Abstract: This article addresses questions in human geography and the geographies of sexuality by drawing upon one year of embedded in situ observations of dogs and their human companions at three public dog parks in Portland, Oregon. The purpose of this research is to uncover emerging themes in human and canine interactive behavioral patterns in urban dog parks to better understand human a-/moral decision-making in public spaces and uncover bias and emergent assumptions around gender, race, and sexuality. Specifically, and in order of priority, I examine the following questions: (1) How do human companions manage, contribute, and respond to violence in dogs? (2) What issues surround queer performativity and human reaction to homosexual sex between and among dogs? and (3) Do dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender? It concludes by applying Black feminist criminology categories through which my observations can be understood and by inferring from lessons relevant to human and dog interactions to suggest practical applications that disrupts hegemonic masculinities and improves access to emancipatory spaces. – Helen Wilson, Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon, Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography Received 27 Nov 2017, Accepted 19 Feb 2018, Published online: 22 May 2018 https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1475346
Maybe Bret Weinstein’s former students could get a job doing this kind of research? Better this than teaching, health care, or cancer research.
One hopes this will turn out to be a hoax or that they are kidding. One fears not.
In other news, Big Science frets about Ken Ham’s Creation Museum, as if it could possibly have the same cultural impact as their tacit acceptance that this stuff above is science.
See also: Weasel words about teaching students to think like scientists. “Likewise, STEM majors’ college experience must be integrated into a broader model of liberal education to prepare them to think critically and imaginatively about the world and to understand different viewpoints.” Realistically, today, that would mean valuing witchcraft and astrology to the same extent as science.
Algebra is not racist.
and
The war on freedom is rotting our intellectual life: Intersectionality
Off topic:
If you are seeking to ‘scientifically’ structure your sex life around the sexual behavior of dogs, might I suggest you have completely missed the boat as far as the romantic love between a man and a woman is concerned?
Verse:
BA77@1, that has to be one of the most insensitive, crass things that I have read here. It is quite obvious that you have never watched any of his shows. What happened to that spirit of Christian love and forgiveness?
AK, you are projecting feelings onto me that I do not possess. I was moved to write my observations about his life precisely because I was so saddened by his tragic death.
Atheists, such as you and Bourdain, can try to pretend that the hopeless nihilism inherent within atheism does not negatively effect your life, but, as Bourdain’s suicide itself testifies, humans without the real hope that is in God, and Jesus Christ’s victory over death, are just fooling themselves. The hopeless nihilism is ever present draining your life of any real meaning and purpose.
Numerous studies back this ‘hopeless nihilism’ observation up.
And to repeat what I have said many times before, besides the overwhelming evidence that life is Intelligent Designed, Atheists should become Christians for the simple, practical, even logical and rational, reason that their lives, on average, will be significantly better than their lives currently are as atheists.
ba77 – using someone’s death to proselytise for your religion is pretty crass. If you were genuinely saddened by his death, then presumably you would appreciate that others are too, and probably won’t appreciate a response that ignores their sadness, and instead criticises (whether implicitly or explicitly) the person who’s passing they are sad about. To then use it as a reason to advertise your own point of view (when there is no indication that it is relevant in this instance) is surely crass.
Please, show some compassion.
Bob (and weave) O’Hara implores me to “show some compassion”.
And that is precisely the point. Exactly where is this compassion to be found within the atheist’s nihilistic worldview? To have real compassion, Bob must steal compassion from Christianity because the only thing his nihilistic worldview has to offer is ‘blind, pitiless, indifference’:
It truly would be incompassionate, even morally negligent, of me if I were to just let people wallow away in such hopeless misery without at least trying to offer a little light of real hope and real compassion into their lives that trusting in the living God offers.
Bob’s supposed compassion amounts to completely ignoring the atheistic source of the misery.
Yet no matter how much Bob may want to ignore it, or in Boudain’s case, drink and drug it away, the nihilism is forever in the background of the atheists worldview and, like the proverbial elephant in the room, refuses to go away.
BA77 @ 4: You nailed it. The entire a/mat worldview can be summed up with one phrase… hopeless nihilism.
bs77 –
Indeed, that you don’t show any compassion: you would rather lecture other people on their perceived shortcomings that treat them as people. If you want to show the compassion of Christianity, don’t proselytise, be compassionate. I respect Christianity precisely because I have met Christians who are compassionate and respectful.
It truly is sad that two atheists show more “Christian” compassion than the self-proclaimed Bornagain Christian.
as to:
“Indeed, that you don’t show any compassion: you would rather lecture other people on their perceived shortcomings than treat them as people.”
Not that I am not already showing compassion, but should not you adopt the Christian worldview that grounds human exceptionalism, instead of holding onto your insane materialistic worldview that denies you are even a person in the first place??,, I mean if you truly want to be treated as a real person??? ,,, Not to ‘lecture’ you on your ‘shortcomings’, but not being a real person does tend to stick out! 🙂
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists 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 than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
The posts about Anthony Bourdain have troubled me – indeed, I found the event horrifying and terrible. I have watched him for years – admiring much, and always hoping he would mature and find God. I also found his lifestyle to be appalling, and I had adopted his cultural mindset for a time in my life when I was younger (I am his age) – so I know his worldview, ambitions, tastes and ethos – at least as a product of his culture. He contributed to, and shaped our culture strongly as all celebrities do. Even if he claimed to be an outsider to the world of tv celebrities – that was his life. His worldview, beliefs, atheism, Epicureanism — these are all the hallmarks of our cultural heroes today.
Bob
I thought a lot about this and there is much to appreciate. I will say though, that your comment is reducible to one term: “compassion”. In fact, you repeat it four times.
Compassion is one of those virtues (and it is a virtue) like “tolerance” (which I don’t think is a virtue actually) which has been elevated to a supreme position. This term has a certain meaning, and even (especially) religious leaders use this term to characterize Christianity. There was a time (I think George W Bush) when people used the term “compassionate conservative”, because everybody needed to proclaim that they are compassionate, and again – that is the supreme virtue.
So, it is believed that Christians must be, above all things, “compassionate people”.
First of all, where does this idea come from? Who said that Christianity is mainly something that is “compassionate”? Ok, yes – many contemporary religious teachers say that, so I can forgive atheists for believing it.
But really, if you want to understand Christianity – it’s best to look at the life of Jesus. Look at what He taught and what He did. What you do not find is that Compassion as the highest virtue above all else. You can read the Beatitudes “Blessed are the …” and none of them say “blessed are the compassionate” or “blessed are the tolerant”. You might see “peacemakers” as being that sort of thing, but even there it does not stand alone.
Compassion today in the secular sense, means something like ‘indulgence’ – giving in, pleasing others. To be compassionate means, never making someone uncomfortable. Never correcting someone’s errors. Never pointing out where something is wrong. Never calling something a sin. Never saying than anyone actually did something evil (with some exceptions which are contradictory). Celebrities, for example, deserve all sorts of compassion because they make us feel good. I guess Harvey Weinstein is an exception. Everybody in Hollywood knew what he was doing for years. They had ‘compassion’ on him by not saying anything. But then, someone revealed his sins and now they don’t need to be compassionate any more.
Anthony Bourdain leaves people in a difficult situation. Of course, as said – whenever someone is sad because a celebrity died, Christians must be compassionate and never say anything. Plus, if a Christian actually tries to express his faith, that is seen as rude and not-compassionate and as proselytizing. So, the good Christians are the ones who never say anything about their faith, never speak about manifest evils and always make people feel comfortable.
A man kills himself, leaving behind a young daughter and others. The supposed compassionate response is to say nothing, or to say “this is sad”. The Christian is not permitted to say that the man committed a very evil action.
The failure to condemn such a thing, however, is not compassionate. It is a failure to tell the truth about Jesus’ teachings.
Thinking that Jesus was “compassionate” in the celebrity-secular sense of that world is to imagine that Jesus never let anyone feel uncomfortable, that he would prefer not to tell the truth rather than see someone sad, that he was very tolerant of evil actions because he didn’t want to say anything about it.
This is very clearly false. Again, just look at His words and teachings. Look at what he said to the Jews who rejected Him. No, for the Christian Faith, the highest virtue is not compassion but to act with wisdom and give the best to God, and others, at times to seek justice, other times to give mercy.
No, it stands alongside “Blessed are those who mourn: for they will be comforted”. I don’t see how it is comforting to be told that the person you are mourning committed a “very evil act” when they tried to find a way out of their pain.
FWIW, I wouldn’t want to say that Christians (or members of any other religion) shouldn’t prosetylise, or tell people that they are wrong. Just that there is a time and place, and surely when people are mourning isn’t the time. Is it really un-Christian to be sensitive to other people’s feelings?
Incidentally, what were Jesus’ teachings on suicide?
Certainly, you’re right. When we encounter someone in sorrow, that is the time to be compassionate (as Jesus always was).
As above, I fully agree. Being sensitive to others’ feelings is important. I do not think that gloating or ridicule of a man, even an enemy of God, is right or a good Christian attitude. Jesus did not rejoice over Judas’ condemnation – although He did not spare his feelings and said that it was evil.
A compassionate response needs to look at both a response of mercy and of justice. To ignore a person’s feelings is, as you said before, crass. But however, to never point out the error or problem, that is not being truthful or compassionate.
The conversations here often turn to questions about atheism – “why should an atheist be sad about Anthony Bourdain’s death”? You might say that’s an inhuman sort of question. But we (I do anyway) have the impression that atheism really is inhuman. It is anti-human. Just as suicide is. Mr. Bourdain chose to kill himself. Would atheists praise his personal decision and freedom to do whatever he wants? Would he be honored for boldly taking his life, in the way and at the time that he chose to do it? So, we wonder why there is sadness in that respect. Anthony didn’t think it mattered, apparently, if anyone cared about him – so why do we? I understand these are insensitive questions, but I think they’re important.
Directly, he did not say anything. So, we have to interpret his teachings from other sources. I am a Catholic so we believe that Jesus communicated His teachings not only in the written Gospel but also orally to the apostles and expressed through the early church (fathers of the church).
But even going just by the Gospel, the commandment is that murder is a serious sin. In fact, even a sin of anger (rash hatred) against our neighbor is a sin which makes a person to “be in danger of the fire of hell.”
So, Jesus condemned murder. Suicide is a person who murders himself. So, a man who commits suicide is a murderer. He killed an innocent person.
This is a sensitive topic, however, because a person must be fully conscious and rational in making this decision to murder. We can’t simply condemn everyone who kills themself. People are mentally ill and do things.
Was Anthony Bourdain mentally ill? I don’t know. I hope he was not clear and rational in his thought, making a cold decision to kill himself.
But even for a man who kills his wife in a fit of passion, or in mental illness – we can say it was a very evil thing to do. The man may not be fully to blame. But it was bad.
The same is true for suicide. A compassionate response should not assign blame or hatred against a man who does such a thing, but also should not excuse it or pretend that it is not an evil action to murder one’s own self.
Our life is a gift from God – given to use to use well and to develop. It’s a gift that is meant for a destiny (to return to God) and also to be helpful to others.
The key theme we return to very often here is “what would an atheist do”? This makes a very big difference on the topic of suicide. People suffer many things in life – oppression, illness, poverty, hostility, depression, pain – and they endure all of this until the end because they hope in God. Even when there is no hope for a cure. Because they look to God as the final end of their journey of life – and they know that God has given life to them. It is not their own to take or kill when they want.
This is radically different in the atheist view.
Why endure all of that pain? Why be a burden on others? If there is no God, what would be wrong with suicide when life is so painful?
For the believer, it’s not only that we are not permitted to kill ourself — but it is the belief and knowledge that God will sustain and help us, guide us and comfort us, even in very difficult times of pain.
We see that with Jesus dying on the cross. His followers are sad about His death, but also happy because it had profound meaning.
All this talk about Bourdain but nobody addresses the fact that suicide is often the result of an underlying mental illness. All BA77’s thoughtless statement did was to turn back the clock to the times when people with mental illnesses were labeled as being crazy or insane.
And his citing a paper that finds a correlation between religious belief and suicide is not helping the issue. As was pointed out to me recently, correlation is not causation. How does BA77 explain the fact that in east Asia being religious comes with an increase suicide rate?
AK, from your paper:
so your study found that Eastern Mysticism increased suicide rates. Not so surprising since, at least how I understand it, one of Eastern Mysticism’s core teachings is to ‘detach’ oneself from the world in order to try achieve Nirvana so as to escape suffering and continual rebirth. That type of belief system literally has suicide written all over it!
Whilst Christianity, where Jesus Christ is held to have conquered death, is found to decrease suicidal tendencies and increase life satisfaction.
i.e. Death not having the final say is certainly a recipe for extinguishing nihilism and increasing happiness!
Go figure.
Thanks for plugging Christianity AK. You are a gem!
As to addressing the ‘mental aspect’, I reiterate this:
It seems AK is the one who wants to ‘turn back the clock’ and not address the fact that atheism is basically a mental disease.
BA77,
I guess you forgot to read this part.
Hsieh found that although religion is linked to lower suicide rates in Latin America, eastern Europe, northern Europe, and English-speaking countries, it is associated with higher suicide rates in East Asia, western Europe and southern Europe.
I wasn’t aware that eastern mysticism was big in Europe.
The religions attended are not mentioned for Western and Southern Europe. Only this:
“Unlike Christians, who “go to services together and meet people afterward,” practitioners of Buddhism, Shintoism and Taoism in East Asia are more “individualized,” she said.”
Seems apparent that the author is directly noting the suicidal differences between the two religions
BA77,
Nice try. Your hyper skepticism is showing.
No, no ‘hyper-skepticism’ at all. Just the facts. The author did not mention which religions of Eastern and Southern Europe were ‘increasing’. The one allusion to specific religions she did make in the article, as I pointed out, supported my position not yours.
In fact Christianity is known to be declining in Eastern and Southern Europe. Whereas Islam is growing.
Thus it is very likely that the ‘increased suicide rate’ is attributable to the increasing religion of Islam in Western and Southern Europe.
Again, your study mentioned
And “Socialization” instead “individualization” matches studies such as these
Verse:
BA77,
Are you claiming that belief in your god is what results in lower suicide rates? Belief in other gods isn’t sufficient?
sd @ 13 – Murder is usually seen as killing another person – I certainly don’t know of anyone charged with attempted murder after a failed suicide, and suicide isn’t really a sin of anger or (directly) against a neighbour. So from what you’ve written, to me it looks like one could also argue that suicide isn’t a sin.
You are also quick to condemn people for committing suicide, but have you thought about what pain someone must be going through to want to end their life? I just find this apparent lack of compassion interesting.
ba77 – for Western and Southern Europe, the religions would mainly be Christianity. This is true regardless of whether they are mentioned in that piece. And, of course, Islam worships the same god that you do.
AK, you were the one trying to say Christianity did not decrease suicide rates. I merely pointed out the facts that contradicted your claim. Of further note to Islam and suicide:
Also of note, you accused me of ‘ hyper skepticism’. I find that accusation coming from a Darwinist to be especially rich. Darwinists are infamous for having a extreme ‘hyper skeptical’ attitude concerning the belief that life is designed even though life overwhelmingly gives the appearance of being brilliantly designed.
For example AK, do you believe that your brain is the product of Intelligent Design or do you insanely believe it is the product of unguided, Mindless, processes?
Design or accident, what say ye AK?
Bob, “for Western and Southern Europe, the religions would mainly be Christianity. This is true regardless of whether they are mentioned in that piece. And, of course, Islam worships the same god that you do.”
That is precisely the fault in the article. She, like you, did not properly differentiate religions. You, like the article, are extremely biased in your attempt to lump all religions together.
The differences between the world’s religions, that were glossed over in the article and in your flippant comment, are certainly major differences, not minor differences.
Moreover, this slip-shod article does not negate, from much more rigorous studies, the consistently higher suicide rates for atheists that were found, on average, because of their nihilistic worldview:
Bob @ 21
I would hope to have compassion on all my fellow human beings. We all are tempted to sin at times, we all have moral failings – sometimes bigger sometimes smaller, but we are fellow sinners and I know it is not easy for anyone to reach a high level of moral goodness.
My concern is that if suicide is not a sin, then what is wrong with it? Anthony Bourdain decided to kill himself and it didn’t seem like he was insane (innocent by reason of insanity), but we don’t know. Yes, people suffer pains of all sorts but usually they seek a remedy before just killing themselves. If your foot hurts, don’t cut off your leg. If you have interior pain – seek some healing.
But I have always found atheism, as a belief-system or worldview, to be compatible with suicide. The reasons for this should be obvious.
I think it is incontrovertable that suicide is the killing of a person. Does the person deserve to be killed? In the Christian view, we should not hurt ourselves because our lives belong to God.
It is certainly possible that a person who committed suicide is not fully guilty of a sin – yes. And a person can even repent of the action before death. So, we do not know how God will judge the individual act. We shouldn’t say that a person is necessarily in Hell – we don’t know for certain.
But, objectively speaking – suicide is a sinful action like murder. God gives life, and only God can take it back. We don’t have the right to do that to ourselves.
AK
Of course, different theological views can have different moral systems. In Shinto thought, Kamakazi pilots were acting heroically in committing suicide for the Emperor (who was believed to be a divine being). We know the same is true among some variants of Islam.
bornagain77 @ 6
That’s one story. Here’s another:
I don’t doubt the doctor had the experience she reported but I seriously doubt she was ever brain dead since that, by definition, is irreversible. Like other NDEs it’s an intriguing anecdote but it is not persuasive evidence for life after death and disembodied consciousness.
BA77,
No. I said that it wasn’t as mindlessly simple as that. Which it isn’t. Even your links, as well as others, say the same thing.
Seversky, a few examples of compelling evidence for ‘disembodied consciousness’ were provided on your other thread;
https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/science-worldview-issues-and-society/sevs-iou-on-how-conscious-mind-will-be-explained-on-materialistic-premises/#comment-660246
Allan Keith, actually it is fairly simple. Atheism entails a hopeless nihilism that drains life of any real meaning and purpose.
Atheists, self admittedly, make up illusory meanings and purposes for their lives since the nihilism inherent in their atheism is just too much to for them to bear honestly (R. Weikart).
Yet, as Bourdain’s suicide itself testifies, the atheist’s attempt to fill his life with illusory meaning and purpose ultimately fails. i,e, The nihilistic elephant in the room refuses to go away!
This is VERY sad, especially since the atheist’s worldview is grievously false through and through.
Yet, for whatever severely misguided reason, the vast majority of internet atheists would rather believe a pack of blatant lies than ever believe that they were purposely created by God.
For example AK, you yourself refused to honestly address the question posed to you in post 22. (i.e. Is you ‘beyond belief’ brain designed or an accident?)
As Jesus’s victory over death testifies, death IS NOT the end of our lives.
This is VERY GOOD news!
Life really does have true meaning and purpose. You need not wallow away in the nihilistic lies of your atheistic worldview.
Only Christianity offers this guarantee over death. The founder of every other religion has a burial site. Not Jesus!. Jesus rose from the grave. That is the simple reason why Christians are basically more joyful than atheists are, and, from as far as I can presently tell, more joyful than the people of the other religions of the world. i.e. Only in Christianity is the hopeless nihilism of death soundly defeated!
Silver Asiatic @ 24 –
Indeed, I think that’s a very important question. I’m actually not sure suicide itself has to be morally wrong, but that’s not to say that I think suicide is a good thing.
I suspect, from reading this, you’ve never suffered from depression. It can actually be very difficult to reach out for help (this has been discussed quite a bit on twitter in the last week or so): for some people who are severely depressed it is difficult to even get out of bed. It’s easy to say that if you’re depressed you should seek help, but the very nature of depression makes it difficult to actually look for help.
BO’H: This is why depression needs to be seen as the health and safety crisis it is (and it may be among the biggest, I have suspicions about a lot of “accidental” deaths). There is need for education about depression and provision of readily accessible help. BA77 is right that most people seek help short of suicide attempts, but in many cases that is not understood for what it is, a serious warning. We have also committed the folly of promoting a culture of moral numbness, amorality, nihilism and death in many forms. It is to a point where I see people talking about HOW to kill yourself in social media, laying out and indicating techniques that are allegedly painless. In the old days, suicide was spoken of as cowardice and as a point of no return sin — big, culturally accessible warning flags [though I think certain drinking problems were slow suicide by bottle]; which many today would jump on as lacking sensitivity etc, but we need a better solution than enabling suicide by a misguided redefinition of “compassion.” We need serious reform, and yes, a worldview and culture that treasures life is pivotal to breaking the stranglehold of the spirit of death that haunts our civilisation. As I keep saying, the ongoing warping of our civilisation to sustain holocaust of living posterity in the womb has consequences that spread out far and wide. KF
I agree, but I think stigmatising it, and stigmatising suicide is not the answer – that’s more likely to lead to people not seeking help as they don’t want to admit to thinking about committing a sin.
BA77,
You misunderstand what being an atheist is. The only difference between you and me is that I do not require the existence of a non-existant mythical being to derive meaning for my life, or tell me how to lead my life. If you want to call that nihilism, that’s fine. A more accurate description would be realism.
Bob @ 30
It’s not clear what you’re saying here. Could you explain?
I’m not trying to minimize the suffering that people encounter. But it’s also true that people do not become entirely irrational even when suffering depression. Maintaining and building good mental health is a daily, on-going effort. It’s not just something you do when you’re out of control.
Attending church, being part of a faith community, regular prayer and a growing relationship with God – these are all good mental health habits aside from the religious aspects.
We know that Jesus suffered extreme depression during the crucifixion (and in his prayer in the garden) “My God, why have you forsaken me?”
I will agree that we can’t just run to a doctor every time we have anxiety or fear or despondency. In many cases the doctor cannot fix it anyway — but God can (and does) heal. So, it’s really a matter of turning to God for help in those times of despair. It is seeing the purpose and direction of one’s life as being within God’s plan.
Charles Darwin does not exist (in a material sense). You rely on him to derive meaning.
Allan Keith, too funny. You state:
You have the actual situation completely backwards. If anything, in your dogmatic refusal to ever accept any evidence for the reality of God, you have not chosen ‘realism’ but have in fact chosen a perverse form of ‘anti-realism’ where everything in your atheistic worldview, things that common people regard as being real and concrete, dissolves into flights of fantasy and imagination.
Perhaps the most humorous thing about militant atheists claiming that God does not really exist, is that they, in their denial of the reality of God, also end up denying that they really exist as real ‘persons’. That is to say, if God is an illusion then the atheist himself becomes an illusion.
Of course, since the most certain thing we can possibly know about reality is the fact that we really do exist as real persons, (Descartes, Chalmers), many militant Atheists try to ignore this fatal ‘illusory’ implication of their worldview and falsely claim that Atheistic Materialism can ground personhood. But that ‘knee jerk’ reactionary claim is false. Atheistic materialism simply cannot ground the abstract, “immaterial”, concept of personhood.
SA,
I don’t agree that believing in god is what causes lower suicide rates. I suspect that the lower suicide rate for religious people has more to do with the support system that is inherent in any frequent social interaction. And given that atheists do not attend church, they have one less social support system than people who attend church do.
I think that it is also associated with the general social acceptance of religious practices in the individual countries and regions. South America has the greatest difference in suicide rate of religious people, the difference in the US is lower and the difference in Europe goes the other way (higher suicide rate for religious people). The correlation between the overall social acceptance of religion and the suicide rate of its practitioners is very interesting.
And to dispel BA77’s nonsense about Christianity having the lowest suicide rates of any religion, I direct him towards the suicide rates of Israel (5.4/100000), United Arab Emirates (2.8/100000) and Brazil (6/100000).
What would be of interest would be to examine the suicide rates of atheists with few and weak family connections, those with strong supportive family connections and those with strong supportive family connections and active non-family social interactions (e.g., Legions, Lions Club, etc.). It would surprise me if we did not see a gradation of suicide rates along these categories.
SA,
How do I rely on him to derive meaning? Atheists long predate Darwin. All he did was to propose a theory by which life changed over time. An interesting subject of research, but nothing more.
cont. from 36, And it gets worse from there on out for the Atheistic materialist.
The Atheistic Materialist is also forced to claim that free will is an illusion, and as such undermines any claim that he is making a logically coherent argument in the first place:
Moreover, even if free will were not ‘illusory’ in the Atheist’s materialistic worldview, is Darwinian evolution were actually true, the Darwinists still could not trust if his beliefs about reality were actually true.
Moreover, even if his beliefs about reality were reliable, the atheistic materialist’s perceptions of reality would still be illusory:
Moreover, since atheists have no real time evidence supporting their claims for Darwinian evolution, they must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins),
and finally, the Atheistic Materialist must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is (apparently) too much for him to bear (Weikart),
Moreover, the Atheistic Materialist must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God.
Bottom line in their rejection of God, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
In fact, when examined in critical detail, it is found that Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a testable science but is more properly classified, at least how Darwinists treat it, as a untestable, unfalsifiable, pseudo-science.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Per AK at 37 in his attempt to tease out some good news for the depressing stats on the Atheist’s suicide rate, he might want to look at this study
BA77,
Based on a survey? Have you ever thought that atheists might simply be more honest with their feelings? Or less delusional?
🙂 🙂 🙂
Before you jump all over this, the article is satire.
AK asks:
“Have you ever thought that atheists might simply be more honest with their feelings? Or less delusional?”
I find atheists, especially militant internet atheists, to be the most intellectually dishonest group of people I have ever met. EVER!!!
As to your claim that atheists are ‘less delusional’ than Christian Theists, (and to piggy back on posts 36, 39 and 40), even leading Atheists will often admit that it is impossible for them to live as if Atheistic Materialism were actually true.
Richard Dawkins, Mr. God Delusion himself, admitted that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if atheistic materialism were actually true
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Darwin explains your origin, why you exist. Whatever meaning you create for yourself must be tied-back to Darwin’s teaching that you are the product of accidental, random changes. You share the same meaning as plants or bacteria, and differ from them only because of some physical features that randomly emerged for survival.
BA @ 43. That says everything. Excellent.
The atheists who admit that they cannot live consistently with their worldview are at least one step more intellectually honest than the atheists who deny that there is a contradiction.
However, just admitting that they are hypocritical is not enough to be truly honest. What is required is that the person must “conform his mind to the truth”. To be intellectually honest, that must be done, regardless of how difficult or painful it might be.
What happens instead, unfortunately, is the same people try to “conform the truth to their mind” – by this is it a matter of twisting, ignoring, denying and hiding from the very same truth that they can clearly see.
SA,
I agree that I share a common origin with plants and bacteria, and that this common origin might limit the meaning I can establish for my life (e.g., mortality, etc.) but that does not mean that we must have the same meaning.
I have no way of knowing if individual bacteria and plants have any meaning. Since they do not have brains, I would suspect that they have no meaning, but who knows. They each have an impact on our ecosystem, as do we, but that is not a meaning. They do not do anything for the purpose of the ecosystem. The meaning I bring to my life is the meaning that I decide it to have.
BA77 @ 43: “I find atheists, especially militant internet atheists, to be the most intellectually dishonest group of people I have ever met. EVER!!!
I agree completely. I also find them to be unusually angry and bitter.
Your origin tells you what your are. In the Darwinian belief, your origin is the same as plants and bacteria, and therefore your meaning is the same. Your meaning is the same as a single amoeba in a pond somewhere. It emerged through accidental processes. It does not need to exist. You are the same. A collection of proteins, cells – chemicals, molecules. Nothing more.
Of course, you can invent your own meaning, but there is no reason to do such a thing. You have no reason to believe your own imagined-meaning. Nobody else needs to believe it either. It’s just your imagination. You are claiming to yourself to have some meaning, but you really have none. That is essential in the materialist-atheist viewpoint.
Silver Asiatic @ 34 –
I simply don’t see suicide itself as a moral issue (although the surrounding issues, e.g. why people decide that suicide is an option may well have a moral component).
(I assume the first sentence didn’t come out quite as you intended!)
Your views sound great in the abstract, but are divorced from the reality of living with depression. It’s easy to say that one should eat more greens and get regular exercise, but it’s difficult to actually do this when you are depressed. What you’re suggesting is like telling someone with a broken leg that they should go for a 5 mile run to strengthen their muscles.
Bob
I think normally we say that some actions are morally wrong, for example, murder. But then also there are circumstances that make it justifiable. But because murder can be justified in some cases, we wouldn’t say that murder is not a moral issue. True?
What would be a morally good reason for deliberately killing oneself? If it is morally good, why would we want to prevent such a thing?
Bob- reflecting on a previous comment here I said that Jesus didn’t talk about compassion and I mentioned the Beatitudes (blessed are the …) – just correcting myself. He did say “blessed are the merciful” and that basically means “compassionate”, so I was incorrect on that.
However, He also says “blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice”.
So, compassion has to go together with justice.
When we condemn an evil act, it is justice to do that.
But we also should be merciful (compassionate) in so doing.
Anyway – you were correct in your original comment and I just wanted to establish that.
SA – I wrote that I didn’t see suicide as a moral issue, so for me the question about when it is morally good isn’t a question about the morals of suicide. Yes, examples can be invented when it is morally good, but the moral judgment would, I think, be about the surrounding acts.
To take a slightly extreme example, I don’t see kneeling on one knee as inherently a moral or immoral act, but there will be circumstances when the decision to kneel can be seen as moral or immoral.
What are circumstances that would make suicide morally good or morally bad?
SA – Please read the part of my previous reply that you didn’t quote.
Bob – ok, understood.
SA,
I don’t think that suicide is either morally good or bad. In many cases it is the result of mental illness. If there is a moral responsibility, it is on society for not providing enough support for people with mental illnesses.
With regard to a terminal patient committing suicide, either with or without a doctor’s assistance, I think that the decision should be up to the individual and is not a moral issue. An argument could even be made that the medical community has a moral obligation to assist in the suicide of a terminal patient as long as it is clearly the will of the patient.
And in the rare instances when a person commits suicide and has no mental health issues, or chronic pain and suffering, I still don’t see it as a moral issue. Personally I think that the person is making the wrong decision and I would try to talk them out of it but, ultimately, it is his or her life.
In the nihilistic viewpoint, there are no consequences for the person who commits suicide. It’s a valid option for anyone who wants to do it. We hear about “murder suicide” events where a person wants to escape justice. If it is taught that suicide is a legitimate means of escaping from painful situations, then more people will do it. If avoiding pain is a good thing, and suicide enables that, then people will consider suicide as a good option.
From the nihilistic perspective it is difficult to explain why a person should not commit suicide. If there is nothing wrong with it, then a person simply chooses it.
I made this point about Anthony Bourdain. He made a decision.
The Darwinian belief will view this with indifference. In fact, in evolutionary terms, there are no moral actions.
There is no good or bad in evolutionary terms.
A living organism is not “better” than non-living.
There is no need for anything to exist in evolutionary terms. Nothing can be morally wrong – there can be no sin.
Evolution is not “successful” – it’s just a natural process like gravity.
The fact that we have ordered human societies with moral and civil laws and rights – is an argument against Darwinian ideas.
SA,
I think death is a pretty serious consequence. If you are asking if there are any subsequent consequences, there are none for the person committing suicide but there certainly are for family members and loved ones.
Valid? Yes. A good decision? Probably not for most.
People already know that it is a way of escaping painful situations. What do you mean by “teaching them”?
I would argue that, except in situations of excruciating physical pain and suffering, it would only be considered a good option by those who have some mental illness issues. Wouldn’t it be better to remove the stigma around mental illness and make sure that adequate support is available rather than lie to them and say that it is a sin and that they will go to hell if they kill themselves. It seems to me that doing that would only aggravate the problems they have.
Not difficult at all.
Teaching meaning “indoctrinating a belief”. It is a belief that suicide results in less pain. My belief system holds that suicide is not an escape from pain but rather, in many cases, leads to more pain for the person who kills themself. In my view, there are consequences. Suicide is an unjust act. As you say, there are bad consequences for family and loved ones. If suicide is a bad action, then there is justice to pay – and I believe consequences for those who commit the act as there are with any unrepented sins.
So, it depends what people are taught. We teach children things. If children are taught that suicide is a good way to avoid pain, then children will commit suicide (as many do). If they are taught that suicide causes more pain, then less will do it.
Why?
Why not let them kill themselves, or at least make it easy for them to do that?
Ok, please do so.
SA,
With respect, isn’t teaching people that suicide is a sin and will result in you going to hell “indoctrinating a belief”? I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that we teach kids about suicide. But teaching them about mental illness and depression, and that they can make people do things that they wouldn’t normally do is important. And reinforcing that depression and mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of and that when they experience these that support is available.
We agree on this. I suspect the only situation where we would disagree is with those with terminal illness.
Two points. First, how do you repent after a suicide? And second, I can’t accept that someone who commits suicide due to mental illness is committing a sin.
But nobody is suggesting that we teach kids that suicide is good.
Why what? There were two opinions made in that statement.
Please don’t play the same juvenile word games that StephenB and BA77 do. You are more honest than that.
If their thoughts of suicide are due to depression (most are), I would tell them that there is help and support for that. And that when they address their underlying illness they will find that there are many things to enjoy about life. If they have family and friends, I would remind them that their death would have negative impacts on them as well.
AK
On the second point, yes agreed. There would be no sin if the person is mentally ill. A serious sin would require a deliberate, conscious and willful act.
On the second point, there is a split second or sometimes even minutes after the suicidal act and before death. A person may realize that they have done something very wrong and they might turn to God to repent of this even while dying.
Many mystics have said that God gives the person a chance also at that last minute. Forgiveness is available, if the person wants it. Some people, sadly, will turn away. They choose not to repent and go towards God. In this way, we say that God doesn’t put the person in Hell, instead the person chooses Hell rather than ask for (and receive) forgiveness.
This is an interesting page from a man who was very worried about his grandmother who committed suicide. The topic is the message of Divine Mercy that St. Faustina of Poland gave.
AK
Again, I agree here.
SA,
See, atheists and theists can agree with each other. 🙂