The reason religion is so powerful

[The Architect Of Fate]

I'm comfortable with language that is accurate, which this is not.

Preventing an abortion is not equal to inducing labor, agreed?

If the woman (and/or doctor) is punished for for choosing to get an abortion, how is the labor she undergoes later not forced? If she is prevented from getting an abortion, the birth following is against her will and therefore forced. I don't understand what is supposed to be inaccurate about this.

---

Evolutionarily speaking, we're better off restricting women's role in society to procreation and sex. A sure-fire way to increase offspring and thereby our chances of survival.

Many of us try to be aware of common logical fallacies and try to avoid them. The naturalistic fallacy is one that's particularly easy to avoid once you're aware of it. That something is natural or artificial is irrelevant to whether it's right or wrong. Evolution is what happens in nature, it is not a dictate we're supposed to follow or anything we're supposed to plan on.

Not to mention I fancy my personal chances of survival to be better if I avoid such cockamamie goals in a world where men have to sleep sometime and women can easily devise reliable and likely creative methods of taking advantage of that.

---

Why not?

Because the vast majority of women who are pregant and choose to remain so want to have a healthy baby. You act like this is mystifying, but it's clearly an act.

---

Guilty as charged—I want to see the limits of people's convictions.

Well, I am under the impression that online disengenousness is the Christian way, so carry on.

---

You should be thanking me, I am being so generous:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/n...led-people

Also from peter singer : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pG01ASb...l=imadix14 (Bestiality is fine)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piNnP8NtQzk
Quote : "

Justin Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah" 

https://www.mrctv.org/videos/richard-daw...-arbitrary

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...p?t=218937 (Atheist Dan Barker says child rape could be moral)


Let me know if you want some more.

Let me know when you figure out none of those people are representative of atheists any more than the Ayatollah Khomenei is representative of Muslims (“If a person has intercourse with a cow, a sheep, or a camel, their urine and dung become impure and drinking their milk will be unlawful”). If you want to pour on citations irrelevant to what we actually think, knock yourself out.

---

It's true that no conclusion in favor of religion could be drawn from this. But according to this chart, a non-religious country is more likely to go to war than a religious country.

You might want to take a closer look at that reasoning since most countries today and throughout history have been majority religious. That chart cites religion as the primary motivating factor, it does not distinguish between religious and nonreligious countries.

---

Nope. The argument is that you atheists can justify anything including rape and bestiality. I don't think you can refute Peter Singer's (a professional philosopher, BTW) rationalization of raping disabled people, that's what atheism offers you : arbitrary morality. Enjoy.

Most philosophers are atheists, but Singer is a minority of one. Ever wonder why that is?

Not to mention overpopulation is evolutionarily disadvantageous as it causes resources to become scarce. That's why some species hold off having offspring when times are tough. In humans there, no advantage to having women purely for reproduction when our species in its current form has little need for a larger population for its survival.