In 3 jaar tijd afkomen van je schulden…

Well, th efirst in a belief that a fetus is ahuman being, but more relevant to that particular post in using an argument I admit was weak, as I stated in my last post.

CS: ‘that I am female’

I thought you were male because in a much earlier post I thought you had stated you served in the armed forces- non-WAC. It must have been someone w a similar moniker.

CS: ‘Legally and morally we recognize that infants (and certain other classes of humans like the mentally infirmed, paralyzed, comatose) are unable to procure their own nutritional and environmental needs (different from your criteria of being able to respire, shit, piss, and cogitate), and thus the state has an interest in coercing others to meet those needs. It’s my contention that this is no different than the state enforcing its interest to coerce a pregnant woman to provide for the vital needs of the fetus’

The manifest diff betw a fetus and an invalid, say, is that an invalid (or the others) are people who, sans their ills, wd be able to care for themselves. A healthy fetus or ill one- there is no ability to respire, etc. on one’s own.
Again, these are biological facts. These are not political conveniences.

CS: ‘To me this argument has some merit, but it unravels if technology makes it similarly possible to shift individual responsibility for incubating a fetus to the collective.’

But it still obviates the rights of the individual whether or not to propagate, something the state has ZERO business in, save, of course, were we overpopulated literally to the point that more births wd be some sort of ecological disaster; the equiv of restricting fre speech if you shout fire in a full theater. My position, interestingly, is actually the true conservative’ position on abortion, wheras yours is the activist/extremist one.

As for Roe v. Wade, that was political cowardice on many scores. And again, you try to shift the burden of proof off your side. Yours is the side claiming that- fill in the blank of many rotating arguments of fetuses- is true. So, prove it. Again, this is not me, but standard legal practice in the West. You claim a fetus has a soul. Prove the soul, prove the fetus has it- and from when; and on and on.

The fact that you, nor anyone on that side, nor anyone on the Right Wing side of say Creationism or any other Neolithic POVs ever seems to even endeavor a real explanation- and silly ID is a joke, says much about the real motivating factors- which is a desire to promote religious myth over rationalism, state control over individual liberty, and definitive psychosis over reasoned thought. I say nay, and luckily, so do most people in the enlightened and industrialized world.

W/o doubt religion had brought more ill than good into the world, but even if that were not true, is a narcotic fantasy really all that. I just think of the blissful Eloi from Wells’ The Time Traveller, and shudder at such a future if the Right Wing ever had its way.

On a side note, while running some errands today, I was thinking of how, in my last job, where I spoke w people all day long and got much info on their lives, that i found, to my surprise that religious people- esp. those in the ministry, tended to have more focus and drive in life vs. ‘yuppy scum’- i.e.- white middle class hedonistic suburbanites, and recall arguing this w my pal Joe- the doomed Atheist.

I appreciate that observation and while I can’t claim to be that focused or well-driven, I am more so as a religious person than I would be as a non-religious person (and this touches on what I was not able to articulate well in previous comment about my choice to believe and how this affects my life.)

Yet, to see your reversion in this post from reasonableness to absurdity- which if you were a woman might be attributable to hormones, makes me wonder why it is that extremists on both side are so damned insecure?

Reasonable in your world seems to equate with agreement with you while absurdity is any point at which someone disagrees (if you dispute this, then please point out logically what was so absurd about my last comment.) On the hormone issue, I’m not sure if you are aware that I am female, but since my position on abortion is consistent throughout my menstrual cycle I don’t think that hormones are affecting my cognition. But wow, you almost raised the juvenile “Is it your time of the month?” retort to the level of serious discussion. Bravo!

The Elsie comment made me laugh though, so thanks for that, I guess.

On the arguments about fetal vs. newborn autonomy, I think you are deliberately missing my point because I think you’re too intelligent to actually think that I was randomly regurgitating your rejected argument back at you. But I’ll try to restate my case in the event that you genuinely did miss it.

Legally and morally we recognize that infants (and certain other classes of humans like the mentally infirmed, paralyzed, comatose) are unable to procure their own nutritional and environmental needs (different from your criteria of being able to respire, shit, piss, and cogitate), and thus the state has an interest in coercing others to meet those needs. It’s my contention that this is no different than the state enforcing its interest to coerce a pregnant woman to provide for the vital needs of the fetus.

There are only two distinctions that I can reason between the status of the fetus pre-birth and the newborn infant post-partum. One is the distinction you make, that the newborn has achieved a significant level of autonomy to now become human; I do not see that you’ve made the case for that at all. Languishing for several hours before expiring (without having the means to prevent its own expiration) is not at all equivalent to having the self-sufficiency that would make the infant independent of a burdonsome degree of care by others.

The only other argument I can conjure would be that the state ought not to be allowed to force any one particular individual to provide the life support for another. You could reason, for example, that in the case of a newborn the mother can sign over responsibility to the state or to an adoptive family, or that in the case of the infirmed we can also commit them to the care of others rather than being personally liable. To me this argument has some merit, but it unravels if technology makes it similarly possible to shift individual responsibility for incubating a fetus to the collective. It’s on that basis that I was quoting your admission of that argument’s weakness back to you.

So, I suppose that we’re at a stalemate because we both seem to acknowledge that the determination of human status is the crux, but you define this as self-evidently and scientifically occurring at birth and I reject that this is self-evident and I claim that you haven’t given a reasonable scientific proof. I’ll point out too, that even in the Roe decision the SC opinion was that the determination of when the fetus becomes human was not self-evident and that attempts to make that determination scientifically would change with developing technology.

I’m going to leave it at that and you can have the last word if you wish.

Neither wd you nor any other person, but it can respire, shit, piss, and cogitate- amongst other things, and exist for hours on end. A fetus dies instantly. And it’s only one of many reasons. I expounded on the weakness that you quote, so why quote back a reason I already dismissed as a weak one for pro-abortionists? If I say that the anti-abortion side has already admitted the Silent Scream was BS why shd I still use that argument against them?

CS: ‘the untrue assertion that the newborn is afforded a different status on the basis of being newly autonomous’.

That’s actually biologically factual. Are you trying to be willfully dense, or are you simply trying to make up for admitting there’s no logical basis for religion?

CS: ‘We don’t have the option of engaging in whatever activities please us and then taking the life of another individual in order to reverse the consequences of our actions. So it still boils down to whether or not a human fetus is a human being prior to parturition.’

I agree, but a fetus is not a human being, and no amount of willful conflation can make that so. I can think you Elsie the Internet capable cow, but that does not mean you have udders.

On a side note, while running some errands today, I was thinking of how, in my last job, where I spoke w people all day long and got much info on their lives, that i found, to my surprise that religious people- esp. those in the ministry, tended to have more focus and drive in life vs. ‘yuppy scum’- i.e.- white middle class hedonistic suburbanites, and recall arguing this w my pal Joe- the doomed Atheist.

Yet, to see your reversion in this post from reasonableness to absurdity- which if you were a woman might be attributable to hormones, makes me wonder why it is that extremists on both side are so damned insecure?

Then again, I accept it. American Idol’s on tonight, and at least I can laugh at some losers who choose to expose their lack.

But even that argument is torn down by your own admission:

this is also a weak arg because in a few decades fetuses will be able to be grown w/o female hosts

Which, I assume, is why you choose to skirt away from the form of the argument that I made and instead make the untrue assertion that the newborn is afforded a different status on the basis of being newly autonomous.

If I do not want to propagate then so be it, BUT that does not mean I have to be celibate. I like sex, so does every other huiman, save for a few nuts.

Yeah, well, most people don’t want to die of heart attacks but in order to avoid that they DO have to take responsibility for maintaining their own health instead of eating Big Macs and lying on the couch all day because it’s not morally or legally accepted to have a physician kill one person and transplant a healthy heart into another person. We don’t have the option of engaging in whatever activities please us and then taking the life of another individual in order to reverse the consequences of our actions. So it still boils down to whether or not a human fetus is a human being prior to parturition.

CS: ‘I’ve been debating the counterarguments to your belief that religious people are either grasping for a crutch or they’ve been indoctrinated. That’s not the same as asserting that my beliefs are verifiable or that you should regard them in the same way that you regard verifiable truth. I’m only saying that your belief that religious ideas are highly improbable not only doesn’t prove them to be untrue (which you’ve acknowledged) but it also doesn’t prove that they are silly or irrational.’

Yet, you’ve admitted religion fills your void, so you’ve admitted, in other words, that i was correct in my surmise. I’ve yet to meet a religiot who can deny such, just as the Atheists I argued with had to admit they cd not disprove a deity. Again, these are not things I claim or make up, but fundaments of logic that transcend science and religion. It’s how our brains work and what actually separates us from other animals, which can feel love, empathy, etc. Yes, I admit improbability does not prove untruth, but I’d argue next to negigible odds and a belief in them is irrational and silly, but that’s a semantic term.

CS: ‘And I hardly see how my religion is a crutch because rather than being primarily a source of comfort, it actually makes life much more challenging.’

I cannot argue w yr subjective feeling on that matter. On a related note, a fellow who read our exchanges forwarded me a review of the latest Dawkins book and my response to it was:

‘On 1/24/07, Dan Schneider wrote:

Well, if you read some of my arg’s w the believer that I fwded from that blog, you know where I stand. 1) Dawkins’ 747 arg is silly, for the whole claim of evolution shows complexity almost always deriving from simplicity, so a God cd be a natural outgrowth of some larger universe.
2) Dawkins is too rabid. He takes on the mantle of disprover when theists have NEVER proved a thing. As in my arg, the opposition always admits it comes down to faith and a personal weakness. Atheists similarly have to admit their biases.
Agnosticism is therefore the only sane & logical response to religion or any other irational belief system- aliens, ghosts, etc.
However, as I’ve gotten to be a great reviewer myself, Orr’s analysis is as flawed as Dawkins’. Just two easy places to see- first was I KNEW that the Commy-atheist link was begging to be made, and it fails for three reasons. 1) Religiots have always killed in the name of their god/warrior/king. It is always at the forefront of why they conquer and kill or it’s the chief excuse to masque their powerhunger. 2) Communism is a de facto religion, save w/o a God/warrior/king. To claim Mao & Stalin killed for their atheism is as logically specious as claiming Hitler killed because he was a white man. Atheism is a relatively minor component of Comunism which is absent in Socialism, and both Russia and China have ‘tolerated’ most religion. Any pogroms that have gone on- w Stalin’s Jews, as example, have generally been leftovers from the cultural heritage of such nations. Or from the mental ravages of the leader. Pol Pot, as example, killed religiots and intellectuals, but despite being a Commy in name he more resembles Hitler’s approach.
To equate Communism w atheism w mass murder is like predicting we shd never let a Macedonian head the UN for he’s likely to go Alex the Great on the world. It’s simply folly.
A final flaw is that he simply dismisses Gould’s claim of two separate magisteria as simplistic. It’s reductivist, but not really wrong. Science cannot explain why you love Marj or me Jess, or things of that nature, and this simplicity that he damns in Gould, yet recaps himself in his take on Dawkins, which recaps Dawkins’ flaw, is on eof the reasons really good critics are needed. Alack, Orr prob got paid for a review that can’t hold the jockstrap of any of mine. Thanks for that depressing thought. DAN

———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Jan 23, 2007 6:58 PM
Subject: Orr dismisses Dawkins

Note that Orr dismisses Dawkins for the right reason: Dawkins does not take one single argument of Christianity seriously. This is serious dismissal, given the publication, given that Orr likely does not even believe in God himself–but he can and knows, intellectually, that he must, dismiss the poor arguments of Dawkins.
Don
NYbooks, Volume 54, Number 1 · January 11, 2007

Review
A Mission to Convert
By H. Allen Orr

The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins

Houghton Mifflin, 406 pp., $27.00

You can Google the review at yr leisure.

CS: ‘What is it that sets such a being apart from other forms of life? From past posts I presume you’d say, “consciousness and rationalityâ€?. But is it scientifically verifiable that THESE are the things that set humans apart? Or is that not axiomatic and thus beyond proof?’

Well, birth. Fetuses are by def parasites, but this is also a weak arg because in a few decades fetuses will be able to be grown w/o female hosts. My major arg is that fetuses are simply clumps of cells that are not fully developed nor autonomous. Even in vitro they are dependent on others. A newborn can survive w/o extraordinary means, and that individuals have a rt to their genetic destiny. If I do not want to propagate then so be it, BUT that does not mean I have to be celibate. I like sex, so does every other huiman, save for a few nuts. Sorry for calling the sexless nuts.

CS: ‘the human individual is on a continuous course toward full development from the time of conception until maturity, and birth is just one arbitrary point along that continuum.’

A continous course admits it has not arrived, to what? Birth, which is not arbitrary, but the ONLY point at which the fetus becomes autonomous. Again, this is something that was set long before you, I, humanity, or our lizard-like forebears were about.

CS: ‘I’m content with your pointing out my use of the word “voidâ€? and your explanation that your experience has not led you to perceive such a void (of course I still believe it’s there, but that’s a different story because if you haven’t perceived it than its understandable that you’ll doubt its reality.)’

Or, you and others could simply have holes that others do not. That seems the likelier hypothesis, in an Occam’s Razor approach.

The void claim voids any idea that you are not rational, which I never claimed. I prefer logic, but I do illogiacal things, or else I wd not be human. To be totally sane is, of itself, a show of insanity, for we all need to let loose.

As for abortion, you asre fully entitled to yr beliefs, but not to impose them on the majority. And, if you physically assault me or someone I care for while exercising that right, as I sd in a prior post, expect a boot to the jaw. I’m not a pansy liberal who will not stand up for my or others’ rights. Were I such a fey individual my life wd be alot easier.

Initially I found it ironic that you were accusing me of being narrowminded, but I assume that accusation came from a misunderstanding (that I was unable to accept your lack of religious belief). I hope I’ve clarified that this isn’t the case. And likewise, I think our lengthy discussion has led me further from my initial conclusion that you were unwilling to accept that I could be a rational being and still hold religious beliefs (I accept that you are saying that such beliefs do not seem rational to you, not that you are asserting that I can’t be rational and hold these beliefs- though your assertion of religious belief meeting the criteria for schizophrenia certainly veered pretty close to that.)

So in the end I think maybe neither of us is as narrowminded or as intolerant as we initially thought the other was.

But then of course its when the rubber hits the road that our tolerance is challenged, particularly with the abortion issue. You don’t feel you should have to tolerate my views or allow them to be part of the political discussion because you feel that they are completely based on theology, but I strongly disagree.

CS- ‘Tuuth exists irrespective of the number of people who recognize it as such, and the current state of religious practice is more a measure of the deficiencies of our culture and the deficiencies of Church leaders than any deficiency in God Himself.’
cosmo: Which is exactly what I’ve been saying. The diff that you cannot prove your truths. Believe them, but recognize them as ‘unverifiable truths’ to the rest of us.

It occurs to me that we’re probably arguing for no purpose. You see, I do recognize my beliefs as unverifiable truths. I’ve not been debating whether or not God exists (nor whether or not my religion is true); I’ve been debating whether or not people who hold beliefs such as mine are necessarily irrational (or put another way: whether or not faith and reason are compatible). I’ve been debating the counterarguments to your belief that religious people are either grasping for a crutch or they’ve been indoctrinated. That’s not the same as asserting that my beliefs are verifiable or that you should regard them in the same way that you regard verifiable truth. I’m only saying that your belief that religious ideas are highly improbable not only doesn’t prove them to be untrue (which you’ve acknowledged) but it also doesn’t prove that they are silly or irrational.

Another point I meant to clarify is that I’m not a creationist; I believe that the scientific theories of evolution and of the origins of matter in the universe are probably true. So, obviously I don’t take all Biblical stories literally. Don’t know if that puts me at a different place in your level of scorn, but since you referenced belief in a universe that’s 6,000 years old, etc, I just thought I’d clarify that this isn’t my personal belief. And too- I do think that creationists trying to put their beliefs into a scientific context are wrong to do so.

For the record, too, I don’t see how I could fall into either of your characterizations because I was raised by people you’d call “Homer Simpsons” (I’d say, Easter Christmas Catholics). There was no one else in my life that influenced me toward religious belief, no immersion experience like parochial school, etc. And I hardly see how my religion is a crutch because rather than being primarily a source of comfort, it actually makes life much more challenging.

And finally, on abortion you wrote:

[...]convenienmce does not dictate that the default position be with me. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. I make no claims of the soul- if you do, prove it. There are many other reasons I’m pro-abortion, but too numerous to get into. But, common law dictates that proof’s burden lies with the claimant. Argue with the Magna Carta- as well logic, not me.

But you are a claimant, I assume, in that you’d agree that law should protect against murder of a ‘born’ person. What is it that sets such a being apart from other forms of life? From past posts I presume you’d say, “consciousness and rationality”. But is it scientifically verifiable that THESE are the things that set humans apart? Or is that not axiomatic and thus beyond proof?

If you take that basis as your axiom, then it’s no more scientifically validated than my axiom which says that the human individual is on a continuous course toward full development from the time of conception until maturity, and birth is just one arbitrary point along that continuum.

So even without using the term or religious concept of “soul”, it seems evident to me that secular and religious people generally agree that human individuals are worthy of unique legal status (that we’re all claimants unto the law in that regard); thus it’s not unreasonable to say that we need to define whether these individuals’ lives begin at birth, conception, or some point in between. You are convinced (I think) that your definition of human life beginning with consciousness is self-evident (or perhaps you feel you can prove it?) but even when I put aside my religious beliefs that idea is not self-evident to me. A newborn is not capable of much rational thought, its brain is certainly not fully developed, myelination is far from complete, etc. If anything, maybe viability makes a bit more sense but that poses obvious problems too (viable with technological help, or without?)

It’s statistically almost impossible that any one random event wd occur. That you or I would ever be born and experience anything we have, to the 100th degree, but it’s almost inevitable that some thing or ones like us wd exist, and given enough time, inevitable. As for the Big Bang, I think it’s another creation yth and most scientists are finding evidence that it was a localized event in a far loger uni-omniverse, but the Big Bang is not a predictor. It can be hypothesized given certain facts still about.

CS: ‘My issue is with the dismissal of it as being unworthy of consideration.’

I have considered it. I’ve read the Bible and other religious texts, and have a 7 year Sunday School pin. I simply reject it and see it as myth. The Bible is GREAT literature, no doubt. I love some of the poesy. But it’s not history, nor science.

As for susceptibility to indoctrination? There are people more likely to fall prey to con men than others. Gullibility is no diff than beauty, stubbornness, or any other trait- thus some are gullible and others not. I cannot lift 500 lbs., but I can write great sonnets. Vive la diff!

CS: ‘as created beings, we each have a receptivity to seek understanding of our Creator. Some try to fill this void with other pursuits’

I bolded what I hypothesized earlier and you now confirm. I do so not to gloat that you feel a void, merely to show that it exists, and to state that this cd be a reason for yr religiosity.

Is it not likely, that as one w/o such a void I have no reason to believe in the unprovable?

CS: ‘I choose to believe it because it leads to an existence that I choose to have. In choosing what type of person I wish to be, I prefer to be one that believes because of how this belief affects me.’

Seems a tautology, but if it makes you happy, fine. Again, all I say is do NOT impose such on others, in public fora or debates where such an imposition takes away others rights. By you, I mean all folk w such a bent who impose their beliefs on others.

CS: ‘If that fact didn’t niggle at you, I believe you’d be more willing to brush off religion as simply irrelevant to you but fine for others if they choose to accept that it might be true against the odds. In other words, I’m making a variation of the argument about indifference being the opposite of love, rather than hate: love. If you really thought that religion was so ridiculous as to be unworthy of a rational mind, I contend that you’d more likely just ignore it (esp given your assertion that you believe it’s withering away anyway.) The intensity of your arguments against it seem to belie indifference though. Maybe I’m completely off base’

You are in that it’s not religion that is the crux. I love dialectic. If you’ve ever read my site, I get swamped with emails re: my criticisms of poetry/books/films. I have had these sorts of threads w deranged Charles Bukowski fans. And neither Bukoswki nor religion niggle at me. He’s a bad poet, and religion seems unwarranted by the material facts of the world. Arguing either point proves I merely enjoy dialectic, not that I hace nagging doubts that either claim I make is wrong. Although, I grant that the presence of a capital G God is likely more provable than the fact that Bukowski had any literary talent.

Well, I think Narnia was a much better mythos than LOTR, but then I think Tolkien ripped off the Arthurian legend for all it’s worth.

CS: ‘Couldn’t the existence of all of these myths in human history be a reflection of knowledge that was instilled by our Creator, rather than a reflection of a primative human need to create a creator?’

I wd not deny that. I’d just state the latter is more likely if looked thru the cold eye of history.

Q- put your religion aside and be objective. Is not the belief in Jesus as God every bit as statistically unlikely, in fact, more so, than the rapist alien hypothesis?

How statistically likely is it that random events brought about our existence? This belief is somewhat consistent with scientific observations of our universe and it’s on that basis that you would deem it rational, no? The Big Bang is rational because it predicts events that match observed events and phenomena, not because it is any more likely that all matter came into existence in that way than in any other way.

The difference between this concept and the religious one, of course, is that my “proof” for my beliefs is subjective. Therefore I understand your belief that its irrational and I have no problem with your decision not to accept this belief yourself. My issue is with the dismissal of it as being unworthy of consideration, because even though the yardstick is subjective, my yardstick isn’t any more irrational than yours.

To expand on that: I assume that you give me some credit for intelligence and rational thought (feel free to contradict that if it’s not the case.) I also infer from your comments that you believe that I must either have some innate flawed “need” to latch on to myth, or that I’ve been indoctrinated. This argument relies on the premise that even intelligent minds are susceptible to indoctrination. So, either you believe that you don’t have this fatal flaw or perhaps you see degrees of intelligence and judge yours to be of a higher degree to confer immunity to propaganda. Or perhaps it’s an assumption that secular progressives never propogandize?

After all, we know, from brain tests, that Virgin Marty sightings, UFO sightings, incubi experiences, and the like, all stem from similar areas of the brain. Is it not likely then, that religious belief is merely an aberration, just as those folks who believe the CIA is beaming messages into their brain, and wear aluminum foil in their hats

No, that conclusion is no more likely than the one that I draw: that as created beings, we each have a receptivity to seek understanding of our Creator. Some try to fill this void with other pursuits, and some (in my view, of course) pursue but take the wrong path. I don’t presume to KNOW that my path is the correct one, but I choose to believe it because it leads to an existence that I choose to have. In choosing what type of person I wish to be, I prefer to be one that believes because of how this belief affects me.

CS: ‘You say that religion hasn’t worked; I say that the real religion has barely ever been put into practice because it’s been distorted by imperfect humans and because the right path is the hard one.’

cosmo:Isn’t that just an excuse, because, since we are all mortal and corruptible, then ANY religion is bound to fail, since it’s a thing from a perfect deity. See, I’m trying to phrase that nicely.

Hah, yes, although you left out the capital “D” lol.
And I’ll agree with you: my framing of the argument makes it impossible to dispute. That’s just the nature of it though: the belief system is either true or not true, but there is simply no way to prove or disprove it. It seems to me that this frustrates you and leads you to want to dispute it by belittling its worth since you can’t prove it to be untrue. You admitted, for example, that you’re agnostic rather than atheist because you know that it’s logically impossible to disprove the existence of a Deity. If that fact didn’t niggle at you, I believe you’d be more willing to brush off religion as simply irrelevant to you but fine for others if they choose to accept that it might be true against the odds. In other words, I’m making a variation of the argument about indifference being the opposite of love, rather than hate: love. If you really thought that religion was so ridiculous as to be unworthy of a rational mind, I contend that you’d more likely just ignore it (esp given your assertion that you believe it’s withering away anyway.) The intensity of your arguments against it seem to belie indifference though. Maybe I’m completely off base, but I’m just sayin’…

I don’t have time for more right now but I’ll end by asking what are your impressions of thinkers like C S Lewis and J R R Tolkein (particularly the thoughts expressed in Tolkein’s poem Mythopeaia?) Couldn’t the existence of all of these myths in human history be a reflection of knowledge that was instilled by our Creator, rather than a reflection of a primative human need to create a creator?

Again, we define respect diff. I agree that people shd not be beaten or jailed for lunacy that does not harrm another nor commits crimes. But, I will not treat a raving nut who believes in Doomsday scenarios, 9/11 conspiracies, or that they are a prophet with the respect I will an average guy I work with. Why? Becauise their lunacy has lost my respect. Respect is not something that is a given. It is earned and can be lost.

As for ridicule- it can be a good purgative. Were this not true Johnny Cardon and his heirs wd not have careers and be loved by millions.

As for the rational- again, it’s not what I deem, but what the numbers deem. Odds are that the sun will rise in the am because the earth rotates. To believe that it will rise is not irrational. Yes, the sun could explode, but not likely. To believe that, say, a deity named Jesus Christ existed 2k years ago- w no historical proof of his existence, much less godhead, is irrational- every bit as irrational as the fact that millions of humans are kidnapped a year and impregnated by gray alien rapists from whatever star system.

Q- put your religion aside and be objective. Is not the belief in Jesus as God every bit as statistically unlikely, in fact, more so, than the rapist alien hypothesis? After all, we know, from brain tests, that Virgin Marty sightings, UFO sightings, incubi experiences, and the like, all stem from similar areas of the brain. Is it not likely then, that religious belief is merely an aberration, just as those folks who believe the CIA is beaming messages into their brain, and wear aluminum foil in their hats?

Again, on a % basis, to deny that the Jesus or God hypothesis is along shot, to be generous, is to say that YOUR wacky belief is better simply because you believe in God, and not aliens or CIA brain control plots.

And one does not win arguments by name calling, but by sticking ruthlessly to the points, which I am doing. And, having debated some in the past, I dare say that- if scored, I would be well ahead in this exchange. But, I don’t care on points, simply that, perhaps, you move outside of what I obsevre as your small c consevrative mindset and embrace a bit wider view of life.

If not, no skin off my apple, but recall it was you who took offense to things that a reasonable person shd not, and offense is always an active choice.

Now, here we go to a way that you lapse into typical blog comment distortion. You write: ‘On the abortion issue I fail to see how your holding a fetus in your hand proves that it was soulless.’

I did not claim holding a fetus disproved a soul. I wrote: ‘I know the science of abortion, I’ve been w women who’ve had abortions, and I’ve held a fetus in my hand.’ The first clause cd be widely expanded, but that was where the emphasis lay and why I stated it first. This sort of tactic, which, perhaps in the heat of yr typing, was accidental, is known as strawmanning. I did not state what you claimed, therefore I’ve no reason to answer that point.

CS: ‘’ve held a human embryo in my hand and I can’t prove that it was “ensouledâ€? but neither can you prove that the one(s) that you held weren’t.’

Exactly, but I’m not arguing for the existence of a soul, nor its mechanical installation. Are you? If so, lay it out, CS! Until you have, and convince me and others, any attempt to impose your view on others, over their rights and bodies, is a terrible violation of human decency, and a show of GREAT DISRESPECT, I might add!

CS- ‘Some people, without having a religious view, feel that since we can’t determine which of us is correct, the laws shouldn’t take your side over mine. If it’s unprovable, you assume that the default position should be yours. How convenient.’

Yes, but most don’t, and convenienmce does not dictate that the default position be with me. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. I make no claims of the soul- if you do, prove it. There are many other reasons I’m pro-abortion, but too numerous to get into. But, common law dictates that proof’s burden lies with the claimant. Argue with the Magna Carta- as well logic, not me.

CS- ‘You haven’t addressed my point in response to your citing of declining numbers of believers. Surely you see that logically this doesn’t lend any proof to whether or not God exists and whether or not my beliefs about revelation are correct? You say that religion hasn’t worked; I say that the real religion has barely ever been put into practice because it’s been distorted by imperfect humans and because the right path is the hard one. That doesn’t mean that my God isn’t real, it’s just proof that He does allow free will and unfortunately a lot of people exercise that in a way that is counter to our good.’

CS: ‘You haven’t addressed my point in response to your citing of declining numbers of believers. Surely you see that logically this doesn’t lend any proof to whether or not God exists and whether or not my beliefs about revelation are correct?’

Of course not. I don’t believe I stated that. Look, there cd be one gal with a belief that the cosmos is the dream of her stick of butter, and it cd be correct, and all of us just navel gazers. Alone, she could have life’s real truth. I just say ’tain’t likely- really ‘highly unlikely.

Again, I’m an agnostic and irreligious. If a God exists he/she/it has never touched my existence, or if it has, I’ve got a long list of grievances. But, sans remarkable proof for that remarkable claim, I have not the time to worry about such an infinitesimally unlikely thing.

CS: ‘You say that religion hasn’t worked; I say that the real religion has barely ever been put into practice because it’s been distorted by imperfect humans and because the right path is the hard one.’

Isn’t that just an excuse, because, since we are all mortal and corruptible, then ANY religion is bound to fail, since it’s a thing from a perfect deity. See, I’m trying to phrase that nicely.

CS: ‘That doesn’t mean that my God isn’t real, it’s just proof that He does allow free will and unfortunately a lot of people exercise that in a way that is counter to our good.

Ok, prove that he exists first, then prove to me the MO from his handbook. I won’t go into a disquisition how the claim of free will obviates an omnipotent and all knowing deity, because….well, I’m tired. More tomorrow, if replied to.

As I’ve already mentioned, I see that you are not specifically directing your ridicule at Christians (or religious people) to the exclusion of any other belief system that you deem to be irrational. That’s fine such as it is, but we see things differently on the pragmatic need to have discussions without belittling people. My take on that is that if the goal is to convince people, one will be more successful by avoiding the labelling of ideas in derogatory ways. If the goal is to gain self-satisfaction of believing that one has “won” an argument, then calling opponents juvenile, stupid, etc works just fine.

On the abortion issue I fail to see how your holding a fetus in your hand proves that it was soulless. I’ve held a human embryo in my hand and I can’t prove that it was “ensouled” but neither can you prove that the one(s) that you held weren’t. Some people, without having a religious view, feel that since we can’t determine which of us is correct, the laws shouldn’t take your side over mine. If it’s unprovable, you assume that the default position should be yours. How convenient.

You haven’t addressed my point in response to your citing of declining numbers of believers. Surely you see that logically this doesn’t lend any proof to whether or not God exists and whether or not my beliefs about revelation are correct? You say that religion hasn’t worked; I say that the real religion has barely ever been put into practice because it’s been distorted by imperfect humans and because the right path is the hard one. That doesn’t mean that my God isn’t real, it’s just proof that He does allow free will and unfortunately a lot of people exercise that in a way that is counter to our good.

B4 I respond in depth, you claim that this statement- ‘The only reason anyone ever believes in any religion is because of early indoctrination and/or weakness immanent at birth.’- is offensive.

My q- why? If you substitute aliens, crystal healing, belief in Bigfeet, monsters, ghosts, etc. there are only the believers in such that would be offended, but most sane folk wd say that they’re nuts. But, H- forfend, say that a belief in an all-knowing all-powerful deity is a sign of indoctrination or weakness of mind, then there’s one’s faith- as if faith in any belief, sans proof, is a good thing.
I do not believe in God, but I do not deny that a deity could exist. Showe me proof. There is none- not in cosmology, not in history, not in biology- none. Zero. The same goes with UFOs, but, frankly- I have seen footage of strange airships, and there hhave been odd physical signs in claimed areas of UFO sightings. While I think it’s a one in a billion shot that UFos have landed on this planet vs. a billion billio times less of a chance for an all-knowing deity, the UFO chance of existence is still almost infinitely more plausible.

So why are UFO believers nuts, and free to be mocked, while religiots are to be lauded? And, please, if you read my link, I destroyed a couple of Atheist twits with their illogic, so do claim I am an anti-religious bigot. I’m anti-irrationality, and most Atheists are as small-minded and dense as theists.

Also, why is Yahweh any more plausible than any other god- Zeus, Odin, anima?

CS: ‘To address that particular point, do you believe that there exists truth that can’t be proven through science, or can’t be directly experienced through our physical senses?’

Me: Obviously things like love and emotions or a belief system is beyond scientific measure, but not a material thing. That said, because I, or science cannot prove something does not mean that it does not exists. The simplest Occam’s Razor answer is that it’s beyond my senses or scientific means. But that does not necessitate a supernatural explanation. Because I do not know the machinmations of a magic trick does not make the magician a deity.

CS: ‘If not, what is literature for?’

Me: Don’t see the relevance of this query to the post- but it entertains and enlightens.

CS: ‘And if so, why do you define people as mentally weak or psychotic if their perception of such truth is different than yours? It’s one thing to state that someone’s beliefs seem irrational to you (your opinion) but it’s something different if you state that as fact.’

Me: You are free to believe mankind started 6k years ago from two folks named Adam & Eve, but there’s no ptroof, and mountains of evidence to the contrary. But the overwhelming ‘facts’ hightly and overwhemingly suggest that all religion is just mythos up close. Is there a chance that Bishop Usher was right? Sure- but it’s miniscule. I try to deal with reality and when a thing is so negligible as to be silly, I discount it’s rational posibilty.
Again, there are people who believe in ancient astronauts, in a Human Face on Mars, and all sorts of weird things. Are they truthtellers because they say so? This is the same sort of nonsense PC and Postmodernism thrives on, and from your posts you seem as against such stupidity as I am. Therefore, it seems that the only reason you are willing to use their tactics to defend silly beliefs- i.e.- religion, is because you were likely indoctrinated into a belief sysytem which has no justification otherwise.

CS: ‘There’s also a distinction between saying that some particular beliefs are unworthy of respect because they don’t meet your standard of rationality and saying that the person who holds such beliefs is not worthy of your respect.’

Me: In the sense that someone should not be beaten for wanton and willful stupidity. In the sense that they shd get a free pass to spill their idiocy to others- no. This is what debate and dialectic is about. I disagree w 90% of Bill Buckley’s opinions, but I love the fact that he is ruthless in his arguments. I attack the stupidity, not the person. If you keep on uttering dumb opinions, or racist opinions, to deduce that you are dumb and racist is not namecalling, but logic. By you, I mean rhetorically- not you, personally, CS.

CS: ‘The first is a rational criticism of an idea (always fair in my opinion) while the second is a lack of respect for a human being.’

Me: I agree. I did not disrespect any person. Again, I think you’re playing the PC/PoMo card here.

CS- ‘What I don’t understand is a viewpoint that sees all search for metaphysical truth to be unworthy of consideration, and all people who undertake it to be unworthy of respect.’

Me: Great. I don’t either. But when you try to mix the higher metaphysical plane with the material, watch out. I know the science of abortion, I’ve been w women who’ve had abortions, and I’ve held a fetus in my hand. It’s not a human being. PERIOD! The old acorn/oak tree analogy is apt. You can believe in ensoulment and all that other claptrap and if it makes you feel warm, great. DO NOT IMPOSE THAT ON ME! Would you want to have someone’s UFO ideology imposed on you? I don’t thinks so.

What is curious is that religiots are so UTTERLY CLUELESS as to not get when they are imposing their own myths and ideologies on others- be i w school prayer, abortion, or gay marriage- among recemt set-tos.

CS- ‘Tuuth exists irrespective of the number of people who recognize it as such, and the current state of religious practice is more a measure of the deficiencies of our culture and the deficiencies of Church leaders than any deficiency in God Himself.’

Me: Which is exactly what I’ve been saying. The diff that you cannot prove your truths. Believe them, but recognize them as ‘unverifiable truths’ to the rest of us. I won’t even touch the capitalized H in Himself- the Feminists can take you on for that.

CS- ‘I will give you credit for being an equal opportunity offender though. I see your defense that you attack atheists as well as theists, but I still don’t see the justification for either attack. I think it’s more important and more persuasive to debate the ideas themselves rather than provide judgements about why you think people hold those ideas. And by the way, has it occurred to you that in abandoning your anti-Christian bias to write that critique of the atheist’s film, that you simply substituted a more general bias against dogmatic people?’

Me: Well, I cd just as well state that you are equally dense in more than one field, but then I might hurt you feelings, right?
And, if you read my exchange with the atheists- and I mean really read, without bias, you’d see that they were attacking me, and I stuck to the facts, which eventually got both to admit they were wrong, however grudgingly.
In short, being offended is childish, and I have not been a child in decades.
Again, I debated the ideas, and won. I do not have an anti-Christian bias, It is a well-founded desire to battle ignorance- be it on the religious axis, the political, or especially- for moi, the artistic. That you see THAT as a bias says far more about your limitations in evaluating what is before you than any biases I supposedly have. And those limitations may very well be the basis for why you believe in things beyond the pale.
Fortunately, as this article assiduously avoids, more and more people are turning away from your method of encountering life. Since it has not worked very well since the dawn of time, perhaps a newer way is in order. Can’t hurt.

Q- why do you get so toucht whenevr anyone questions your beliefs? If you are really secure in them it shd roll off your back, but it doesn’t, which bespeaks a lack of conviction or an inablity to grasp what your belief is.

I have no problem with anyone questioning my beliefs, in fact I welcome such questioning. I do have a problem with people who find the need to insult when they do so, though, and that’s what I called you out on in Comment #6. Frankly I think your first post in this thread would have been stronger (and probably wouldn’t have raised my criticism) if you’d left out this statement:

The only reason anyone ever believes in any religion is because of early indoctrination and/or weakness immanent at birth.

To address that particular point, do you believe that there exists truth that can’t be proven through science, or can’t be directly experienced through our physical senses? If not, what is literature for? And if so, why do you define people as mentally weak or psychotic if their perception of such truth is different than yours? It’s one thing to state that someone’s beliefs seem irrational to you (your opinion) but it’s something different if you state that as fact. There’s also a distinction between saying that some particular beliefs are unworthy of respect because they don’t meet your standard of rationality and saying that the person who holds such beliefs is not worthy of your respect. The first is a rational criticism of an idea (always fair in my opinion) while the second is a lack of respect for a human being.

In my view, humans have an innate curiosity about our physical world and science is the rational way to satisfy that curiosity. But we also have an innate curiosity about our metaphysical existence. Some people may take other paths in exploring that and some choose not to explore it at all, and I respect that. What I don’t understand is a viewpoint that sees all search for metaphysical truth to be unworthy of consideration, and all people who undertake it to be unworthy of respect.

Oh, and since you repeatedly cite declining numbers of true believers, I will respond to that by saying that I wouldn’t have much use for a God who was created by popular decree. If the popularity of belief were the standard of reckoning, then we’d have a God who was as worthy of our worship as the American Idols are worthy of artistic praise. Tuuth exists irrespective of the number of people who recognize it as such, and the current state of religious practice is more a measure of the deficiencies of our culture and the deficiencies of Church leaders than any deficiency in God Himself.

I will give you credit for being an equal opportunity offender though. I see your defense that you attack atheists as well as theists, but I still don’t see the justification for either attack. I think it’s more important and more persuasive to debate the ideas themselves rather than provide judgements about why you think people hold those ideas. And by the way, has it occurred to you that in abandoning your anti-Christian bias to write that critique of the atheist’s film, that you simply substituted a more general bias against dogmatic people?

Again, as I stated above:

‘The only growth areas in all religions are at the fringes. Mainline denoms in Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and others, are fading. Most people are Homer Simpsons- religious only when asked. Churches in America, Europe, and even Latin America, are ghost towns.
The largest growing ‘affiliation’ is atheist/agnostic/no religion. This is a worldwide trend.’

Every study of religion has shown this, yet to watch the media- esp ABC in this nation, one wd think people are obsessed w religion. It ain’t true, but it’s an easy way to score ratings.

As for why I post? Why do or anyone else?

I post here, and a few other blogs, as well my own site, to try and enlighten. As example, I got Shaun and Mike VDG to understand the diff between a quote and an excerpt. A small victory, but that’s all one can usually expect in this world.

#6: ‘you show an incredible disrespect for people who have differing views.’

If you reread my prior post the only way anyone can find disrespect for a simple recitation of facts is by coming w a preconception. I get tired of biased folk claiming anyone who points out there bias being called the biased one.

From http://www.m-w.com/:
Main Entry: psy·cho·sis
Pronunciation: sI-’kO-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural psy·cho·ses /-”sEz/
Etymology: New Latin
: fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and behavior

Aside from disorganized speech- a physical thing, the rest describes religion, or a belief in the inapparent and unreal, to a T. That is not defamition of a behavior, but definition.

Would you be offended if someonme scoffed at beliefs in Bigfeet, lake monsters, gray alien rapists, witches? Likely you’d chuickle, too. But, call such silly beliefs religion and we’re sacred? If that nipple feels good to you and others, great, but it’s still a nipple. Sorry, reality is what it is, and trying to kow those who wd call it a nipple into silence does not change the nipple, but it is narrowminded.

And before you think I am picking on religiots- read this essay and the addendum, where I utterly destroyed two online and famous Atheists and their illogic:

http://www.cosmoetica.com/B310-DES250.htm

The point is that I detest stupidity- from whatever side, in religion, politics, science, or any other area in life. If I can enlighten a bit- ala on the quote-excerpt diff, then the rest of my rote day slaving away at my job is a little more enjoyable.

Q- why do you get so toucht whenevr anyone questions your beliefs? If you are really secure in them it shd roll off your back, but it doesn’t, which bespeaks a lack of conviction or an inablity to grasp what your belief is.

And what was narrowminded about my comment at #6?