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.
What does the capital of Rhode Island have to do with ID?
CD at 1,
Riddle me this Chuck Man. How much wood could a Darwinist chuck if a Darwinist could chuck wood?
A cord to a cord and a half per hour, depending on the type of wood……
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
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….
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.
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.
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”.
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
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.
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.
BA77/6
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/)
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,
Chuckdarwin/7
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.
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”
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.”
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.
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,,,
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.
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
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?
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
CD, “There is no science in the OP or commentary that I’ve “skipped,”
And here is CD kicking back at home
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/resizer/4iYb83QdZ2y3Qo58royhedym0vs=/1440×810/smart/filters:quality(70)/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/GLE2CMEHPTH5CJB255EVHAIVVU.jpg
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.”
Ba77 at 8,
“God is dead.” Nietzsche
“Nietzsche is dead.” God
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.
At 11 ChuckyD defends Nietzsche’s mental breakdown as such,
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’,
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;,,”
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.”
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…”
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).
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.
Chuckdarwin/7
Didn’t a guy called Thomas Jefferson take a stab at it a while back?
Relatd/17
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?
It is.
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.
I’m not so sure.
Sometimes.
I don’t think anyone has ever denied that anthropic intelligent design exists.
That won’t happen until the Federation is set up at the earliest. Let us know when you receive a postcard from Heaven.
Bornagain77/18
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.
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.
Relatd/10
I agree that a little more humility would not be such a bad idea.
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
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? ________
@Seversky:
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.
You’re on the right path: The idea is to ask god, instead of men.
AC, your own tendencies are here on display. Perhaps, the statement of the prophets would be of help. KF
PS, first, Isaiah:
Then, Micah:
And of course, Moses on just what neighbour love implies:
@kairosfocus:
What tendencies? And help for what? I’m not a mind reader.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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,,.,
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
@kairosfocus:
I think you’re talking about AF, right?
AF at 30,
You just won the 2022 International Troll Award. It should be arriving shortly.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
Verse:
@Alan Fox
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.
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,
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.
Verse:
@bornagain77:
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.
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.
@bornagain77:
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.
“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
Kairosfocus/24
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.
There is more than sufficient evidence for the abusive and unethical nature of these schools in both Canada and the US.
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.
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?
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.
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”
Verse:
Bornagain77/28
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.
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.
There’s never been an atheist Utopia, so there’s nothing to look back to.
Bornagain77/36
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.
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.
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!
@bornagain77:
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.
Seversky at 52,
Mass Killings under Communist Regimes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes
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
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
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.
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
@Relatd:
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?
@bornagain77:
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??
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”
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?
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.
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.
JVL, you know better. KF
Kairosfocus: you know better.
Just pointing out some historical facts. We should be interested in facts, things that happened. When things happened.
JVL, so, as a Darwinist with no objective moral foundation, are you for killing unborn babies up until birth? If not, why not?
What about ‘post-birth’ abortions JVL? i.e. infanticide?, like Princeton bio-ethicist Peter Singer advocates for? Are you for those too?
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”.
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!
Verse:
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,
,,, 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.
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?
200 years ago, many people were scientifically illiterate. And slavery was a thing.
“Why do you think that is?”
JVL,
I think the real question is why people like you, JVL, defend such a barbaric practice?
Andrew
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?
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?
Oh, by the way:
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.
“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
“I’m not trying to defend it”
JVL,
Yes you are or you wouldn’t be trolling about it.
Andrew
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?
“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
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.
JVL:
Are you on drugs?
JVL: Unable to move a millimeter off the troll script.
Andrew
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.
“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
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.
“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
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 . . .
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
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.”
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…
ET at 80,
Just doing his job…
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.
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.
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.
JVL at 93,
Your opinion matters to you when you see some advantage in posting it here. If not…
“But can you say your moral stance is anything more than a worthless opinion?”
JVL,
Answer the question.
Andrew
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.
“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
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:
And politics? How about . . .
But not all of these have worked out so well:
And remember that it’s an accepted fact among historians that consumers are responsible for illegal drugs.
-Q
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.
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?
Of note, Darwin’s theory is not only amoral, it is ANTI-moral.
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.”
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
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.”
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Of supplemental note
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?
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.
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 !
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.”
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.
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?
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,,,”
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.
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?
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!!
Bornagain77: So you, a Darwinist, now believe that you have an immaterial mind?
No, I do not.
JVL at 109,
You also realize it’s too late for questions. You, and everyone else, are judged.
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.
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,”
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
Verse:
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.
“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
Relatd @99,
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?
Admittedly, this could all be a complete coincidence, right?
-Q
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.
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:
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
JVL 109
“If I was invited to ask questions I’ve got quite a few!!”
You obviously have not thought this through.
Vivid
Relatd @118,
Also, I just saw this . . .
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/vaccine-injuries-are-real-not-rare
-Q
Related:
Your ability to analyse animal behaviour by your astute observation is as impressive as your other skills.
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:
On record for 2360 years.
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
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!
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..)?
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?
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,
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
“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
JVL, actually, we can already see as JBS Haldane pointed out:
KF
Relatd/111
We can also judge, witness Saint Richard of Dawkins
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
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:
Of related note:
Bornagain77/128
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?
No True Scotsman
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?
Even if God does exist, that doesn’t necessarily mean morals are objective.
No, they don’t.
Non sequitur The argument fails.
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?
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’ 🙂
Of related note:
Querius at 121,
Substack? Any talentless yahoo can post there.
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.
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.
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…’
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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,
,,, 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.
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?”
Bornagain77 @143,
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
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
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.”
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.
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,
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
So, even amongst those who think life begins at conception, some still support some abortions.
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.
I suspect there are lots of other surveys with similar results.
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”..
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.
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?”
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/
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?
“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’.
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.
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.
😆 Retarded fox before entering hen’s house:” I’ve seen farmer killing the chickens so I’m entitled to do the same. “
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“…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.
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.
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.
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?
JVL at 165,
No, YOU think your opinion matters.
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.
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.
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.
And that women in the US need to get out and vote in the numbers they did in Kansas.
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.
As I said…
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.
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.
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.
Relatd/175
But you could both be wrong and neither of you are lying.
Who’s talking about killing babies?
Seversky at 176,
We could both be wrong? Hahahahahahahahahaha…
Look up a few posts. We’re talking about babies dying in abortions. Look up!
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,
In fact, trying to base a society on the amorality inherent within Darwinian Atheism has been tried and has failed spectacularly.
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
Relatd/177
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.
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.
Bornagain77/178
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.
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.
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:
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.”
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.
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’).
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,
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’.
In short, and as far as Quantum Mechanics is concerned, materialism is dead,
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.
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
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.