Bells
Staff member
And what, do you believe, was his intention?
A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
You were discussing late-term abortion. Being pro-choice, you have to tell yourself that that taking the life of a developing fetus at a particular stage is not morally the same as killing a person. He wanted to know exactly what that particular stage was for you.
Not All, So No Problem
To simply revisit a point:
There's a part of me that just wants to say, "Hey, problem solved. You aren't behaving, as an individual, problematically, therefore it is only rational to conclude that there is no larger problem."
Going back to your earlier question—"Who says they do?"—I still find it a little mindbending. Really? For pages and pages in this thread, threads and threads in this subforum, and years and years at this site, we hear, "religion, religion, religion", and now that some have caught a whiff of the problem and are trying to backtrack, how is it we are supposed to erase this history?
It's easy enough to move forward, but not if we must revise the past in order to accommodate another's demand.
The change in terms offered by Aqueous Id is rather quite convenient, don't you think? And it certainly conflicts with (Q)'s definition of religion. And it also bucks the trend within atheistic communities; few if any limit their anti-religious outlook to "American fundamentalism". Specifically, I would suggest that AI is attempting to revise history.
Why would I?
That depends. Is it a rational criticism, or a vicious fantasy? In the case of the former, rational criticism is important. In the case of the latter, you wouldn't be doing yourself, atheists, atheism, or humanity in general any good.
It's actually one of the problems of the atheistic identity. As you might have noticed, the common identification frequently rallies around itself. At the same time, though, the common identification is entirely superficial.
It's kind of like religious people do; we've seen less of it in recent years, perhaps because the internet makes it easier to compile such data, but it always seemed ridiculous when Christians didn't want to answer for Christianity because this assertion wasn't Christian. You know, Baptists and Catholics. Seventh-Day Adventists and pretty much every other sect.
Do you and (Q) and Balerion share and advocate the common identity of being atheists? If so, how do you divorce yourself from the burdens of their irrationality? It is not intended to be an easy question, but just as "not all men" turns the discussion from a general issue of importance to a self-centered distraction, so, too, does trying to use oneself as an example of why the general issue isn't real.
Depends on the content of the rant. To the one, yes, people have their frustrations and every right to express them. To the other, what scrutiny do we invite in holding up those moments as examples of merit?
And that's you.
Of course it isn't. But I'm mocking George W. Bush in that moment, not the Society of Friends. Oh, right. They're not included in the atheist version of religion; Aqueous Id says so. Just as you are representative of the fact that no atheist ever claims to be the good guy.
(Come on, just a bit pedantic, there?)
There's a reason I'm an Apathetic, as such.
Atheists are human; humans are irrational. And where atheism treads into "religion" and "society" and "public policy", it cannot remain a mere assertion restricted unto itself. That is to say, is the problem with religion that it is "religion", or that religion overwhelmingly leads to irrational outcomes?
There is a reason why the assertion of rationality is important. And there is a reason many want to keep it as restricted as possible.
Of course human beings are irrational, and therefore so are atheists. But there is a difference between acknowledging the fact and relying on it.
I find it nearly laughable that you would suggest I don't.
There is a reason I think "they started it" isn't a useful argument, you know.
Not at all; I'm already confident of your answer, and for that reason am using the question to make a point: Is the problem with religion that it is "religion", or that religion overwhelmingly leads to irrational outcomes?
In the case of the former, atheism is just another religious assetion. The latter, however, prescribes opportunities for progress.
But, unfortunately, that progress is a separate issue. After all, atheism "isn't a movement or an ideology. It's just a lack of belief in God and it is based on each individual's beliefs or lack of belief."
To reiterate: Where atheism treads into "religion" and "society" and "public policy", it cannot remain a mere assertion restricted unto itself.
The atheist is the atheist is the atheist. Atheism is atheism is atheism.
But then an atheist wants to extend that atheism beyond that restricted sphere, but only in advocacy; it should remain immune to criticism, because it isn't a movement or an ideology, and therefore is effectively separated from what atheists do.
There is a difference between a religion in the abstract and what any neurotic human being does with it. Just like there is a difference between what my nation is supposed to be, on paper, and how we conduct ourselves as a society. (Did you know that the one part of the U.S. Constitution that is not binding is the part that tells us what it is for? Try reading through the Preamble, and then remind yourself that it has nothing whatsoever to do with any constitutional issue you've witnessed in our society during your lifetime.)
(Why do they hate us? It must be because of our freedom. Right? I mean, that's the essence of Bush's argument, and that distinction is important. In W's mind, they hate us because of our paper manifestation, the liberty protected by the Constitution; therefore, it has nothing to do with "American" actions around the world. Indeed, it is because of this very difference that I don't complain when some international seethes about "America" and "Americans". I can certainly step in and say, "Not all Americans", but that really does distract from, say the question of slaughtering Iraqi civilians, or American companies exploiting African resources and people, or the time that our pilots hit a clearly identified and beaconed British convoy in Afghanistan and one of Her Majesty's soldiers who lost a comrade in that incident explained that the most disturbing part is that his mate was killed on the second pass. Yeah, "Americans" are reckless cowboys? Sure, I can say, "Not all Americans", or, "Not me", but what is the point other than my own ego gratification? I can do more to assuage such frustration and progress toward resolution by talking through the issue instead of trying to oppose its discussion. Or, perhaps, consider that we might as well stop describing a certain conflict in the Middle East according to Israel-Palestine, because "not all Israelis" and "not all Palestinians" endorse the violence. Oh, good. Not all Israelis. Not all Palestinians. Now that we've established that, we can move on, since that means there is no Israel-Palestine conflict.)
Right. Not all atheists, therefore the larger issue doesn't exist.
Well, I'm looking at the idea of results. And, yes, I'm looking at that idea from the perspective of having just won a social revolution over the objections of the religious. And it's true that slamming those bigots for their homophobia had some effective purpose, but what finally won the day was the path from A to B to C.
And, yes, I got my Article IV, in the end. That was the last piece I wanted; I knew it was coming. DoMA was unconstitutional, and complaining to the courts that such and such are irrational bigots really didn't do much. Rather, it was the rational explanation of constitutional processes, the historical record, and simple applied logic that drove the nails.
And we needed Christians in our ranks. And we had them pretty much the whole time I've been participating in the Gay Fray. My first vigil featured a Baptist choir. Northern Baptists, of course. And Quakers. And, actually, a significant Catholic vote. And when it was an obvious case—the question of state-sponsored persecution—the course for those Christians was logically obvious. When it came to marriage, it was a tougher issue, as this was Scriptural.
But look how it went. In the end, superficial irrationality lost. They may have won battles, but they lost the war. And while there is certainly some consideration of selfishness—NCOD really was that important—in the conversion of some homophobes to sanity, it was also logic. I don't know how many Christians delved so deeply as to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but plenty came around giving consideration to judging not, walking two miles in the other's shoes, loving their enemy as their neighbor, and, ultimately, their faith in God's purpose. Perhaps the structure itself is irrational, but what won those hearts and minds was a rational application of faith.
I think you know well that claiming atheism "isn't a movement or an ideology" is a bit of a pedantic distraction. If atheism wasn't a movement or ideology, we would not be having this discussion because the idea that isn't a movement or ideology would exist in a different context.
Is the point of identifying as an atheist to effect positive change in society? Or is it just to have someone to bash whenever the impulse arises?
There is a reason I focus on the "rational".
Which is sort of the danger of such casual solidarity. Of course people have different opinions. You can't say, "We stand together!" and then, at the first criticism, scatter. Who gets to do that? And if you want to point to certain religionists, well, what's the purpose then? Are you opposed to that behavior, or do you want it for your own identification?
Indeed. Which is why I wonder at your defense of the atheistic reservation. That is to say, if you want to stand apart from other people, why throw your hat in with them?
Think of it this way: I have great respect for your generally rational approach. I have little or no respect for the delusional idiocy of some of our neighbors, and am a bit disgusted by some others' forfeiture of intellect in defense of the cause that doesn't exist. The sacrifice of the intellect is that in which God most delights. I think it was Aquinas who asserted that one.
So think about what "atheism" looks like in our cultures. I can't speak for Australia, but in the U.S.? If this new atheism actually looked more like, say, you and I trying to chase down the historical root of a particular bigotry, or something not evangleical, such as MSF or Planned Parenthood, and a little less like, say, Dawkins' insanity and Hitchens' bitterness, this conversation would probably not be taking place.
But what is the vanguard of atheism?
Does the fact that "not all atheists" are that way nullify the larger outlook? Does the fact that "not all Christians" are so bigoted nullify the notion that Christians persecute atheists? Does the fact that "not all men" are rapists nullify Infinite Protection Advocacy because there is no rape culture or rape problem? Not all Americans supported the illegal invasion of Iraq, so, you know, does that mean there is no larger issue of "American" action abroad? And before you ask if I'm fucking shitting you with one of those questions, let us be clear that it's true, I expect the answer is no, it does not nullify or erase those situations and concerns. Which is sort of the point:
I get it. Not all atheists. Diversity. All that.
But does it really mean there is no larger issue?
Bells said:
To simply revisit a point:
Consider a rhetorical conundrum, please. Recently I made a point of a cartoon about rape culture and the insistent, self-centered presence of the "not all men" argument. And while the initial response was about what we might expect, I think we can borrow the concept for illustrative purposes here.
Not all atheists? Of course not. But this argument is, to the one, as self-centerd as the "not all men" argument; to another, as much as we might see versions of "not all atheists", I wonder how well such constant reminders of "not all Christians" or "not all Muslims" would go over; to a third, if any member of any group wishes to rally 'round the label on any particular occasion, it behooves them to attend the actual point, lest they embarrass themselves such as so many Christians in the Puget Sound area did coming to the aid of an accused child molester.
Not all atheists? Of course not. But this argument is, to the one, as self-centerd as the "not all men" argument; to another, as much as we might see versions of "not all atheists", I wonder how well such constant reminders of "not all Christians" or "not all Muslims" would go over; to a third, if any member of any group wishes to rally 'round the label on any particular occasion, it behooves them to attend the actual point, lest they embarrass themselves such as so many Christians in the Puget Sound area did coming to the aid of an accused child molester.
There's a part of me that just wants to say, "Hey, problem solved. You aren't behaving, as an individual, problematically, therefore it is only rational to conclude that there is no larger problem."
Going back to your earlier question—"Who says they do?"—I still find it a little mindbending. Really? For pages and pages in this thread, threads and threads in this subforum, and years and years at this site, we hear, "religion, religion, religion", and now that some have caught a whiff of the problem and are trying to backtrack, how is it we are supposed to erase this history?
It's easy enough to move forward, but not if we must revise the past in order to accommodate another's demand.
The change in terms offered by Aqueous Id is rather quite convenient, don't you think? And it certainly conflicts with (Q)'s definition of religion. And it also bucks the trend within atheistic communities; few if any limit their anti-religious outlook to "American fundamentalism". Specifically, I would suggest that AI is attempting to revise history.
Why would I?
That depends. Is it a rational criticism, or a vicious fantasy? In the case of the former, rational criticism is important. In the case of the latter, you wouldn't be doing yourself, atheists, atheism, or humanity in general any good.
It's actually one of the problems of the atheistic identity. As you might have noticed, the common identification frequently rallies around itself. At the same time, though, the common identification is entirely superficial.
It's kind of like religious people do; we've seen less of it in recent years, perhaps because the internet makes it easier to compile such data, but it always seemed ridiculous when Christians didn't want to answer for Christianity because this assertion wasn't Christian. You know, Baptists and Catholics. Seventh-Day Adventists and pretty much every other sect.
Do you and (Q) and Balerion share and advocate the common identity of being atheists? If so, how do you divorce yourself from the burdens of their irrationality? It is not intended to be an easy question, but just as "not all men" turns the discussion from a general issue of importance to a self-centered distraction, so, too, does trying to use oneself as an example of why the general issue isn't real.
Depends on the content of the rant. To the one, yes, people have their frustrations and every right to express them. To the other, what scrutiny do we invite in holding up those moments as examples of merit?
And that's you.
Of course it isn't. But I'm mocking George W. Bush in that moment, not the Society of Friends. Oh, right. They're not included in the atheist version of religion; Aqueous Id says so. Just as you are representative of the fact that no atheist ever claims to be the good guy.
(Come on, just a bit pedantic, there?)
There's a reason I'm an Apathetic, as such.
Atheists are human; humans are irrational. And where atheism treads into "religion" and "society" and "public policy", it cannot remain a mere assertion restricted unto itself. That is to say, is the problem with religion that it is "religion", or that religion overwhelmingly leads to irrational outcomes?
There is a reason why the assertion of rationality is important. And there is a reason many want to keep it as restricted as possible.
Of course human beings are irrational, and therefore so are atheists. But there is a difference between acknowledging the fact and relying on it.
I find it nearly laughable that you would suggest I don't.
There is a reason I think "they started it" isn't a useful argument, you know.
Not at all; I'm already confident of your answer, and for that reason am using the question to make a point: Is the problem with religion that it is "religion", or that religion overwhelmingly leads to irrational outcomes?
In the case of the former, atheism is just another religious assetion. The latter, however, prescribes opportunities for progress.
But, unfortunately, that progress is a separate issue. After all, atheism "isn't a movement or an ideology. It's just a lack of belief in God and it is based on each individual's beliefs or lack of belief."
To reiterate: Where atheism treads into "religion" and "society" and "public policy", it cannot remain a mere assertion restricted unto itself.
The atheist is the atheist is the atheist. Atheism is atheism is atheism.
But then an atheist wants to extend that atheism beyond that restricted sphere, but only in advocacy; it should remain immune to criticism, because it isn't a movement or an ideology, and therefore is effectively separated from what atheists do.
There is a difference between a religion in the abstract and what any neurotic human being does with it. Just like there is a difference between what my nation is supposed to be, on paper, and how we conduct ourselves as a society. (Did you know that the one part of the U.S. Constitution that is not binding is the part that tells us what it is for? Try reading through the Preamble, and then remind yourself that it has nothing whatsoever to do with any constitutional issue you've witnessed in our society during your lifetime.)
(Why do they hate us? It must be because of our freedom. Right? I mean, that's the essence of Bush's argument, and that distinction is important. In W's mind, they hate us because of our paper manifestation, the liberty protected by the Constitution; therefore, it has nothing to do with "American" actions around the world. Indeed, it is because of this very difference that I don't complain when some international seethes about "America" and "Americans". I can certainly step in and say, "Not all Americans", but that really does distract from, say the question of slaughtering Iraqi civilians, or American companies exploiting African resources and people, or the time that our pilots hit a clearly identified and beaconed British convoy in Afghanistan and one of Her Majesty's soldiers who lost a comrade in that incident explained that the most disturbing part is that his mate was killed on the second pass. Yeah, "Americans" are reckless cowboys? Sure, I can say, "Not all Americans", or, "Not me", but what is the point other than my own ego gratification? I can do more to assuage such frustration and progress toward resolution by talking through the issue instead of trying to oppose its discussion. Or, perhaps, consider that we might as well stop describing a certain conflict in the Middle East according to Israel-Palestine, because "not all Israelis" and "not all Palestinians" endorse the violence. Oh, good. Not all Israelis. Not all Palestinians. Now that we've established that, we can move on, since that means there is no Israel-Palestine conflict.)
Right. Not all atheists, therefore the larger issue doesn't exist.
Well, I'm looking at the idea of results. And, yes, I'm looking at that idea from the perspective of having just won a social revolution over the objections of the religious. And it's true that slamming those bigots for their homophobia had some effective purpose, but what finally won the day was the path from A to B to C.
And, yes, I got my Article IV, in the end. That was the last piece I wanted; I knew it was coming. DoMA was unconstitutional, and complaining to the courts that such and such are irrational bigots really didn't do much. Rather, it was the rational explanation of constitutional processes, the historical record, and simple applied logic that drove the nails.
And we needed Christians in our ranks. And we had them pretty much the whole time I've been participating in the Gay Fray. My first vigil featured a Baptist choir. Northern Baptists, of course. And Quakers. And, actually, a significant Catholic vote. And when it was an obvious case—the question of state-sponsored persecution—the course for those Christians was logically obvious. When it came to marriage, it was a tougher issue, as this was Scriptural.
But look how it went. In the end, superficial irrationality lost. They may have won battles, but they lost the war. And while there is certainly some consideration of selfishness—NCOD really was that important—in the conversion of some homophobes to sanity, it was also logic. I don't know how many Christians delved so deeply as to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but plenty came around giving consideration to judging not, walking two miles in the other's shoes, loving their enemy as their neighbor, and, ultimately, their faith in God's purpose. Perhaps the structure itself is irrational, but what won those hearts and minds was a rational application of faith.
I think you know well that claiming atheism "isn't a movement or an ideology" is a bit of a pedantic distraction. If atheism wasn't a movement or ideology, we would not be having this discussion because the idea that isn't a movement or ideology would exist in a different context.
Is the point of identifying as an atheist to effect positive change in society? Or is it just to have someone to bash whenever the impulse arises?
There is a reason I focus on the "rational".
Which is sort of the danger of such casual solidarity. Of course people have different opinions. You can't say, "We stand together!" and then, at the first criticism, scatter. Who gets to do that? And if you want to point to certain religionists, well, what's the purpose then? Are you opposed to that behavior, or do you want it for your own identification?
Indeed. Which is why I wonder at your defense of the atheistic reservation. That is to say, if you want to stand apart from other people, why throw your hat in with them?
Think of it this way: I have great respect for your generally rational approach. I have little or no respect for the delusional idiocy of some of our neighbors, and am a bit disgusted by some others' forfeiture of intellect in defense of the cause that doesn't exist. The sacrifice of the intellect is that in which God most delights. I think it was Aquinas who asserted that one.
So think about what "atheism" looks like in our cultures. I can't speak for Australia, but in the U.S.? If this new atheism actually looked more like, say, you and I trying to chase down the historical root of a particular bigotry, or something not evangleical, such as MSF or Planned Parenthood, and a little less like, say, Dawkins' insanity and Hitchens' bitterness, this conversation would probably not be taking place.
But what is the vanguard of atheism?
Does the fact that "not all atheists" are that way nullify the larger outlook? Does the fact that "not all Christians" are so bigoted nullify the notion that Christians persecute atheists? Does the fact that "not all men" are rapists nullify Infinite Protection Advocacy because there is no rape culture or rape problem? Not all Americans supported the illegal invasion of Iraq, so, you know, does that mean there is no larger issue of "American" action abroad? And before you ask if I'm fucking shitting you with one of those questions, let us be clear that it's true, I expect the answer is no, it does not nullify or erase those situations and concerns. Which is sort of the point:
Why, in your opinion, should atheism be the exception?
I get it. Not all atheists. Diversity. All that.
But does it really mean there is no larger issue?
Last edited:
It would depend on thr context, naturally. I mean, you're proving my point by asking me to judge the point solely on the phrasing of a question, which is absurd.
As usual, you can't address the point, so here comes the ad hom.
Fundamentally Irrational
Perhaps it seems almost silly, but it might be necessary to remind that the question inherently ignored the standard he was challenging. For instance if someone says, "He wanted to know exactly what that particular stage was for you", they're overlooking the very nature of the dryfoot assertion.
One of the key words there is "re-attached". Meaning the cord has already been severed. And even if one invokes those bizarre fantasies about a woman in labor deciding to have an abortion to get revenge on the boyfriend she thinks cheated on her, there really is no question under the dryfoot assertion that personhood is resolved by the time that cord is severed.
So if someone suggests Capracus "wanted to know exactly what that particular stage was for you", why in the world would he ask about a point that comes well after the standard establishes personhood?
Any suggestion that Capracus "wanted to know exactly what that particular stage was for you" is fundamentally irrational.
Bells said:
Perhaps it seems almost silly, but it might be necessary to remind that the question inherently ignored the standard he was challenging. For instance if someone says, "He wanted to know exactly what that particular stage was for you", they're overlooking the very nature of the dryfoot assertion.
One of the key words there is "re-attached". Meaning the cord has already been severed. And even if one invokes those bizarre fantasies about a woman in labor deciding to have an abortion to get revenge on the boyfriend she thinks cheated on her, there really is no question under the dryfoot assertion that personhood is resolved by the time that cord is severed.
So if someone suggests Capracus "wanted to know exactly what that particular stage was for you", why in the world would he ask about a point that comes well after the standard establishes personhood?
Any suggestion that Capracus "wanted to know exactly what that particular stage was for you" is fundamentally irrational.
Some people believe that even young babies have no right to life.
They would like the option of post birth abortion of newborns.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/w...hats-why-it-will-boost-the-pro-life-movement/
Wow. This thread defines "meandering". But, hey, we're all having fun, right?
Except, perhaps, Tiassa...
@ Tiassa: I've thought about this a lot and although someone else mentioned it already, I think "Empathy" is the keystone to what you are asking...
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
AI said:
Tiassa said:
Isn't that the kind of abusive rhetoric that rank-and-file participants are warned about?
Tiassa said:
So how should one distinguish between righteous indignation on one hand, and "abject bigotry just because 'they started it'" on the other?
Unless there's a stout criterion there, one that's abstract enough to avoid special-pleading bias, this whole thing just devolves into another battle to be on top.
A believes that he has the freedom (even the responsibility) to rip B to shreds because A judges B to be a 'bigot'. Any attacks by B on A are just additional evidence of B's abominable bigotry. Meanwhile B will be proclaiming equally stoutly that he's the one battling intolerable abuses and insisting that his righteous crusade justifies his own assholism.
In this thread you and your enablers seem to be one pole of assholism Tiassa, with a few of our more outspoken atheists willingly playing the role of your opposing counter-assholes. Neither side seems to be very thoughtful or mature, and neither seems to be motivated in the least bit by any feelings of empathy or good-will.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Wouldn't it be better to "disdain" the use of "religion" to justify particular unacceptable acts?
Disdaining "religion" in general because some selected "religionists" do and believe things in the name of religion that we don't like is an error in generalization. It's like saying that the political left sucks en-toto because of the crimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. In both the political and religious examples, a vast number of people who don't remotely agree with the abuses we condemn are still getting swept up in the over-broad generalization and becoming the subjects of unfair disdain.
What you voiced is the same argument that many of our atheists use. And it's precisely the same error in generalization that Tiassa led off this thread with, when he issued his crazy school-yard challenge to all atheists. He didn't seem concerned in the least with what atheists really think. And some atheists seem equally unconcerned with what individual "religionists" think. People are just reacting reflexively against their own personal mental caricatures of their supposed opponents.
That's how 'bigotry' works. That's what it is. It's why blacks were once widely treated as caricatures instead of as individual people.
Obviously there are abuses that need to be addressed. Many intolerable things are done in the name of religion. And atheists can sometimes be simplistic self-righteous assholes. It's all true. None of it should be immune from criticism.
But those criticisms need to be done intelligently, persuasively and well.
What we need to be doing is focusing our opposition more precisely on those things that we believe are unjustifiable, instead of over-generalizing and spraying our dislike and disdain like an idiot fire-hose on the guilty and innocent alike.
Notes Around
Given that I've been hammering on a lack of pathos, I'm trying very hard to find a way to respond to you without laughing my ass ... er ... um ... right.
And, yes, someone did claim empathy before resting on an utter lack thereof.
You find that abusive? I would rather our neighbor be confused, since the alternative is willful misrepresentation.
And given that the rational obligation of atheism ends at the rational assertion that there is no God, it is understandable why the point about being rational is so confusing to many atheists. As such, it would also seem more likely that our neighbor is simply confused. I would hate to think he's simply being deliberately dishonest.
You really should try reading the paper.
To the one, it's philosophy. To the other, the article is written in the context of euthanasia. And the conclusion shows that, while the paper is, philosophically, utter shite, you've managed to misrepresent it.
Furthermore, JME editor Julian Savulescu's defense of publishing the article further demonstrates your misrepresentation:
Of course, that's what happens when you jump at the say-so of a dishonest advocacy blogger pushing traffic to a religious newspaper that just happens to be one of his other writing gigs.
____________________
Notes:
Giubilini, Alberto and Francesca Minerva. "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" Journal of Medical Ethics. February 23, 2012. JME.BMJ.com. May 7, 2014. http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
Savulescu, Julian. "'Liberals are Disgusting': In Defence of the Publicantion of 'After-Birth Abortion'". BMJ Group Blogs. February 28, 2012. Blogs.BMJ.com. May 7, 2014. http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics...e-of-the-publication-of-after-birth-abortion/
Randwolf said:
Given that I've been hammering on a lack of pathos, I'm trying very hard to find a way to respond to you without laughing my ass ... er ... um ... right.
And, yes, someone did claim empathy before resting on an utter lack thereof.
• • •
Yazata said:
You find that abusive? I would rather our neighbor be confused, since the alternative is willful misrepresentation.
And given that the rational obligation of atheism ends at the rational assertion that there is no God, it is understandable why the point about being rational is so confusing to many atheists. As such, it would also seem more likely that our neighbor is simply confused. I would hate to think he's simply being deliberately dishonest.
• • •
Captain Kremmen said:
You really should try reading the paper.
To the one, it's philosophy. To the other, the article is written in the context of euthanasia. And the conclusion shows that, while the paper is, philosophically, utter shite, you've managed to misrepresent it.
Furthermore, JME editor Julian Savulescu's defense of publishing the article further demonstrates your misrepresentation:
The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.
Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.
Of course, many people will argue that on this basis abortion should be recriminalised. Those arguments can be well made and the Journal would publish a paper than made such a case coherently, originally and with application to issues of public or medical concern. The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression. The Journal welcomes reasoned coherent responses to After-Birth Abortion. Or indeed on any topic relevant to medical ethics.
Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.
Of course, many people will argue that on this basis abortion should be recriminalised. Those arguments can be well made and the Journal would publish a paper than made such a case coherently, originally and with application to issues of public or medical concern. The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression. The Journal welcomes reasoned coherent responses to After-Birth Abortion. Or indeed on any topic relevant to medical ethics.
Of course, that's what happens when you jump at the say-so of a dishonest advocacy blogger pushing traffic to a religious newspaper that just happens to be one of his other writing gigs.
____________________
Notes:
Giubilini, Alberto and Francesca Minerva. "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" Journal of Medical Ethics. February 23, 2012. JME.BMJ.com. May 7, 2014. http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
Savulescu, Julian. "'Liberals are Disgusting': In Defence of the Publicantion of 'After-Birth Abortion'". BMJ Group Blogs. February 28, 2012. Blogs.BMJ.com. May 7, 2014. http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics...e-of-the-publication-of-after-birth-abortion/
Bells
Staff member
Then you clearly misunderstood my posts. I did not misrepresent his question. I laughed at it because it was possibly one of the most stupid things I have seen come out of the abortion debate. And I'm talking as someone who has had to argue against the merits of giving small girls 'foetus dolls' to push the pro-life agenda and also argued against keeping a dead woman alive so that a hospital could grow a child inside her without her consent and against the wishes of her husband and her parents. So by the time we got to the 'Turducken' argument, frankly, it was so stupid and moronic that I laughed at it.
Would you like to know the reasons why I refuse and continue to refuse to take it seriously and why his question has no basis in anything that one could attribute to morality?
1) He asked a what if question which would have amounted to stuffing a born baby back into the mother.. In other words, his question cannot possibly be based on reality. It would have been just as plausible and would have deserved the same merit if he had asked what if the mother's vagina opened up into a gaping cavern and her "baby" walked out fully grown.
2) He completely disregards the fact that doing so would murder a baby. Because you know, taking a newborn baby, reattaching its umbilical cord and stuffing it back into the mother as if she's a fucking turkey being stuffed for thanksgiving would kill the "baby" he was so obsessively angry about in the abortion debate.
3) His moronic question tore straight to the actual issue of the abortion debate, which is the rights of the mother over her baby. In comparing her or turning her into the equivalent of a turkey about to turned into a god damn turducken, he completely and absolutely disregards her very existence and her right to life. Because in case you aren't aware, the human body and a woman's reproductive organs are not designed to have a baby stuffed back in after it has been born.
So no, I didn't misrepresent his stupid question. I just refused to give it the due consideration he felt it deserved because he suddenly pitched a fit because he wrongly believed I was into killing babies. We are talking about a man who objected to the use of a dead woman's body to grow a baby in for months and then changed his mind when he realised that her life support was turned off after she was 24 weeks and he felt that perhaps that may have been the wrong decision and that keeping a dead woman alive without any prior consent and based solely on the religious beliefs of the hospital may have been a better option, because she had passed that magical 24 week period and that letting her die with some dignity was killing "the baby". This is what the pro-life debate had come to. Frankly, it was as stupid as some of the stupid crap we've seen come out in the various rape and abortion threads on this site.
And you actually think that I should have given it due consideration and that I should have considered what stage was right for me?
How about this? What stage is right for the mother? Instead of disregarding the mother and the woman and trying to ask 'what if she's turned into a turducken', how about *gasp* she decides?
What stage, Bells? At what stage is taking the life of a developing fetus not morally the same as killing a person. Draw a line in the sand.
Atheist Fundamentalism; what is it? Draw a line in the sand.
At all stages it is not the same, legally or morally. Its similarity to killing a person increases as the fetus comes closer to term, and decreases the farther you go back.
Before sperm and egg meet, no one would claim that it is a person.
After sperm and egg meet, but before implantation occurs, very few people would claim it is a person. Indeed, most of these blastocysts don't implant and get flushed out with the menses. We do not hold funerals for them, because they are in no way the same as people.
After implantation, but before signs of pregnancy are visible, some people start claiming it's a person; most people do not.
As soon as pregnancy is detectable a lot of people start thinking of it as at least a potential person.
As it develops it gathers more and more characteristics of a person. By four weeks it is an interesting looking ball of cells that no layperson would recognize as human. By six weeks it looks like a worm, recognizable only if someone has seen pictures of fetal development. By eight weeks it looks like an alien. By twelve weeks the fetus looks more human, and is now moving and showing brain activity.
By thirty weeks it looks very much like a human baby and can survive outside the womb with a lot of care and medical attention. At that point almost everyone agrees that it's a lot like a person.
When it's born it gains the legal definition of a person and all the rights that accrue to children.
All of the above means that while there is a hard line to define when it becomes a person legally (birth) there is a long, gradual process by which it goes from what we would consider a non-person to a person.
¿Irrational Rationalism?
It is irrational to continue this stupid and insupportable misrepresentation.
The challenge was directed to Sciforums alleged "atheists".
So don't tell me about "pole[s] of assholism", Yazata. It is irrational to base your opinion on deliberately false assertions of fact.
Rather, perhaps you might tell me: What is Sciforums' contribution to atheism? If someone arrives here exploring atheism, what do they see?
Are the dominant voices of our atheistic community really so rational? I mean, look at the backtracking taking place. Now we're supposed to believe that all this stuff over these years about "religion" really just refers to "American fundamentalism"? Not too long ago, "religion" meant "belief in God".
To what degree does our atheistic examination of religion actually respect the historical record, and to what degree does it redefine the historical record?
Is this about converting the religious to reason? Is it just a soapbox for proclaiming how evil religious people are?
Think about it; we get overdoses of supremacism from (Q), tinfoil egocentrism and conspiracy theories from Balerion, redefinitions and rejections of the historical record in favor of customized ego gratification, and an open rejection of any commitment to rationality beyond arguing that God doesn't exist.
I used to make the point to religious people: When we see the televangelists and politicians, open hypocrisy, delusional irrelevance, raging bigotry, and general greed of such prevalent Christendom in the United States, why would any intelligent person want to join them?
Seriously, it's not that my daughter's maternal grandfather is wrong when he touts the historicity of his Sabbatarianism; rather, this is how petty one gets when joining the Seventh-Day Adventists. The Pope is the Devil, Sunday-worshipers will eventually imprison and exterminate Sabbatarians, and my goodness, sir, do you know how much better SDAs are than anyone else? When you listen to that sort of small-minded shite, why would you want to denigrate yourself like that? It's not just the hypocrisy of his pious pride in contrast to what Jesus said about pious pride, but also the juvenile, unflinching insistence of the sort that makes other people who aren't among this group of self-proclaimed Elect cringe.
And as this discussion goes along, yes, I will insist on a certain minimal degree of ratonality. If, for instance, you want to be upset that I took a swing at all atheists everywhere, knock yourself out. Just don't try to make it my problem.
There is a reason this is important to me, and that reason is that atheistic dysfunction, zeal in excess, and abandonment of rationality actually makes it harder to ward off the belligerence and intrusion of various religious persons, organizations, and communities.
I mean, I get it. You have feelings, and they're important, too.
But if you wish to identify with a movement, it's not all benefit all the time.
(Q) is the atheistic equivalent of the religious nuts who think homosexuality is pedophilia or bestiality. Balerion? Michael? Come on, tell me where the rationality is in tinfoil. Trooper? Telling Bells to draw a line in the sand about abortion? Um, right. That line in the sand is already on record. What's rational about Trooper's demand? Spidergoat, who wants religious people to convert, but doesn't want to be helpful and respectful as they do? Rhetorical sleights all over the place? This is what the rational assertion of atheism brings?
It's one thing to point out that there is plenty of writing here by atheists that isn't so ridiculous, but it's generally not about atheism specifically. And, besides, according to many atheists in our community, those posts have nothing to do with atheism.
Is Sciforums, in the question of atheism, an advocacy site, or a hate site?
The only people who aren't expected to answer for common identification are those who reject all common identification.
Well, those folks, and, apparently, atheists.
Yazata said:
It is irrational to continue this stupid and insupportable misrepresentation.
The challenge was directed to Sciforums alleged "atheists".
So don't tell me about "pole[s] of assholism", Yazata. It is irrational to base your opinion on deliberately false assertions of fact.
Rather, perhaps you might tell me: What is Sciforums' contribution to atheism? If someone arrives here exploring atheism, what do they see?
Are the dominant voices of our atheistic community really so rational? I mean, look at the backtracking taking place. Now we're supposed to believe that all this stuff over these years about "religion" really just refers to "American fundamentalism"? Not too long ago, "religion" meant "belief in God".
To what degree does our atheistic examination of religion actually respect the historical record, and to what degree does it redefine the historical record?
Is this about converting the religious to reason? Is it just a soapbox for proclaiming how evil religious people are?
Think about it; we get overdoses of supremacism from (Q), tinfoil egocentrism and conspiracy theories from Balerion, redefinitions and rejections of the historical record in favor of customized ego gratification, and an open rejection of any commitment to rationality beyond arguing that God doesn't exist.
I used to make the point to religious people: When we see the televangelists and politicians, open hypocrisy, delusional irrelevance, raging bigotry, and general greed of such prevalent Christendom in the United States, why would any intelligent person want to join them?
Seriously, it's not that my daughter's maternal grandfather is wrong when he touts the historicity of his Sabbatarianism; rather, this is how petty one gets when joining the Seventh-Day Adventists. The Pope is the Devil, Sunday-worshipers will eventually imprison and exterminate Sabbatarians, and my goodness, sir, do you know how much better SDAs are than anyone else? When you listen to that sort of small-minded shite, why would you want to denigrate yourself like that? It's not just the hypocrisy of his pious pride in contrast to what Jesus said about pious pride, but also the juvenile, unflinching insistence of the sort that makes other people who aren't among this group of self-proclaimed Elect cringe.
And as this discussion goes along, yes, I will insist on a certain minimal degree of ratonality. If, for instance, you want to be upset that I took a swing at all atheists everywhere, knock yourself out. Just don't try to make it my problem.
There is a reason this is important to me, and that reason is that atheistic dysfunction, zeal in excess, and abandonment of rationality actually makes it harder to ward off the belligerence and intrusion of various religious persons, organizations, and communities.
I mean, I get it. You have feelings, and they're important, too.
But if you wish to identify with a movement, it's not all benefit all the time.
(Q) is the atheistic equivalent of the religious nuts who think homosexuality is pedophilia or bestiality. Balerion? Michael? Come on, tell me where the rationality is in tinfoil. Trooper? Telling Bells to draw a line in the sand about abortion? Um, right. That line in the sand is already on record. What's rational about Trooper's demand? Spidergoat, who wants religious people to convert, but doesn't want to be helpful and respectful as they do? Rhetorical sleights all over the place? This is what the rational assertion of atheism brings?
It's one thing to point out that there is plenty of writing here by atheists that isn't so ridiculous, but it's generally not about atheism specifically. And, besides, according to many atheists in our community, those posts have nothing to do with atheism.
Is Sciforums, in the question of atheism, an advocacy site, or a hate site?
The only people who aren't expected to answer for common identification are those who reject all common identification.
Well, those folks, and, apparently, atheists.
I disrespect religion, but I respect religious people, for the most part, as long as they aren't wilfully ignorant. I think I am helpful, but I'm not going to let that get in the way of a good joke.
The Obvious Points
Funny, that. Lots of Christians remind that they "hate the sin but love the sinner".
And they think they're doing good, too.
And as to a good joke, sure, but as Neil Simon made the case some years ago in Broadway Bound, comedy is cruelty.
There are ways around that, but they are rarely witnessed in popular discourse.
Spidergoat said:
Funny, that. Lots of Christians remind that they "hate the sin but love the sinner".
And they think they're doing good, too.
And as to a good joke, sure, but as Neil Simon made the case some years ago in Broadway Bound, comedy is cruelty.
There are ways around that, but they are rarely witnessed in popular discourse.
That's your whole problem, you take yourself and this forum too seriously.
Hey, it was just an observation. I never said that I feel the first shred of pathos. Just trying to answer your underlying inquiry in a logical way. Atheists are like Vulcans...
I had that thought, I don't know, 1,000 or so posts ago. Just finally tired of no one answering with the obvious...
- Status