Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Jo(y)
Whoops spoke too soon, you do not understand why Harry Potter is considered fiction. Sure, the fact that the author states is fiction is a valuable clue, but just because an author states its fiction or not as a measure of its fiction is a very VERY faulty reasoning.
What book best represents your god idea? Let's say the very popular King James bible. Well guess what, I am that god, depicted in that book. Yep! Its not fiction! I swears it! I swear it on the ring! (gollum voice) All those bibles, they were talking about me the whole time! God is my name. I tell you now! It is not fiction!
So you going to worship me? Because your only criteria for truth is if the authors state if its fiction or not? Yeah.. thought so. Try again. Explain why your bible/holy book is not fiction. I bid you good luck, I already know the outcome. I will take any bet I can afford 1000 to 1.
Want to reverse it? I just plagiarized the harry potter series, but changed a few names. As the author of this new series based on harry potter I declare it... NOT fiction! Hooray! By joy's standards harry potter is now real! I know A LOT of big time harry potter fans that are going to be THRILLED!
YAY! Now if you could only figure out the reason you believe in god, are not reasons based on any sort of observable testable reality. Leaving your god idea in the same realm of that of harry potter, of which all kidding aside, we both strongly agree to be a work of fiction. One of these stories is just honest enough to admit that its fiction.
How do you know that? Mark Twain has been dead for over 100 years, anyone that knew him well is also dead. We have to take.. another books word for it! OR we can just examine the book, and realize the book cannot be evidenced in anyway to show that the characters and their actions actually occurred. Like we should for any book regardless of what the author titles it as fiction or nonfiction. We do not just take an author's unverified un-evidenced word for it.
Thank you for confirming that so far all you have on a book fiction/nonfiction status is... other books by other authors. WOAH! Its like you get all the concepts, but just simply refuse to apply it your favorite book about your invisible and completely undetectable sky daddy friend.
I will ask again, how do you dismiss my rainbow farting unicorn god idea? If I found some old book, about some god, and replaced all the times "god" is mentioned with a unicorn, are you going to believe that the unicorn is real? Why not?
I do. Both my grandfathers fought in that war, I can go visit war memorials. Also ww2 has the huge advantage of occurring less then 100 years ago, and things like pictures, and video recording technologies existed. I could go to hiroshima and nagasaki with nuclear isotope detecting equipment and check these things out for myself. But some invisible god idea? I got nothing. No way to verify anything that was written about this supposed god idea.
Thank you for beautifully pointing out how to separate out accurate historical data compared to supposed history that has no real way to verify. As in, history that could of been made up versus history that in part is at least partially true based on real world evidence and data.
Uh. You think allegory is a good way of imparting some truth? Really? Poetic maybe, but poetic has nothing to do with truth, it just sounds nice, and maybe easier to remember.
How are they cool with 14 billion years? If they actually understood that length of time, they would realize humans are a speck of dust, I mean I get that many religious folks are extremely arrogant, (I am right, everyone else is wrong, - even though I cannot prove it!- ) but do people really think some all powerful god idea waited around 14 billion years to make humans and interface with them? And wont do anything else now that humans are around? Why would this all powerful deity idea stop at humans? Humans are clearly superior to all other life on this planet (at least in pure domination of all other life on this planet and raw numbers.) Then they go and try to "humanize" this 14+ billion year old (lots of them say he is timeless and has always existed, another insane claim) saying its a male, saying it has human cares and has things like be wrathful, angry, kill and destroy things that cannot possibly harm him because he does not like what these things he created do sometimes.
The effort to make "god" work based on common well understood scientific advances like that the universe is roughly ~14 billion years old, they in turn trivialized both god and themselves to something far FAR less then some sort of all powerful all knowing deity that created everything for humans. I get 14 billion years is a very difficult concept to truly understand. So let me put this in something we do understand. The human lifespan.
We do not know for sure, but lets say the universe is at roughly the halfway point. 14 billion years since the big bang, another 14 before the universe spreads out and winks out of existence, perhaps wholly consumed by giant galaxy devouring black holes.
So god in a human life span: first the big bang, then you sit back and let everything "unfold" for 40 years. Then in a single blink of an eye, far less than 1 second, you show up to 1 tiny tiny tiny!!!! corner of this vast universe you created, and visit and interface with 1 tiny tiny corner of this planet and do a few odd things all within that 1 tiny second. Revealing yourself to this human race you created the entire universe for. Then disappear again. In human life span terms, its been maybe 1 second after the "blink of an eye" so far, and you gone back into hiding, especially as humans develop robust recording and information dissemination abilities (like the internet.) Meanwhile the same humans you created, during that blink of an eye are rapidly headed towards self annihilation by successfully destroying the ultra thin surface/atmosphere of this tiny planet. Instead as god, you just sit back and watch your human creation have wars over your supposed appearance and then likely within the next second possibly annihilate themselves. But this is normal, all of your other creation, even on this tiny planet, has done mostly the same thing, just in slightly different ways, 99.9% of all unique species have already gone extinct.
If anything, you would have to accept that your god idea other than messing around with humans, his actions as depicted, your god idea as presented and the actions it has done does not give the slightest shit about humans, and certainly not any individual human.
Magically transport me with all my technology back 2000 years ago to the time of this supposed jesus character, and I am very confident I could get the entire world to worship me as a god, and destroy all other god ideas like the thousand of god ideas humanity has come up with over millennia that faded to obscurity.
The point of all this is: the various human created god ideas, simply do not work in reality. Religious apologist tried desperately to make it fit, but it is an impossible task without completely redefining their god idea to "make it fit." Which they have already mostly done, god is now simply "god of the gaps."
I think you broke my latest irony meter... again. Also you are using argumentum ad populum again. Well 2 can play at that game. 99% of all humans that have ever lived, never heard of your particular god idea or do not believe in it. So by going by the faulty "argumentum ad populum" your god idea is a work of fiction because 99% of everyone disagree with you that your god idea is somehow magically also, NOT fiction.
I have learned from the people before us. I just learned something, that at least to me, is way more obvious. Humans when properly motivated, (usually by built in bias) will believe just about anything, even if it is completely unevidenced, simply because someone (usually their parents) told them to believe it. If the evidence is lacking or tells differently they will simply ignore it or create highly complex rationalizations to try to make it work, rationalizations to the point of the absurd like: "god works in mysterious ways."
I never brought up intelligence, but apparently you made that connection. Some of the smartest people I know, fervently believe in their particular god idea. I have read enough here, interfaced with enough people etc. That belief in god or not, is a terrible indicator of someone's overall intelligence. Even you Joy, are a good indication of that, you obviously can read and write english at high level, probably better then 90+% of the world english speaking population. The one verifiable, testable indicator of intelligence I have for you Joy, is your writing and responses. Your post in general are easy to read and understand, while I would say your reading skills are slightly lacking, I do understand the biases to protect your unevidenced god idea that influence your answers.
I am talking about people that will be born in the future, not already fertilized human eggs. But I am certainly not surprised you immediately took the chance to throw in your 2 cents on the abortion debate.
Oh if you want to (by your opinion) include any and all fertilized human eggs in your numbers, I will take that 99.9% figure I spoke of above, and raise it by a factor of 10. 99.99% of all "humans" ever, never heard of or believe in your particular god idea. Whoo, while argumentum ad populum is an obvious logical fallacy, 99.99% that is pretty compelling number even if the source of it is a logical fallacy. I love debating abortion, because when you dive in it really starts to talk about, (to me) the fascinating subject of: "what makes a human, a human?" And ofcourse can people force other people to accept their own opinionated position on what is a human or not.
Err simple answer is: because our planet ability to sustain people IS very important to people. Valuing the planet IS valuing people. Especially the future unborn.
Because for the folks that do not believe in your god idea (or similar ones) we do not have the fall back of "well my invisible imaginary sky daddy will fix everything, my god idea not going to let its grand creation end with: "well humans got addicted to fossil fuels and stripping the land of all life sustaining resources, got into wars over diminishing resources, that eventually led to nuclear war, humans and pretty much all other life was wiped out, the end. 14 billion years until humans came along, and we wipe it all out in a few centuries via our own actions. God showed up briefly a few thousand years before to punish people, then just let them annihilate themselves.
That should terrify you. That things change, like the ability for this planet to support 7.8+ billion people could easily change. That religions change constantly, your particular religion/god idea may be popular now, but almost certainly will not be later, or changed so radically you would not even accept or recognize it 100-1000 years later (blink of an eye in terms of a 14 billion year old universe.)
@ Joy
"Well, that’s really weird because Mark Twain, the author, doesn’t say its true, so why would you think that?"
And the bible is true because ...... ?
“I think we should of instead of honoring "tradition" and the dead, should instead be a lot more worried about the future unborn.”
Like the ones being slaughtered in the womb right now because some consider them inferior or inconvenient? I agree."
Oh my, a huge stinking mass of strawman.
V.S.
Ok, how about the vampire chronicles then? According to The Vampire Lestat, the events of both itself and the first book are true biographies, merely disguised as fiction for us lowly mortals to not catch on, but the truth is right there. So obviously vampires are real, Lestat says so. Anne Rice even let's him onto her Twitter account to answer questions in person.
@Mikhael Re: Interview With A Vampire "...So obviously vampires are real, Lestat says so."
Hah! I KNEW it! Awesome. Hey, any chance you know how to contact vampires? Having a sit-down and long chat with Louie would be super cool.
By the way, everybody, there is something I would like to say in regards to our blessed little bundle of Joy who has done so much to add so much to so much of our lives since her arrival. I'll do my best to get through this without getting too choked up and all emotional.
Having read all of Joy's fantastic posts over the last few days, I have come to realize just how fortunate we all are and how grateful we should all be for having her here in our presence. After all, there are so many other atheist websites she could have visited, yet she chose US on the AR. Honestly, what are the odds? Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it is a sign from God. For I find it difficult to believe that the ONE person - (out of all the BILLIONS of people who have ever lived) - who knows the absolute ONE AND ONLY TRUE word of God - (out of all the many thousands of religions that have ever existed) - showed up here on THIS site by mere happenstance. We are truly blessed, folks. Truly, truly blessed. Thank you, Joy. Words cannot express our gratitude. For your divinely enlightened words, and your insight into the mind of the Almighty Savior, may very well save many of us godless heathens from the ravishings of eternal flames. Hallelujah!
@ Tin Man
You are forgetting the awesome and breathtaking way she can effortlessly rewrite history and hand wave away any contradictory facts that may intrude on her bubble.
Truly a miracle. All those hundreds of historians who now accept jesus on the say so of a supposed majority of their ilk must be grateful to the towering intellect of our long nosed Joy. Less we forget her contributions, three cheers for Joy!!
DUP
@OldMan
"and hand wave away any contradictory facts that may intrude on her bubble"
She is unlike any other in this regard and I think is already deserving of a place on The Wall.
From my research, if you sit around looking sad and gay, it's irresitable to them. Bonus points if you can play the violin or have a tragic backstory.
“Looking back , all I can see is an insufferable little prig.”
What do you mean by that? Why? Did you feel like a hypocrite? Were people saying you were good, but you were doing things that weren’t? Or do you mean you started becoming self righteous and enjoying being thought well of? Not sure I understand.
“The few times in my life I have been 'good' were the result of instinctive reactions,'just what one did”
Right. Good. When we have a well formed conscience it should just often be natural. Like I’ve said before most people instinctively know what is right/good vs. bad/wrong. We don’t need the Church to know this. What we might need the Church for is when we goof up and stray from what should be natural to offer us forgiveness and guidance and hope through Christ’s words and Christ Himself.
“' . There is a saying I love; bis dat qui cito qat (who gives quickly gives twice) I see true goodness in doing right for its own sake, instinctively .I'm along way from there yet.”
I’ve never heard that before. I like it. Guess, I’m still not sure what any of that has to do with religion though. I’m guessing you think religious don’t do good for the sake of good? Isn’t that exactly what Jesus was trying to explain to His followers? Not to get caught up in the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law? He boiled the 10 commandments down to the two greatest – Love God and love your neighbor. God, by the way has been described AS GOOD. So, some would actually say God IS beauty, truth, love, goodness. So, if someone is doing good for the sake of good, he is actually doing good for the sake of God, but I digress.
Also, I might argue many non religious don’t do good for the sake of good – they in fact attempt to argue things like who knows what is good, or what’s good for you isn’t necessarily good for me, or who determines good. All rationalizations to justify behavior they know is contrary to good.
“Late in life I've learned something of which should I have been instinctively aware ; neither our very best acts nor our very worse acts necessarily define us as people.”
For sure!!!!! Love it!!!! Sounds like what the Catholic Church is always trying to tell her people. You are not your sins or your good works. Nothing is unforgiveable AND ‘once saved always saved’ is a dangerous mantra to live by. We are works in progress, continually falling short and picking ourselves back up.
“My self assessment right now; neither an especially good nor an especially bad person, boringly average in both my virtues and my vices.”
Fair enough, it’s good to see oneself honestly, but don’t confuse knowing oneself with slipping into lukewarmness and apathy. There is nothing average about being a struggling Saint where every day is a battle to fight and try to win. When we no longer want to fight because either we don’t think we can win or we don’t even want to win then we have no purpose/meaning and even any good that we have been given will be taken from us and given to someone else as we are just squandering it away.
“*** my darlin' mum was a convert, and small c christian. She gave witness to her faith by the way she lived, and by her kindness and compassion towards others. She was always thus ,long before she became Catholic. Her funeral was amazing. People she had helped ,who none of the sibs knew, came out of the wood work---mum was one of the rare almost completely good people I have known .”
That’s awesome and beautiful. Though sounds like even before she was officially a Catholic she was living in accordance with what the Church teaches, which is probably why so many were drawn to her.
@ Joy
"God, by the way has been described AS GOOD. So, some would actually say God IS beauty, truth, love, goodness."
The same god that committed global genocide via the great flood just because god screwed up in making the world and mankind? In fact, this idiotic and incompetent god did not even get the next iteration correct, mankind is no less corrupt or sinful as before the great flood.
Think for a moment, all those innocent people, all those innocent children climbing to higher ground, fighting for the highest branch on trees only to suffer the agony of drowning? And if you think for a minute (I know, it's a huge ask) drowning is a VERY ugly way to die. You know it is coming, you waste all your energy fighting to keep your head above water, watching others drown all around you, and to eventually succumb yourself, feeling the water invade your lungs and fade away into unconsciousness.
This god did not just kill people, this god made sure everyone suffered painful and horrible deaths.
“Joy: "I’m pretty sure most Christians are cool with referring to Jesus as our shepherd as it is quite Biblical and beautiful."
No, it is not, it demeans everyone as being second-class.”
What are you talking about? A shepherd loves his sheep and will leave the 99 just to save the 1. A shepherd knows his sheep and they know him.
“That is one problem with religion, it hides the evil under pretty prose or sweet-smelling bullshit.”
What is evil about what I just said?
“I spent many years as a civilian employee of the military. Every time anyone called me a "civil servant", my response was always "I am no one's servant, I am an employee". I have pride.”
Interesting. Jesus considered Himself a servant. It doesn’t have to have the negative meaning you give it. Serving others is beautiful and honorable. One can take a great deal of pride in being a servant. For me, motherhood comes to mind. I think it can be a beautiful, loving, selfless job. I think anyone that sees it as equivalent to slavery sadly misses the joy and dignity of motherhood.
@ Joy
"What are you talking about? A shepherd loves his sheep and will leave the 99 just to save the 1. A shepherd knows his sheep and they know him."
I am not a fucking sheep, I am an adult.
"What is evil about what I just said?"
To accept the teaching of the church, that you are a second class entity.
"Jesus considered Himself a servant."
OK, now you are full of shit because just a few lines above that quote you stated that jesus was a shepherd. I expect babbling double-talk in response to this, but the bottom line is you cannot be a shepherd and servant.
“Two days later and Joy did not shake my hand in agreement.”
What didn’t I do?
My sole goal is to have a dialogue as well. Did I breech something?
“ Joy: Like the ones being slaughtered in the womb right now because some consider them inferior or inconvenient? I agree."
Oh my, a huge stinking mass of strawman.
I couldn’t resist. And it was more of pointing out the irony then creating a strawman. You didn’t post his original comment which was, “I think we should of instead of honoring "tradition" and the dead, should instead be a lot more worried about the future unborn.”
I always think it fascinating how someone can talk about future human beings (heck, he even literally used the word unborn) and pretend to care about them, but those already in existence, already conceived, currently living in the womb right now – those unborn -- we don’t care about them. The disconnect amazes me and I just had to point it out even if it was off topic. My bad.
@Joy
What "fascinates" me, is you immediately just assume that I do not care about growing life in a mother's womb. I care very much. I also care very much about future generations. I used the term future unborn instead of future generations because it types faster and reads a little bit easier. Plus frankly I assumed readers would assume I am not some monster. I am also well aware there are people that read these forums that are ESL and using smaller more common words can increase readability.
But I will admit: I should have predicted you would take those words and try to derail the topic by jumping straight to abortion debate.
I realize now I should not be surprised that you just jump straight to the conclusion that I am sort of highly contradictory monster that talks about caring about future unborn but don't give a shit about current zygote/fetuses in the womb. You got to ask yourself: what makes you jump to that conclusion about me so quickly? That I am that "disconnected" and it seems via your writing, that you imply: I am a horrible person that does not care about zygotes/fetuses and that I also do not understand irony.
To me, it seems like you took something I said, twisted it to fit your needs, and tried to weaponize it against me, all the while I am left to consider if you are just doing all that simply to avoid responding to some points that you seemingly avoid for whatever reason, I could speculate a few, but I am not going to try to twist your words and weaponize it. I do not need to.
@ Joy
"What didn’t I do?"
In your arrogance and stupidity you did not seal the deal. A contract requires two parties in accordance. I made the offer, you did not close the deal by responding and agreeing to the deal.
So now my offer is off the table.
@ Joy
"and pretend to care about them, but those already in existence, already conceived, currently living in the womb right now – those unborn -- we don’t care about them."
You may not, but I do. Do not attempt to pretend to think for me.
“I should have predicted you would take those words and try to derail the topic by jumping straight to abortion debate.”
I wasn’t derailing the topic. It was one comment and I couldn’t resist pointing out the irony in many who share your doomsdays views about the destroying the planet for future generations while simultaneously being pro choice and not fighting for those of us here right here and now.
I don’t think current/present people should be neglected just to make room for some future generation out there. So, often I will hear people argue that they think people today should have fewer children to save the planet for future children, it’s fascinating to me they don’t see the irony.
“I realize now I should not be surprised that you just jump straight to the conclusion that I am sort of highly contradictory monster that talks about caring about future unborn but don't give a shit about current zygote/fetuses in the womb.”
Just pointing out, in case you were unaware, your words were claiming we should be more worried about future generations than existing humans now. Which is the illogical thinking of a lot of people especially climate alarmists. Yes, I guess I was putting you in that category since you were saying so much about the destruction of the planet. It just seems like so often the climate alarmists put earth above people.
“ You got to ask yourself: what makes you jump to that conclusion about me so quickly?”
Because I’ve heard it so many times before. Sorry if I got it wrong.
“That I am that "disconnected" and it seems via your writing, that you imply: I am a horrible person that does not care about zygotes/fetuses and that I also do not understand irony.”
No, no, I was not saying you were a horrible person. Yes, I was suggesting that many holding your similar point of view seem to have a disconnect with concern for the planet/environment/sea turtle eggs, baby seals and the unborn (baby humans). It’s illegal to kill turtle eggs, but legal to kill an embryo in the womb. I can’t wrap my head around this.
“To me, it seems like you took something I said, twisted it to fit your needs”
Sorry. Maybe you are right. I probably shouldn’t have gone there. What can I say, I was a little triggered. I apologize. I hate it when people jump to conclusions about me. I shouldn’t have done that. I really am sorry – that was stupid of me.
@Joy
You brought it up, I called you on it, and here you are still bringing it up. Even expanding on it. Fine, there is no rule about going off topic, seems like its a topic we are going to discuss now.
Yes, I am pro-choice, I am also very much pro fighting for life, all life. I just so happen to be one of those that does not like it when others force unevidenced opinion onto a very specific population group, vulnerable pregnant women. Complex life, like humans are a cycle. Where on that cycle do we decide a zygote, fetus etc is a human life that has greater rights to the mothers own body then the mother has to her own body is strictly a matter of opinion. The only persons opinion that matters in this tug war of rights over own body versus a zygotes right to use said body to live, is the mothers.
I think it would be a wonderful thing that every single zygote/fetus had every opportunity at life afforded to them. If a womans own body was not involved, and we advanced medical technology to the point we had machines that could take over this duty, I would be all for saving every single last child, wanted or not. It would effectively strip out the "rights" to life vs a pregnant woman's right to her own body issue. But unfortunately we do not live in a magic fairy land world, where such technology is feasible yet, and that overpopulation is not a massive issue that is only getting worse.
Also why do you keep insisting that I am not interested in fighting for those right here and now? I have already stated multiple times I care very much about the living and even fetuses still in the womb. Do you just ignore what I say on that while accusing me?
I am married to a wonderful, beautiful, intelligent, kind, woman for many years now, we have no children and do not plan to have children. For many reasons, but yes some of those reasons are: over population and possible/likely future scenarios like global warming, environmental degradation etc.
However you will have to explain to me why you find that ironic. If someone had a tiny 600 sqfoot apartment and 30 cats, and money is steadily running out for cat food to feed them all... is neutering some cats for the better outcomes for the remaining 30 cats irony? What if the cats were smart enough to decide for themselves, hey ya know, space and resources is limited, perhaps we should not have so many kids?
Lets see, lets go back and look at what I originally wrote. Hmm I have difficulty finding it maybe it is in a different thread? Entirely possible I edited it later, but I do agree I wrote:
"According to real world repeatable and testable data, we are quickly destroying the planet ability to sustain 7.8 billion (and still rapidly growing! human population) and these future unborn will have to bear the burden of the people that are alive today (and recent past) destructive habits"
I don't see anything in there showing me saying: "we should be more worried about future generations than existing humans now."
You added that. You jumped to that conclusion and then tried to pass it off as my conclusion.
Who are you talking to that makes you hear that so many times before?
Well that's good. I certainly agree with you, I do not consider myself a horrible person, I actually consider myself to be a nice person, a sentiment that is often times told to me by people that know me well.
In most places in the world, and for most of human history it is not illegal to kill turtle eggs. Just like there are some places vulnerable pregnant women have access to abortion, and many other places where these same vulnerable women do not.
I imagine it is hard to wrap your brain around it, turtle eggs and human embryo's are 2 very very different things. It would be difficult to compare them.
I accept your apology. Thanks. I may not seem it at times, but little of what is said anonymously on the net bothers me much. I just like good conversation. And when conversation devolves to name calling and misconstruing what people write, to me, its no longer a good conversation/debate.
Firstly a developing foetus is not here yet, it has neither consciousness or the ability to feel emotional or physical pain, it would not survive without the body of the woman. It is also a bizarre claim as the exponentially increasing human population is one of the main reasons the climate is being destroyed, if we fail to control it then everything else is a temporary band aid. This fact of course is entirely at odds with catholic dogma, who have for centuries taught that we should breed out of control, despite the misery, suffering poverty and death this dogma has caused.
“Firstly a developing foetus is not here yet”
That’s a very odd comment. Why then would a woman need to have an abortion if nothing is there?
“it has neither consciousness “
People exist right now in comas or temporarily lose consciousness. That doesn’t mean they still aren’t humans.
“or the ability to feel emotional or physical pain”
Science is continually showing babies’ in the womb do in fact feel pain, but again feeling pain or not does not determine if someone is human.
“, it would not survive without the body of the woman.”
Some adults would not survive without body parts from others or machines. A 3 week old couldn’t survive on its own outside of the womb either.
“ It is also a bizarre claim as the exponentially increasing human population is one of the main reasons the climate is being destroyed, if we fail to control it then everything else is a temporary band aid.”
So, let’s kill’em now so they won’t die later? What an odd philosophy. Also, population control scare mongerers have been pushing the overpopulation myth for a long time. I’m pretty sure their “scientific” predictions about the world being unable to sustain all the people has come and gone many times over now.
“This fact of course is entirely at odds with catholic dogma, who have for centuries taught that we should breed out of control, despite the misery, suffering poverty and death this dogma has caused.”
Yet another false and ignorant statement regarding the Catholic Church, but don’t let that stop you from repeating misinformation.
Well your original comment is above to show the context, and we can see you have now moved the goal posts. As a foetus is no more "here right here and now" than future generations are. They have the potential to be, as do future generations, but not if ignorant catholic dogma about abortions and contraception are used to indoctrinate people into breeding out of control.
You do love your straw man non sequiturs, where did I claim a foetus wasn't human, or someone in a coma wasn't human? dear oh dear. You're spinning out straw men so fast the original context is being lost. Which of course was the accusation being made by another poster when I unadvisedly entered this exchange.
No it isn't. though the anti choice brigade have plenty of form for making up such lies. An insentient blastocyst without a developed neocortex can't feel pain?
"Utah recently passed a law that requires doctors to give anesthesia to a fetus prior to performing an abortion that occurs at 20 weeks of gestation or later.
The law assumes that a fetus may be able to feel pain at that stage in development; however, doctors groups and other critics of the law argue that a fetus cannot feel pain at 20 weeks gestational age.
Indeed, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said it considers the case to be closed as to whether a fetus can feel pain at that stage in development. "
Straw man again, pllease show where I remotely claimed otherwise? dear oh dear....
Oh do fuck off, that's not remotely what I said.
What a particularity dangerous, ignorant and stupid thing to say. I'm sorry you see no issue with an exponentially increasing population and finite resources, but your rhetoric has all the hallmarks of catholic indoctrination sadly. Nevertheless a child with a basic grasp of maths can see that the human population explosion cannot continue unabated without the current catastrophe coming to a disastrous end. It's beyond idiotic to claim otherwise. You do now what exponential means don't you?
exponential
adjective
1. (of an increase) becoming more and more rapid.
My bad, I'd forgotten they are really champions of birth control and contraception, and indoctrinate women in abject poverty that an abortion will damn them to an eternity of hell. You don't half talk nonsense, and I must say my first impression hasn't change that you hold some pretty objectionable views that typify catholic indoctrination.
The initial point was you were introducing a non-sequitur to spin the dialogue away form the topic, I think that is admirably evidenced by that post. How you have to nerve to call others ignorant or ill informed though is beyond me.
@LogicFTW
"Yes, I am pro-choice, I am also very much pro fighting for life, all life."
Me too. I oppose abortion not because I think it is a human being. I do not, that is an unfounded religious belief imo. . I oppose abortion because it ends life, which a foetus possesses.
HOWVER, I realise my position is a personal moral stance. I have no right to even try to oppose it on others. The notion that all life is important is an opinion, not something which has been or can be proved empirically, as far as I'm aware.
In pragmatic, daily life, I am pro choice .It is my position (which I will not argue here) that the decision to have a child or not belongs to the woman, AND NOBODY ELSE. That a decision to have an abortion is a medical decision, between a woman and her doctor, AND NOBODY ELSE.
MY approval or disapproval is rightly irrelevant to the moral values of others. I also think the same of any so -called religious authority. Such authority usually seems to derive from a divine revelation /intervention in which I am unable to believe.
Re: In Joy We Trust
Got to thinking today - (Shhhhh.... Don't tell anybody.) - and something interesting dawned on me. Supposedly, Joy's god is all-knowing and all-powerful. After all, he supposedly had enough knowledge and power to create the entire universe, right? And the human race has been around for only a fraction of a second compared to the overall age of the known universe. (Several billion years) And it has only been within the past hundred years of Mankind that we have started becoming technologically advanced and started learning more and more about the universe and our own tiny speck of dust Earth within the universe. And even with all the advancements we have made up to this point, Man is still within its infancy in fully understanding the wondrous world in which we live. Yet, supposedly, Joy's god was around an infinite number of years before the universe was ever "created", and was putting everything in place on a cosmic level all the billions of years before our Earth even formed. So, suffice it to say, IF this particular god were actually real, then I do believe it is safe to say that god is a damn-intelligent motherfucker who is very likely way beyond being upset by any type of "insult" we puny humans could ever toss at it. And even if it DID get upset for some strange reason, I would venture a guess that it would be MORE than capable of handling the situation on its own. Seems more than reasonable to me, at least. HOWEVER....
Enter Joy and others of her arrogance. For whatever reason(s), they are of the mindset that their particular god somehow needs THEIR assistance in "setting people straight" on what they should/should not do to keep from "offending" their god, simply because they read some sort of ancient book written by various ancient people who had zero grasp of modern technology. It is undeniably laughable. To put it on a smaller and more simplistic scale, picture a highly trained and highly experienced neurosurgeon, absolute best in his field. THE surgeon that is called upon to perform the procedures no other surgeons are capable of doing. (You get the idea.) Now picture this surgeon in the middle of one of those procedures that no other surgeon can perform. I can totally picture Joy forcing her way past security and entering the operating room all out of breath, wearing only one sterile glove, surgical mask half off, and a jar of leaches in dirty pond water in the ungloved hand. She then rushes over to the operating table where she holds the jar over the patient's head in front of the surgeon as pond water drips from the jar into the patient's open skull. And with a huge self-satisfied smile she proudly tells the surgeon, "HERE! I brought these for you! I read a book on ancient leach therapy, and I just KNEW these are EXACTLY what you needed to cure this patient."
Yep, our wonderful Ball of Joy. The "Chosen One" who truly knows the mind of her god and protects him from us dreaded heathens and those who would offend her god with alternate lifestyles. I am sure her god sleeps so much better at night knowing she is protecting his flanks.
Wait, I have a better one...
Joy is attending a professional MMA match where the two very top rated heavyweight fighters in the sport are going head-to-head for the world championship title. The stadium is packed full.
At the end of the match, the winning fighter is receiving his trophy when Joy elbows her way through the crowd until she is right beside him. Then, yelling above the roar of the crowd she tells him, "I love how you totally thrashed that guy! You are soooo much better than any other fighter EVER! And I just want you to know I am your biggerst fan, and I will never let anybody talk bad about you! Matter of fact, there was a snot-nosed little kid in the stands who was cheering for your opponent and talking shit about you! And since you were busy down here in the ring proving how awesome you are, I kicked his scrawny little ass for you! And it was super easy, too, because he was a quadriplegic confined to a wheelchair!"
At that point the fighter looks at her in utter shock and yells, "Who the fuck are you?!? And why would I give a damn what some defenseless little kid says or thinks about me. you psycho?!?"
The only people who can claim Yahweh is good and loving are those who fit into the narrow cookie cutter of qualities he supports. Go ask suicidal lgbt teenagers if God is love. You'll probably find them sleeping under a bridge after their Christian parents kicked them out.
When I see Catholics all sipping from the same cup, I just think what a wonderful way to spread herpes and other interesting diseases. I also wonder, did that priest wash his hands before shoving those crappy crackers in people's gobs? Sooner them than me.
“"BTW Joy, the bible was not originally in Latin "to protect the scriptures" a simple google of the Codex Sinaiticus vs the Codex Vaticanus would give you your miseducation back gift wrapped."
I did not know that. Many years ago I was informed that Latin was used to keep knowledge from the masses.
Joy, I was wrong, and so were you.
Are you big enough and have enough integrity to admit an error?
But I suspect we will see typical theist practice, to ignore new evidence and just maintain lies.”
I would admit it if I were wrong, but I was right in saying by keeping the official language of the Church in Latin it does protect the Scriptures. As the article I linked stated Latin was the only stable language at the time and because it wasn’t dependent on native languages, rather was a universal dead language it helped unity of communication of Sacred Scripture. So, again it was not to create some Da Vinci Code secret society and keep the masses ill informed as was the anti-Catholic propaganda repeated so often it became believed even though baseless. Using Latin was in fact to safeguard Sacred Scripture.
@ Joy
I would admit it if I were wrong, but I was right in saying by keeping the official language of the Church in Latin it does protect the Scriptures
No, Joy you have yet to admit you are wrong. And no, the scriptures (well the translations used by your church at least) have been changed multiple times over the centuries.
To give you a quick history the Vaticanus is in "classical" Latin....translated from Greek manuscripts and other Codex. There are some 3000 plus textual differences between that and the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest version we have and also in Koine Greek.
See:Codex Sinaiticus, "a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors." https://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/reply/60302/166458 (my bold highlights)
Please note the bold section. ALL the manuscripts used have been continually edited, added to, interpolated and "corrected" . You basic premise of the "preserved" "holy scripture" you revere is utterly without foundation.
Now, moving on, a monk, Jerome decoded that the Latin (classical translations) he was using were not accurately reflection of the passages of the Septuagint he had been reading in the Greek translations. He then made it his life's work to translate the manuscripts he had access to, from Hebrew ( a language they had been translated to from Classical Greek about 300 BCE) .
He produced a Translation into the "Lingua Franca" (Vulgar Latin or Latin of the people) of the Day in about 405CE. Starting with the 4 gospels only and then moving to Psalms and finally the Septuagint...note: Latin was the universal language of the Empire and the literate of the Empire both East and West This was the VULGATE Bible. Used as the standard bible for many years in the Latin Rite Church (That is your Church Joy) it was not declared the Official version until the Council of Trent in 1546.
Latin was not a "dead" Language. It was the universal language of the Intelligentsia and aristocracy of Europe until the mid 20th Century. Many universities would not admit an undergraduate without them displaying proficiency in Latin, and in some cases Classical Greek as well. Most schools throughout Europe taught Latin as part of the standard curriculum until the 1930's and many continued (like the school I attended) until the 1960's.
Another error Joy?
This version of the "bible" was officially retired in 1943 by Pius XII’s encyclical and new translations from the original manuscripts was adopted. The original manuscripts were in a variety of languages and many differences were noted.
It is very unlikely Joy, that you have ever even seen a copy of Jerome's original Vulgate. I quote from an official Catholic site: "After the Second Vatican Council, the psalms and New Testament were re-translated into Latin for use in the Mass. This, combined with most of the Old Testament completed by the Benedictine monks begun by Pius X, comprised the Nova Vulgata, the current translation approved by the Vatican for all Latin liturgical riteshttps://media.ascensionpress.com/2017/09/28/st-jerome-the-vulgate-and-ou...
I can assure you Joy, there are differences between the two Vulgates as is to be expected.
In short Joy, You ARE in error. The reasons you gave for Latin translation are frankly just made up. Your ignorance of the actual facts only matched by the obduracy that you display when confronted with the historical truth.
But let us not confuse wishful thinking with actual history....."Most Catholics have never seen or read from Vestus Latina, Jerome’s Vulgate, or Vulgata, and most probably never will.
(edited for grammar, tags and structure 'yet" added to 1st sentence)
Pages