procedure is carried out and how the preborn child dies. The realization of abortion’s barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity has impacted many viewers who were not expecting to see what they saw.,,,
    https://www.liveaction.org/news/live-action-abortion-procedures-impact/

    Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk

    Watch (pro-choice) minds (immediately) change on abortion (after watching the abortion procedures video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWQHhqOAcg

    Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand)
    https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100

    Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults)
    https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/

    So again JVL, I ask you, “Are you for ‘dismemberment’ abortions? If not, why not? Are you for abortion up until birth? If not, why not? Are you for infanticide of the handicapped? If not, why not?”

  144. 144
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @143,

    So again JVL, I ask you, “Are you for ‘dismemberment’ abortions? If not, why not? Are you for abortion up until birth? If not, why not? Are you for infanticide of the handicapped? If not, why not?”

    You should know by now that you won’t get an answer. But here’s an even better question.

    “How do you feel about the modest proposal for human tissue designated as “medical waste” being repurposed and recycled as an important and overlooked source of nutritious protein for the exploited, starving people of the world?”

    I’ve never received a straight answer on this question either!

    -Q

  145. 145
    bornagain77 says:

    correction: I was far too general in my claim that, “The first two positions are positions that are currently legal in all left leaning states and also legal in quite a few right leaning states.”

    Here is the current list on State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy
    https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions

  146. 146
    bornagain77 says:

    Q at 144, “You should know by now that you won’t get an answer.”

    Even after debating atheists for a few decades now, I am still shocked at how intellectually dishonest atheists can be with themselves and others.

    As the old saying goes, “there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.”

  147. 147
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: But alas, I have now questioned you repeatedly specifically about your opinion. So your opinion is most definitely in question.

    By you! But my opinion has nothing to do with the situation in the US (I don’t live here, I don’t vote there) or even in the UK (I’m not a citizen, I can’t vote on such things here).

    You’re just trying to prove your point. I’m not disputing your point. I’m pointing out that a lot more Christians than atheists have and do dispute your point and you should consider unifying your Christian house.

  148. 148
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL: “You’re just trying to prove your point. I’m not disputing your point. I’m pointing out that a lot more Christians than atheists have and do dispute your point”

    HUH??? What in the world are you trying to say? My main ‘point’ has been to get you to be honest with yourself and others and admit that it is blatantly obvious that it is objectively wrong to rip apart unborn babies limb from limb via dismemberment abortions. Yet you claimed that “a lot more Christians than atheists have and do dispute your point”. Really? While I certainly do not dispute that a lot of Christians, and people in general, have been led astray by deceptive abortion propaganda, and many Christians, and people in general, have supported positions they ought not to have supported, can you cite the specific study showing that a larger percentage of Christians than atheists support dismemberment abortions in particular? i.e. support ripping unborn babies apart limb from limb??

    To repeat, most Americans simply do not have a real clue, (both morally and physically), as to the horror of what is actually going on behind the scenes in the abortion industry,

    These Irish Eyes Don’t Blink
    Excerpt: the abortion “House of Horrors,” as the Philadelphia Women’s Medical Society at 3801 Lancaster Avenue came to be known, was also discovered quite by accident.,,,
    They walked into a veritable waking nightmare.,,,
    ,,, The most powerful testimonies in the trial, Ann said, were those of the abortion doctors themselves when describing what constituted “a good, legal abortion.” Nearly everyone on the jury was pro-choice at the outset, but some let out audible gasps as an expert witness abortionist explained in detail what she did. Nor was it just Phelim, Ann, and jury members who would reexamine their views. “Prosecutors, several journalists, and even Gosnell’s own lawyer ultimately experienced changes of heart and mind,” Ann wrote.
    “Basically, once you find out the truth about abortion, you drop the pro-choice easy narrative very quickly,” says Phelim. “Abortion is like an article of faith for some people, you know? They don’t think about it, but they just are pro-abortion. I’ll tell you, their faith was shattered. Everyone’s faith was shattered.”
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....-blink.php

    Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A.
    Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018)
    https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf

    100 million views: People respond to the viral ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos
    Excerpt: In these videos, Dr. Levatino, who committed over 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, explains in detail what occurs when the life of a preborn child is destroyed during an abortion during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters.
    Each of the Abortion Procedures videos describes in detail how each abortion procedure is carried out and how the preborn child dies. The realization of abortion’s barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity has impacted many viewers who were not expecting to see what they saw.,,,
    https://www.liveaction.org/news/live-action-abortion-procedures-impact/

    Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk

    Watch (pro-choice) minds (immediately) change on abortion (after watching the abortion procedures video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWQHhqOAcg

    Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand)
    https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100

    Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults)
    https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/

  149. 149
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: While I certainly do not dispute that a lot of Christians, and people in general, have been led astray by deceptive abortion propaganda, and many Christians, and people in general, have supported positions they ought not to have supported, can you cite the specific study showing that a larger percentage of Christians than atheists support dismemberment abortions in particular?

    I didn’t say a larger percentage, I said MORE Christians than atheists support some forms of abortion. I didn’t say anything about dismemberment abortions.

    Why did I say that? It’s common sense really. In the early 1800 in the US and the UK abortions up until ‘the quickening’ were consider routine and certainly not illegal. I’m guessing that there weren’t many atheists around at the time and Darwin wasn’t even born until 1809. So, it’s clear that most Christians, at the time, supported abortions before ‘the quickening’. I mentioned all this several times but I guess you just ignored that.

    Also, considering that early term abortion still has fairly wide-spread support in the US and the UK now and considering that atheists are still a fairly small proportion of the population then it’s pretty clear that more Christians than atheists support early term abortion.

    Here’s a fairly recent news story laying out some of the more recent polling results:

    https://www.deseret.com/2022/5/6/23058730/the-under-discussed-middle-ground-in-the-abortion-debate-pew-research-abortion-survey

    Overall, around 6 in 10 U.S. adults (61%) believe abortion should be legal with some or no exceptions. But many members of this group say laws should take the length of the pregnancy into account and that abortion providers should notify the parents or guardians of patients under age 18.

    “About a third of Americans who generally support legal abortion (33%) say the statement, ‘Human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights,’ describes their own view at least ‘somewhat’ well,” researchers noted.

    So, even amongst those who think life begins at conception, some still support some abortions.

    Pew found that just 27% of Americans hold an absolutist view. Eight percent say abortion should be illegal in all cases with no exceptions, while 19% say it should be legal in all cases.

    So, in fact, only 8% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all cases. That means a lot of Christians think some abortions should be allowed. Clearly.

    Other Protestants and Catholics “tend to be less opposed to legal abortion than white evangelicals, but they are also less supportive of it than religious ‘nones,’” researchers noted.

    I suspect there are lots of other surveys with similar results.

  150. 150
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL: “I didn’t say a larger percentage, I said MORE Christians than atheists support some forms of abortion. I didn’t say anything about dismemberment abortions.”

    But of course you didn’t mention them because you are far more interested in propaganda than you are in truth. It is the price you pay for trying to maintain an atheistic worldview. Yet, actual percentages would reveal a much clearer picture since Christians greatly outnumber atheists in America. i.e. A relatively small percentage of Christians who have been misled and support all forms of abortion, including dismemberment abortions, could easily swamp the number derived from a much larger percentage of atheists who support all forms of abortion, including dismemberment abortions.

    My bet is that, since atheists don’t believe in the reality of souls, then the percentage of Darwinian atheists who believe in all forms of abortion, including dismemberment abortions, will be much higher than the percentage of Christians who do the same.

    The reason I believe this is because, in the following study, it was found that people who do not believe in a soul, and/or God, have a higher tendency towards “the primary psychopathic trait of callous affect”..

    A scientific case for conceptual dualism: The problem of consciousness and the opposing domains hypothesis. – Anthony I. Jack – 2013
    Excerpt page 18: we predicted that psychopaths would not be able to perceive the problem of consciousness.,,
    In a series of five experiments (Jack, in preparation), we found a highly replicable and robust negative correlation (r~-0.34) between belief in dualism and the primary psychopathic trait of callous affect7.
    Page 24: Clearly these findings fit well with the hypothesis (Robbins and Jack, 2006) that psychopaths can’t see the problem of consciousness8. Taking these findings together with other work on dehumanization and the anti-social effects of denying the soul and free will, they present a powerful picture. When we see persons, that is, when we see others as fellow humans, then our percept is of something essentially non-physical nature. This feature of our psychology appears to be relevant to a number of other philosophical issues, including the tension between utilitarian principles and deontological concerns about harming persons (Jack et al., accepted), the question of whether God exists (Jack et al., under review-b), and the problem of free will9.
    https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-scientific-case-for-conceptual-dualism%3A-The-of-Jack/ea4d00aa942eb9f5b951144bd2baa5fa71aca50c

    Anthony Jack, Why Don’t Psychopaths Believe in Dualism? – video (14:22 minute mark)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?l.....zOk#t=862s

    The phenomenal stance – Philip Robbins & Anthony I. Jack – 2006
    Abstract: Cognitive science is shamelessly materialistic. It maintains that human beings are nothing more than complex physical systems, ultimately and completely explicable in mechanistic terms. But this conception of humanity does not fit well with common sense. To think of the creatures we spend much of our day loving, hating, admiring, resenting, comparing ourselves to, trying to understand, blaming, and thanking — to think of them as mere mechanisms seems at best counterintuitive and unhelpful. More often it may strike us as ludicrous, or even abhorrent.,,,
    http://philpapers.org/rec/ROBTPS

    In short, if you really do believe the Darwinian lie that people are just ‘meat-robots’ with no soul then you are, obviously, going to be more callous and uncaring towards them.

    Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails
    Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015
    Excerpt: When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.”
    Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box.
    How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona/

    Moreover, aside from the ‘practical’ benefit of believing in God and a soul, (i.e. the practical benefit of not being a psychopath and being more caring and loving towards fellow human beings), I can also appeal to advances in quantum biology to support the reality of the immaterial soul.

    July 2022 – Personally, I consider these recent findings from quantum biology to rival all other scientific discoveries over the past century. Surpassing even the discovery of a beginning of the universe, via Big Bang cosmology, in terms of scientific, theological, and even personal, significance.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/life-from-a-rock/#comment-761848

    As Jesus once asked his disciples and a crowd of followers, “Is anything worth more than your soul?”

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

  151. 151
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: But of course you didn’t mention them because you are far more interested in propaganda than you are in truth.

    If the sheer number of Christians who support some form of abortion outnumbers the sheer number of atheists who support some form of abortion then those Christians are more of a problem for you (because of their numbers and that you profess to believe in the same scriptures) than a few atheists because if the Christians were united the atheist opinion would be inconsequential. As it was in the early 1800s when early term abortion (before ‘the quickening’) was consider legal in the UK and the US having been a staple of British Common Law before that. And, as I pointed out, some Christians thinkers, including some Popes, agreed with that.

    You should stop worrying about the atheists and start considering trying to convince your fellow Christians who disagree with you to come around to your point of view. You’d have such a vast majority if you could accomplish this that you could (attempt to) legally outflank any atheist opinion that differed from yours.

    From: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/25/key-findings-about-americans-belief-in-god/

    The vast majority of Americans (90%) believe in some kind of higher power, with 56% professing faith in God as described in the Bible and another 33% saying they believe in another type of higher power or spiritual force. Only one-in-ten Americans say they don’t believe in God or a higher power of any kind.

    56% believe in God as depicted in the Bible. That’s a majority. 10% are atheists. And you care what that 10% think over trying to unify the Christians?

  152. 152
    bornagain77 says:

    “You should stop worrying about the atheists and start considering trying to convince your fellow Christians who disagree with you to come around to your point of view.”

    But I am not talking to fellow Christians right now. I am talking to you. A Darwinian atheist who holds the patently false belief that humans are merely a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules”, i.e. nothing but ‘meat robots’.

    “You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today”
    Jerry Coyne –
    No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video
    https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20

  153. 153
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: But I am not talking to fellow Christians right now. I am talking to you. A Darwinian atheist who holds the patently false belief that humans are merely a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules”, i.e. nothing but ‘meat robots’.

    Lucky you!

    It is a complicated topic I think. Especially considering that something like one-quarter to one-third of all human conceptions are naturally aborted in the first trimester (someone designed a very wasteful system!).

    I would never, ever suggest that my own personal opinions should count more than any other. However, since you seem to be stalking me in order to get my personal opinion (which is a bit creepy) I would propose to start with abortions being legal for the first trimester (probably below the English Common Law standard since ‘the quickening’ is estimated to be about four to six months in) and put that up to a vote of the public or at least a wide-spread general discussion and see what kind of response you get.

  154. 154
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 146,

    Some atheists will lie to you. They are NOT stupid. They are not ignorant. They WILL lie to you. They know EXACTLY what you are saying but they WILL lie to you. And keep right on lying. Sure, they might make a few comments to draw you in and THEN lie. Or claim they don’t understand, which is ALSO a lie. Now Christians can’t take the position when dealing with anonymous people that they are AUTOMATICALLY lying but by their fruit you will know them. From the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks. They will deny God. They will deny who He actually is and present Him as some bad man. They know they prefer themselves. God is just getting in the way of what they want. And so are you – and me.

  155. 155
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    one-quarter to one-third of all human conceptions are naturally aborted in the first trimester (someone designed a very wasteful system!).

    😆 Retarded fox before entering hen’s house:” I’ve seen farmer killing the chickens so I’m entitled to do the same. “

  156. 156
    relatd says:

    JVL at 147,

    ‘I live in a foreign country and can’t answer the question.’ So WHAT? Woop de doo. So WHAT? You think living in a foreign country disqualifies you? That’s stupid. ‘Get your house in order so atheists can do what they want.’ Quit insulting people. Quit dodging blame. Quit telling others to clean up their own house – just ANSWER the question.

    Or are you a coward who runs off and hides instead of facing the FACT that abortion kills a human being, right up to and including birth? Allow me: “I can’t answer that because I agree with it and it makes me complicit in death.”

    Let’s get this over with, OK?

  157. 157
    JVL says:

    LtComData: Retarded fox before entering hen’s house:” I’ve seen farmer killing the chickens so I’m entitled to do the same. “

    Not sure what you mean. As far as I know, based on medical records, it is true that something like one-quarter to one-third of all human conceptions end in a spontaneous abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. It could be argued that that is an under-estimate since a lot of women will just think they had a late but heavy period.

    I’m not ‘entitled’ to do anything. I proposed that the public should decide what terminations are allowed and under what circumstances. That’s what living in a democracy means, in the purest sense. Of course all real governments are more complicated than that.

    I would live with the majority decision even if it was markedly different than my own. Or I would move someplace else. Unless you think a minority should be able to browbeat enough people who disagree with them to vote their way. Or giving authority to a dictator or small group of people who interpret things for you. That doesn’t really work for the Taliban as far as running a modern state is concerned so I assumed you would not be in favour of that.

  158. 158
    relatd says:

    JVL at 149,

    “not illegal”? That’s your criteria? In this case, legal does not mean OK. In this case, radicals around the world are telling women ‘It’s OK to kill that baby.’ They are telling women ‘the government is making you have that baby.’ Is that true? Was the GOVERNMENT there when they got pregnant? Did the GOVERNMENT force them to have sex? If the answer is no to both, then they are promoting lies.

    And I don’t believe your CRAP about widespread support. Do you think women were not brainwashed after decades of hearing ‘abortion is OK’? The same with Homosexuality. More Americans support it. Support what? Gay sex? Or leaving homosexuals alone? You just dodge and weave and select the facts or join other atheists in ‘getting the numbers up’ so you can proudly proclaim: SEE, SEE!! They SuPpOrT it. Whatever IT happens to be.

    You try to come off as some innocent party. ‘Oh, see, it’s Christians.” NO. Quit lying. I saw photos of people going door to door in the U.S. in support of same sex so-called marriage. To lie to people. To gain their trust. To tell them certain things and in the end, the goal was to con them. To get the numbers up so you, and others, can say: See! Christians!

    LIAR. Wake up – all reading – WAKE UP. You have been lied to. The campaign to promote all this was led by dedicated, committed PROMOTERS for decades. The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws had a plan – like a military plan – to conquer you. To tell you: It’s just a blob of tissue.

    That’s why the WEST is in decline. When skillful liars convince you that pagan baby killing is OK.

  159. 159
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Let’s get this over with, OK?

    Perhaps you’d like to read all my responses before you vented your righteous anger just in case I am actually saying something you didn’t think I was saying.

    Because I’m not sure you will actually consider everything I have written on this thread: I am in approval of the public, as a whole, deciding on what kind of abortions are allowed and under what circumstances fully realising that my own opinion or view might lose.

    That’s my opinion. When you live in a democracy sometimes you ‘win’, sometimes you ‘lose’.

    You and Bornagain77 want me to say something you think is hideous so you have another data point you can use to accuse atheists of being less than human: insane or deluded or somehow not worth considering. If you really think that way then I guess you’d better find someplace to live where dogma over-rules majority rules.

    In this case, legal does not mean OK

    What’s your better system of government?

    Do you think women were not brainwashed after decades of hearing ‘abortion is OK’?

    I also pointed out that under British Common Law (established centuries ago) abortion before ‘the quickening’ was concerned fine. AND I pointed out that a couple of Popes agreed with that.

    I saw photos of people going door to door in the U.S. in support of same sex so-called marriage. To lie to people. To gain their trust. To tell them certain things and in the end, the goal was to con them. To get the numbers up so you, and others, can say: See! Christians!

    What was the lie in that case?

    pagan baby killing is OK.

    As opposed to when most Christian countries thought early term abortions were okay? Like before the 1800s and, in American, well into the 1800s.

  160. 160
    relatd says:

    JVL at 159,

    You’ve got the Library of Atheist Answers right in front of you, don’t you? I’m not trying to get you to say anything. You are good at saying what you want and then dodging out of the way. I get that. That’s what happens when promoters are met with indefensible questions. When the lies are exposed as lies. That’s how to get the numbers up. Lie to people. Confuse them. Say ‘it’s complicated’ to confuse them some more. This is all crystal clear. This is pagan baby killing. But you point to the 1800s. You point to anything to make YOUR point while, at the same time, claiming you can’t answer other questions.

    This is not over.

    You mention ‘Christian countries’ only as a weapon you think will confuse people. The 1800s are not today. The level of communications today is global and instant, but the propaganda techniques are 100% the same.

    To all reading: Women were lied to for decades in the U.S. until this moment. Right now, women are being told the GOVERNMENT is FORCING them to have a baby. That’s a lie. The government did NOT force them to have sex.

  161. 161
    JVL says:

    Relatd: But you point to the 1800s. You point to anything to make YOUR point while, at the same time, claiming you can’t answer other questions.

    My historical references are true. I could say more but, again, my own opinion isn’t that important so why you treat it with such reverence and respect (you seem to want to know desperately) I can’t understand.

    You mention ‘Christian countries’ only as a weapon you think will confuse people. The 1800s are not today.

    I think a lot of people in the early 1800s were quite devote and religious. They didn’t question creation or the Bible.

    Why are you so angry? That must just eat you up. To spend so much time and effort attacking people whose opinion doesn’t matter.

    I guess you have to ask: why is 10% of the population (the atheists) dictating so much public opinion? What’s the reason for the influence, according to you? Why aren’t people like you able to argue successfully against what you consider blasphemous? Is that a failing on your part or them just being better at persuasion?

  162. 162
    relatd says:

    “…attacking people whose opinion doesn’t matter. ”

    Liar.

    To all reading: JVL doesn’t matter until he wants you to read what he writes and believe it.

  163. 163
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Liar. To all reading: JVL doesn’t matter until he wants you to read what he writes and believe it.

    Whatever gets you through the night, it’s alright.

    Whether or not you think I’m sincere my opinion does not matter.

  164. 164
    relatd says:

    JVL at 163,

    “Whether or not you think I’m sincere my opinion does not matter.”

    Still lying? I should refer you to Liars Anonymous and break you from the habit.

  165. 165
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Still lying? I should refer you to Liars Anonymous and break you from the habit.

    Well, you think my opinion matters. Why is that?

  166. 166
    relatd says:

    JVL at 165,

    No, YOU think your opinion matters.

  167. 167
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL states, “However, since you seem to be stalking me in order to get my personal opinion (which is a bit creepy) I would propose to start with abortions being legal for the first trimester (probably below the English Common Law standard since ‘the quickening’ is estimated to be about four to six months in) and put that up to a vote of the public or at least a wide-spread general discussion and see what kind of response you get.”

    Well, (I will leave the fact that you have no moral basis for the ‘common sense’ restrictions you listed to the side for now), and I will simply agree with you that some ‘common sense’ restrictions on abortion, (especially the prohibition of dismemberment abortions and other such gruesome procedures), would certainly be a welcome change compared to what we have now. Which is basically open season on unborn babies, As one person noted, the most dangerous place to be in America right now is, by far, in a mother’s womb.

    At least we are in agreement that some ‘common sense’ restrictions on the abortion industry is called for. Unfortunately, the abortion industry fights tooth and nail, via very misleading propaganda, against even those ‘common sense’ restrictions on abortion that you, an atheist, are in favor of.

    Debunking 5 myths about the pro-life movement spread by abortion advocates
    Abortion is not healthcare. Abortion kills a child every single time. Inflicting death is the exact opposite of healthcare. – August 11, 2022
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/debunking-5-myths-about-the-pro-life-movement-spread-by-abortion-advocates/

  168. 168
    relatd says:

    The abortion supporters here cannot for one second connect the death of a baby to abortion. They can’t do it, first, because it appeals to them. To convenience. To ‘saving my figure from pregnancy.’

    Instead, all they can do is exploit the poor, just as the same kind of people did right before abortion became legal in the U.S. ‘Poor women need access to this.’ This meaning baby killing.

  169. 169
    Alan Fox says:

    I’ll just note I’m very thankful that the beginning and end of Relatd’s power and influence rests in posting comments on this blog.

  170. 170
    Alan Fox says:

    And that women in the US need to get out and vote in the numbers they did in Kansas.

  171. 171
    relatd says:

    AF at 170,

    Women need to reject the LIES being fed to them. ‘The GOVERNMENT is FORCING you to have this baby.’

    Was the Government there when they got pregnant?

    When they had sex?

    NO.

  172. 172
  173. 173
    JVL says:

    Relatd: No, YOU think your opinion matters.

    There is no point in having a conversation with someone who asks you questions and assumes any reply you give which doesn’t agree with their view is a lie.

    So I’m going to quit now. You don’t want a dialogue. You want agreement only.

  174. 174
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: I will leave the fact that you have no moral basis for the ‘common sense’ restrictions you listed to the side for now

    Have you got a better way to run a country? I’m all ears.

  175. 175
    relatd says:

    JVL at 173,

    “… assumes any reply you give which doesn’t agree with their view is a lie.”

    Guess what? You AND I can’t both be right. Get it?

    YOU can say a lie and I CAN point that out. That all I’m doing.

    To all reading: There is no such thing as different “opinions” or “views” when it comes to killing babies. I hope those reading understand.

  176. 176
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/175

    Guess what? You AND I can’t both be right. Get it?

    But you could both be wrong and neither of you are lying.

    To all reading: There is no such thing as different “opinions” or “views” when it comes to killing babies. I hope those reading understand.

    Who’s talking about killing babies?

  177. 177
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 176,

    We could both be wrong? Hahahahahahahahahaha…

    Look up a few posts. We’re talking about babies dying in abortions. Look up!

  178. 178
    bornagain77 says:

    BA77: “I will leave the fact that you have no moral basis for the ‘common sense’ restrictions you listed to the side for now”

    JVL: “Have you got a better way to run a country? I’m all ears.”

    HUH? Again, exactly what are you trying to say here?

    Are you trying to claim that you derived your ‘common sense’ restrictions on abortion without any reference to objective morality?

    FYI, you did not derive your ‘common sense’ restrictions on abortion via any atheistic/Darwinian moral principle, since there are, in fact, no such moral principles to be found within Darwinian atheism,

    “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
    – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life – pg. 133

    In fact, trying to base a society on the amorality inherent within Darwinian Atheism has been tried and has failed spectacularly.

    Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin’s Latest Biographer — and a Pretty Devastating One – David Klinghoffer – October 14, 2012
    Excerpt: “Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief,” were students of Darwin, ,,,
    Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection “to its logical conclusion.” “Leading Communists,” moreover, “from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung” considered evolution “essential to the self-respect of Communists. … Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power.”
    Even Stalin,, “had Darwin’s ‘struggle’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ in mind” when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,,
    ,,the “emotional stew” Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century’s genocides.,,,
    No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin “for millions of deaths.” But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin’s theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences — well, that’s obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein).
    There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65281.html

    No JVL, you did not, and can not, derive your ‘common sense’ restrictions on abortion via any atheistic/Darwinian moral principle, (since there are none), but in fact you based your ‘common sense’ restrictions on abortion on the blatantly obvious, and intuitive, objective moral truth, a truth that you yourself have perceived, that one ought not kill one’s own children on such a massive scale, and especially in such a barbaric manner as ‘dismemberment’ obortion.

    As to ‘you got a better way to run a country?’

    Well JVL, America was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and certainly was not founded upon the atheistic principles of Darwinism

    A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers (of America) on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible
    Excerpt: “In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.”8
    – John Quincy Adams
    https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/

    Words & Dirt – Quotes 10-21-2015 – by Miles Raymer
    Excerpt: Let us try to translate the most famous line of the American Declaration of Independence into biological terms:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. ‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently’.,,,
    So here is that line from the American Declaration of Independence translated into biological terms:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.
    http://www.words-and-dirt.com/.....0-21-2015/

    Only the Christian Worldview Can Consistently Argue that Lives Matter – June 12, 2020 – Mark Farnham
    https://apolotheo.wordpress.com/2020/06/12/only-the-christian-worldview-can-consistently-argue-that-lives-matter/

  179. 179
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/177

    We could both be wrong? Hahahahahahahahahaha…

    We are all human. We are all fallible. We are all capable of being wrong.

    The trouble arises when people forget that, when they believe they are in possession of some Absolute Truth, a Truth which justifies any action in its furtherance, such as this attack on the author Salman Rushdie or 9/11 or the Albigensian Crusade.

    Look up a few posts. We’re talking about babies dying in abortions. Look up!

    No, we are not. A baby is usually taken to be a newborn or very recently born human child that is not yet capable of walking or speaking. Nobody here is advocating killing babies.

    Since a human being is not just a three-dimensional object extended in space but a life extended through time, my belief is that life is entitled to the presumption of the right to live from the moment it exists as an individual. We don’t have the means to detect the fertilized egg but, in principle, the right should be presumed to apply to the earliest form that is detectable in practice, be it gamete, zygote, embryo or fetus.

    That said, there are two individuals involved in a pregnancy, the other being the mother who is also entitled to human rights, including the right to bodily privacy and autonomy, a right this Supreme Court does not apparently recognize. If she chooses to have sex, that is her choice, no one else’s. That should be of no concern to the government, SCOTUS, God or the church.

    If she did not have a choice, if the woman or even young girl was the victim of incest or rape then there is a difficult choice to make. The unborn child obviously had no choice as to the manner in which it was conceived so it should not be penalized in any way. That said, the government was presumably not around to prevent the crime and your God, who is held to be omnipresent, obviously chose to do nothing about it for reasons best known to Himself. The question then becomes, is the government entitled to compound the trauma of the offense and violate the rights of the mother in the interest of saving the life of the unborn?

    Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a friend or relative develops a life-threatening illness which will require a continuous blood transfusion from you for several months without which they will die. You may well choose to do it because you feel an overriding moral obligation to do so and many others would agree. But you are not under any legal obligation to do it and the courts and the government have no right to compel you to do it against your will or punish you for not doing it if that is your choice.

    The same principle can be argued to apply to pregnancy. Of course, the vast majority of mothers will be happy to carry the unborn to term without question but in those cases where, for various reasons, the mother is not willing then that shouldn’t that also be her choice? I should also point out that this is not my original argument. It comes from a paper titled A Defense of Abortion by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson.

    The question is, while we can presume that every individual human being has the right to life in principle, while many would choose to do so voluntarily, are we entitled to compel one individual against their will to save the life of another at the risk of their own health or life? Because that is what is happening now.

  180. 180
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/178

    Are you trying to claim that you derived your ‘common sense’ restrictions on abortion without any reference to objective morality?

    Since there is no objective morality then that must have been the case. We have to work out morality for ourselves rather than being lazy and relying on somebody else to tell us.

    FYI, you did not derive your ‘common sense’ restrictions on abortion via any atheistic/Darwinian moral principle, since there are, in fact, no such moral principles to be found within Darwinian atheism,

    There are no moral prescriptions in the theory of evolution any more than there are in relativity or quantum theory. They do not give moral guidance because they are not about morals in the first place.

    Well JVL, America was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and certainly was not founded upon the atheistic principles of Darwinism

    No, it wasn’t. In fact, in many cases, the Ten Commandments are clearly in conflict with many of the Rights in the US Constitution. That is why the movement to place displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses is highly problematic. As the article I linked to points out:

    No rational Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, or agnostic–each of whom’s beliefs are equally and fully constitutionally protected–could rationally expect justice in those halls. As Madison warned, “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?”

  181. 181
    bornagain77 says:

    BA77: “Are you trying to claim that you derived your ‘common sense’ restrictions on abortion without any reference to objective morality?”

    Sev: “Since there is no objective morality then that must have been the case. We have to work out morality for ourselves rather than being lazy and relying on somebody else to tell us.”

    HUH??? We have to work out something which, you claim, does not exist for ourselves???

    You do realize that your statement makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever do you not???

    It is equivalent to you saying “leprechauns don’t exist but hey let’s work out their existence for ourselves”

    But alas, such self-refuting logical nonsense is par for the course with Darwinian materialists. As Adam Sedgwick scolded Charles Darwin, “There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.”

    From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859
    Cambridge
    My dear Darwin,
    Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous. You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?
    As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.,,,
    You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.,,,
    We all admit development as a fact of history; but how came it about?,,,
    There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.,,,
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

    And ‘deep in the mire of folly’ logical nonsense is exactly what we get from Darwinian materialists, time and time again, in their repeated denial of the ‘non-physical’, i.e. metaphysical, realm.

    If something is not physical, and/or material, like, for instance, God and/or objective morality, Darwinists, because of their Atheistic materialism, simply claim that it does not exist, and/or that it is an ‘illusion’. Yet there are many immaterial things that we take for granted as existing and as being undeniably real.

    In fact, science itself is crucially dependent upon mathematics and logic which we all take for granted as being undeniably real. Yet mathematics and logic themselves are profoundly immaterial in their foundational essence.

    Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018
    Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,,
    Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame.
    The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/

    Moreover, if God Himself does not really exist as a real person, but is merely an illusion as Darwinists claim, then Darwinists themselves do not really exist as real persons, but are instead merely ‘neuronal illusions’. (In short, God is needed to ground the reality of, and entire concept of, ‘personhood’).

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3

    “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.,,,
    – A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10

    The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – STEVEN PINKER – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007
    Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL
    Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.
    http://www.academia.edu/279485.....sciousness

    At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
    “consciousness is an illusion”
    A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s

    Denying that you really exist as a real person, as Darwinists are forced to do because of their materialistic metaphysics, should literally be the definition of ‘self-refuting nonsense’.

    And on and on such “deep in the mire of folly” claims go from Darwinists,

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    April 18, 2021 – Defense of each claim
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595

    Moreover, to put a cherry on top of all this, empirical science has now proven, via the falsification of ‘realism’ by Leggett’s inequality, that material particles themselves, (which Darwinist materialists hold to be the ultimate foundation for all of reality), are not ‘real’.

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.
    Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
    They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    In short, and as far as Quantum Mechanics is concerned, materialism is dead,

    “hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize.
    John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it.
    How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?”
    per Jimfit – UD

    Thus in conclusion, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic/materialistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), yet the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  182. 182
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 179,

    Abortion is pagan baby killing. Period.

    Radical so-called feminists convinced some women that ‘it’s OK to kill your baby.’ And that message has been reinforced for decades.

    The choice you talk about is death. THAT is the CHOICE. DEATH.

    “…are we entitled to compel one individual against their will to save the life of another at the risk of their own health or life? Because that is what is happening now.”

    What the hell are you talking about? I want SPECIFIC examples.

    “We don’t have the means to detect the fertilized egg but, in principle, the right should be presumed to apply to the earliest form that is detectable in practice, be it gamete, zygote, embryo or fetus.”

    LIAR.

    https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

    “A baby is usually taken to be a newborn or very recently born human child that is not yet capable of walking or speaking. Nobody here is advocating killing babies.”

    LIAR.

    https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/partial-birth-abortion

  183. 183
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 180,

    What the hell does that mean? You get your common sense from voices in your head? You worship the words of men. You are being lazy.

Leave a Reply