Hello.....I have a little problem

[Tim the plumber]

"Oh boy. We've got evangelical atheism, child-rearing, and human rights all in one thread?"

Wow it's my first post here and the next day there's 7(!!!!) pages of replies!!!!

"If atheism is not a religion then why would you care what anyone else believes? Why "take the message" (gospel) to anyone? Why call people who disagree with you "enemies"?"

The people are not my enemies(ish) it's the enemies of reason. I want the world to work on sensable lines so that we can all make wealth and progress in tecnology. Lets build utopia. We cannot do that if we alow the enemies of reason to stop science and decent thinking.

P.S. How do you work the quotation thing?

[Rev. Rye]

"Oh boy. We've got evangelical atheism, child-rearing, and human rights all in one thread?"

Wow it's my first post here and the next day there's 7(!!!!) pages of replies!!!!

"If atheism is not a religion then why would you care what anyone else believes? Why "take the message" (gospel) to anyone? Why call people who disagree with you "enemies"?"

The people are not my enemies(ish) it's the enemies of reason. I want the world to work on sensable lines so that we can all make wealth and progress in tecnology. Lets build utopia. We cannot do that if we alow the enemies of reason to stop science and decent thinking.

P.S. How do you work the quotation thing?

Yes, well, that's the way it goes.

Oh, and by the way: here's the way the quotes function works:

PHP Code:

[Quote="Whoever Said it"]Whatever you want to say[/quote] 


And that becomes to this:

Whatever you want to say

Of course, you can also use the "Reply" button on any given post, and the message will automatically be formatted like that.

With regards to your OP, I must say that it, while not unheard of, is very rare for an atheist to deconvert a theist of any kind, even if one does argue extensively how problematic their beliefs are. As you might have guessed from Statler's presence, there's still some theists on this forum. Debate them, but don't expect to be able to convert them. If we see what you're doing, we might be able to give more concrete pieces of advice.

[Statler Waldorf]

Still being willfully obtuse?

Let me dumb it down a bit. An atheistic worldview is a worldview that has atheism as a part of it. It isn't atheism itself that is the worldview, but rather the rest of that belief system that makes it a worldview.

Perhaps I am the one who has to dumb things down a bit. Atheism actually is a worldview, it just happens to incorporate theories of knowledge and morality from other atheistic worldviews such as naturalism, empiricism, and humanism; this however does not make atheism not a worldview. Christian Theism is also a worldview, even though Christians differ on their theories of knowledge and slightly on some theories of morality. I wish you would stop with the semantic games so we can actually have a meaningful discussion one day.

An admirable attempt, you failed to account for the fact that their are only two basic worldviews Shell. His own, and those that are incorrect.

Perhaps there is hope for you yet, hence why Christian Theism is proven true through the process of negation, all other worldviews fail where it does not.

I was stupid

Only when you run away from discussions.

Naturalism is one atheistic worldview. This doesn't mean that atheism itself is a worldview any more than Christianity being a worldview makes theism one. Atheism is a characteristic of several worldviews, but it is not a worldview in and of itself.

I disagree with you here, atheism is a worldview; it just requires some additional theories that may differ from atheist to atheist much like Christian Theism.

1.) The logic is that by keeping it legal and regulated, it can be done by knowledgeable doctors in a sterile environment, thereby reducing the rate of mortality for the mothers

Again, this logic just does not follow. We could provide a safe and sterile place where men could rape women and not be harmed but that does not logically mean rape should be made legal just to protect the health of a few rapists. Those mothers can give birth to the child and put it up for adoption.

while making infections considerably less frequent, all while not contributing to the rising rate of health care.

Or the mothers could just not kill their baby with a coat hanger and thus make infections less frequent and reduce health care costs for everyone.

2.) Parents who shove Jesus/Allah down the throats of their children can be very judgmental. Instead of facing the shame of confronting their parents, many girls opt for abortion. It's easy to see why:

This still does not justify the act of abortion.

Because of awesome religious morals, many girls are not informed on how to have safe sex.

Religious morals are awesome, but anyways if you don’t know how to drive a car maybe you shouldn’t be driving cars. If you don’t know how to have safe sex maybe you should not be having sex. Irresponsible behavior in no way justifies the murdering of a child.




[quoteIf someone's god gave a fuck about waiting until marriage, girls would magically have their first menstruation on their wedding night. L O G I C. [/quote]

It’s scary what you consider to be logic. The only way to know what “God gives a f**k about” is to read what He has revealed to us in scripture, and I assure you it is quite clear that His creatures are commanded not to engage in sexual immorality.

Embryos are not babies because you can't freeze babies. I thought we went through this?

..and I thought I pointed out to you that you were being logically fallacious by begging the question. How do you know you can’t freeze babies? If embryos are babies then obviously you can freeze babies, so your statement proves nothing.

Unless they find a way to grow babies in a petri dish

They have, they are called embryos.

You can purchase them all day long. Is it legal to purchase babies? Kinda. Christians do it all the time. Must be right!

It is illegal to purchase babies post birth, but apparently it is still legal to purchase babies pre-birth (just like it is legal to kill them). As to your comment about Christians buying babies, besides the fact that you just contradicted your own statement that it was illegal for people to purchase babies I am not really sure what you are even referring to here.

You just compared Nazi insanity to stem cell research. I'm done with ya!

Yes I did, can you prove it’s a false analogy rather than running away with your tail between your legs? …Oops, I guess not!

Hope that was a sufficient response.

…in length yes, in rationality no.

Excellent work, Alei. You figured out that Waldork was a dick in no time at all.

Easy there gramps, why such hostility? Did you Hoveround break down again this week?

No,it's not irrelevant: Pregnancy termination is a female health issue,between her and her doctor,and NOBODY ELSE,period.

No it’s not, it is a human rights issue and is therefore all of our business. “No, it's not irrelevant: Slavery is a plantation economic issue, between the plantation owner and his slaves, and NOBODY ELSE, period.” If I can use your exact same argument to justify slavery then maybe you need to change your argument or your position, one of the two.

OF COURSE you are entitled to a different opinion/values/world view. No problem,until you try to impose your values,world view/opinion on me and the rest of society,then we have a problem.

This is a self refuting position, by telling me that I cannot impose my values on others you are actually imposing your relativistic values on me and thus refuting your own position.

It has been observed by both women and some men,that if men had babies there would be an abortion clinic at every supermarket and convenience store.

Meaningless speculation, you act as if there are no pro-life women.

People who invent some reality of their own where there is some equality in this, or where a man has a claim of ownership to an unborn child, or in the extreme example, that some god has a claim of ownership, are twats.

So you will use this same argument to justify slavery because the slave owner “owns” the slave and therefore has sole right to making decisions regarding that slave’s well being and length of life? Of course not, the slave is a separate human being just as much as the unborn baby is. No person has ownership over the unborn child.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

No it’s not, it is a human rights issue and is therefore all of our business.

On reflection,of course you are right.The right to life movement is an abuse of the notion of equality before the law. The justification (that a foetus is a human being) is a religious belief,not fact. Believer's have no right to impose such a belief on others.

Am I pro abortion? Nor am I indifferent. I admit it strikes an emotional chord.I think it's a tragedy for many women,who never fully recover.SO WHAT? It's none of my business.

---

.

Lets build utopia.

It's been tried,more than once.

We cannot do that if we alow the enemies of reason to stop science and decent thinking.

Who exactly gets to decide what is 'reason' and 'decent thinking'? You? Me? If it was me,you'd be among the first to go.

[Minimalist]

Atheism actually is a worldview

No, asshole. Atheism is simply a rejection of your superstitious drivel about gods. If you ever bothered to check out the rest of the board you would see arguments about almost every subject among people who think that you and the rest of the jesus freaks are fools.

[Statler Waldorf]

On reflection,of course you are right.The right to life movement is an abuse of the notion of equality before the law. The justification (that a foetus is a human being) is a religious belief,not fact.

It’s not a religious position at all, it’s a scientific one. The fetus (which of course is Latin for “baby”) fulfils all of the necessary functions for life at the moment of conception and also has a fully functioning human genome at the moment of conception so by scientific definition it is a “living human being” at the moment of conception. Denying this renders being fully human as a completely arbitrary matter which we have seen how that leads only to evil actions (i.e. slavery and the holocaust).

Believers have no right to impose their beliefs on others

According to whom? If you force a believer to conform to this little rule you have here all you are doing is imposing your beliefs on the believer and thus refuting your own position that people should not impose their beliefs on others.

---

Atheism actually is a worldview

No, asshole. Atheism is simply a rejection of your superstitious drivel about gods. If you ever bothered to check out the rest of the board you would see arguments about almost every subject among people who think that you and the rest of the jesus freaks are fools.

That does not mean it is not a worldview there old-timer. Christian Theism is a worldview and yet Christians disagree on a whole host of issues, atheism is in fact a worldview, it just happens to be a very deficient and irrational one.

[Shell B]

That does not mean it is not a worldview there old-timer. Christian Theism is a worldview and yet Christians disagree on a whole host of issues, atheism is in fact a worldview, it just happens to be a very deficient and irrational one.

Try to think about this clearly. Think about the word "worldview." Think about the connotations that has. Now, hopefully you have come to the conclusion that "world" means just about everything around us, not one silly, rather insignificant thing. Are you still with me? If so, click on this link http://www.thefreedictionary.com/worldview and really let the definition of worldview sink in for you. If you haven't figured out yet that a single fucking disbelief does not constitute a worldview, your prejudices have rendered attempts of debate with you pointless. You are hopelessly deluded to the point where reality has ceased to matter. Now, if you have realized the error of your perception, I applaud you. Being an atheist, I can tell you that it makes up a very small portion of my worldview. It doesn't dictate a single thing I do in my life. It only dictates a few things I don't do -- such as go to church and pray.

As for running away from debates, better to walk away than deal with sheer willful ignorance and insults from someone who can't understand a simple definition. This post is simply for the sake of clarity, but I am relatively certain it will come up against the titanium wall that is your shield from reality.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Quote: Believers have no right to impose their beliefs on others [quote]

According to whom?

Well , in my country, it's guaranteed by our constitution.We enjoy the legal rights of 'freedom of religion' and 'freedom of conscience'. Hence one person does not have the right to insist another share his values or beliefs about anything. The law may(and does) prohibit many behaviours, such as blowing up abortion clinics and murdering its doctors..

Your claim about science is nonsense. Based on available evidence the scientific (and legal) consensus) in my country is that a foetus becomes a human being when it is viable ex utero,not before. I guess things are different in your country. I don't care,I'm just grateful you can't impose your personal superstitions on me or my community. Nothing more to say to you on this issue. We may need to agree to differ.

[The Grand Nudger]

Found an interesting sideline to this sort of discussion

"In 2006, the National Center for Men brought a case in the US, Dubay v. Wells (dubbed by some "Roe v. Wade for men"), that argued that in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, when an unmarried woman informs a man that she is pregnant by him, he should have an opportunity to give up all paternity rights and responsibilities. Supporters argue that this would allow the woman time to make an informed decision and give men the same reproductive rights as women. In its dismissal of the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit) stated that "the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights

[popeyespappy]

Found an interesting sideline to this sort of discussion

"In 2006, the National Center for Men brought a case in the US, Dubay v. Wells (dubbed by some "Roe v. Wade for men"), that argued that in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, when an unmarried woman informs a man that she is pregnant by him, he should have an opportunity to give up all paternity rights and responsibilities. Supporters argue that this would allow the woman time to make an informed decision and give men the same reproductive rights as women. In its dismissal of the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit) stated that "the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights

This is true. It’s also why it’s a crying fucking shame the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified by the states. If it had the law of the land in the US would now be:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I’m not sure how that would have affected a man’s right to give up his parental rights and responsibilities but it sure as hell would have denied the state the right to treat people differently based on sex.