Sanctimonious monsters

Exactly! I just wish more people would see the irony behind the 'pro-life' people, since most of them are only 'pro-life' when it suits them. They still advocate the death penalty.

Touché. Tragically.

Couldn't they have done all this back-patting and Godding over the phone? This visit has seriously impacted my commute.

Wislawa Szymborska
1996 Nobel Prize for Literature
From "View with a Grain of Sand"

Translated from the Polish by
Stanislaw Baranczak and
Clare Cavanagh

In Praise of Feeling Bad About Yourself

The Buzzard never says it is to blame.
The panther wouldn't know what scruples mean.
When the piranha strikes, it feels no shame.
If snakes had hands, they'd claim their hands were clean.

A Jackal doesn't understand remorse.
Lions and lice don't waver in their course.
Why should they, when they know they're right?

Though hearts of killer whales may weigh a ton,
in every other way they're light.

On this third planet of the sun
among the signs of bestiality
a clear conscience is Number One.

A fine example of biblical morality (2 Samuel 12:11 NAB). For some reason, it doesn't seem to show up in many sunday sermons:

"Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."

(This may be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. Who would do something so evil? And then he kills a child.)

And (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

(What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.)

Right on. In a sane world, Bush would be tried and branded as a war criminal and Benedict would be treated, at best, like a nutjob. That society would make such a fuss about the two of them getting together for a damn mutual grooming session shows just how INsane the world really is.

The great pious Ratzo seems to have made everyone forget the scandal of priests raping nuns and young girls in Africa. Now a Nigerian archbishop or something is talked about as a successor to the current criminal. Naturally, Nigeria is one of the countries where such crimes are rampant.

One nun's story.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-73355746.html

" Until the rape, she had retained her virginity by "being very aggressive" with harassing priests. "I kept threatening them. I told them `I will expose you,'" she said.

Some nuns tolerate the harassment and even comply with demands for sex "because they don't know any better," Laura said. "A lot of them are ignorant. They enter the convent at a young age. Many come from very poor backgrounds. Their parents are illiterate and may not even have enough to eat." When a daughter from such a family enters religious life, "it raises your status. Families are very proud of it." Women stay despite problems, she believes, "because many have a better life in the convent than they would have at home."

"The nuns don't study theology," she said. "A lot of the priests have been to Rome to study, and when they come back, the women think they know everything, so whatever the priests tell them they believe. They believe them when they say it's OK to have sex. They think it's normal, and they become very defensive" if someone tells them it isn't right.

"Maybe these women will eventually realize they were used," she said. "But I am sure that for many it will take a long time."

Laura's refusal to go along with the priests' demands made her unpopular not only with priests but also with many nuns in her order, she said. The nuns were frightened by her active resistance because they were dependent on the priests, she said.

When Laura decided to leave her religious community, some of the nuns told her friends they weren't surprised because "she was very proud," meaning that she wasn't a good nun. Compliance, not resistance, was valued in a convent that was totally dependent on the clergy for everything: money, transportation and pastoral assignments.

"At one point I was very strong in insisting on better education for the nuns, and I was accused of being too ambitious," she said."

- You have to wonder just what these priests learned in Rome.

- With an easy search you can find old stories from the National Catholic Reporter which covered the scandal a few years ago.

I'm sorry, kmarissa. Mine hasn't been too negatively affected so far. I guess Christians avoid the green line?

MikeP, they flood I-66 something awful. Oh, for a Dulles extension!

I have watched the coverage of this event - it's hard not to when it's back-to-back on every channel - with a scowl on my face.

I see a very old, decrepit, primate with extraordinarily ridiculous garb along with a medieval version of a 10-gallon cowboy hat attended to and speaking as if he is some sort of ultra-being. It makes me want to rip off his costume and have him stand bare as a mortal man while he answers some really tough questions in plain view of everyone.

His psyche and world view are childishly abhorrent and frightening. What a freak.

This is called speaking truth to power. These emperors have no clothes, and when someone like PZ says it out loud, it gives me hope and courage.

It's a religion that has shifted its eyes from a task to be done here on earth to an unearthly vision of a magical unseen world run by an ethereal tyrant who must be placated.

I would apply this statement mostly in reference to many so-called fundamentalist christian religions. Others may disagree. It's a shame, too, because when Jesus began his church they were all about the disenfranchised. But of course that was because the wealthy already had their religion, and they weren't about to abandon that in favor of some new upstart.

Kinda like what we have today. The now-wealthy christists have their religion, and are very unlikely to adopt some new "upstart." And by upstart I mean rational atheism. Oh, OK, it's not really a religion, but work with me, here.

As you point out, we don't need a religion or the supernatural in order to be moral (which I read as "good people"). Wow. Goodness doesn't depend on religion. Sorta like the way life doesn't depend on a god.

it's a shame, you'd expect they could be putting this allegedly massive source of morality to good use.

The remarks by Bush were astounding in their hypocrisy and contempt for the country. The smarmy, self-righteous tone in which they were delivered defies description, but easily induces nausea

an evil tableaux

1 tableau, 2 tableaux -- pronounced the same way, though. Written and spoken French don't have the same grammar.

Aside from the moral issues that PZ raises, what about the cost? All of the security, the crowd control, all of the agencies involved in his visit. Just how much American tax dollars are being spent to receive this guy? Just so people of a religion that I don't belong to can have a visit from their head guy? I think the Catholic Church owes me some money.

There's an evil tableaux for you: the callous torturer stands up with blood on his hands and a lie in his teeth, while the priest draped in gilt reassures him of his righteousness. How often has that scene played out in history, I wonder?

Amazingly apt, succinct, and shiver-inducing.

PZ-

As one of the Christians that you call out to in your article, I can only feel shame in what has been done in my name. Whether the war in Iraq has religious basis or not, the fact is that a "Christian" administration has perpetrated atrocities and war crimes, brutalized the poor while lining the pockets of the rich elite, and driven the economy into the ground while sanctimoniously trumpeting their own moral standing and authority. Please believe me, it's not just atheists that are disgusted by this, and to have the head of my own Church endorsing his leadership is like being stabbed in the heart.

Colbert on the meeting: "The leaders of the world's two great theocracies"

There are alternatives to Benedict XVI, but I'm afraid they're not as entertaining as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. David Bawden, however, who styles himself "Pope Michael I" comes close. [Link]

Thank you PZ. I have read -- I will not listen or watch -- the sanctimonious idiot from the Vatican go on and on about how ashamed he is about the clergy rape of children. And then I hear him talk about the sad decline of the family in the US! Surely, at some point, cognitive dissonance sets in, doesn't it? These pious monsters, who think more of their sanctified beliefs that they do for real people, should really be shown up for what they are. And you have done your part. Thank you.

#5, you forgot to mention that because David repented he was spared the indignity of seeing his wives raped. Oh, they were raped, all right. He just didn't have to watch. How's that for mercy?

#18

Those leaders stand because of their followers. They are but mere men, no more worthy of worship or praise than the common man.

Oh, stop this equivocating, PZ, and tell us how you *really* feel.

Hey, I'm using humour as an intellectual distancing tool -- the reality of those two sanctimonious bastards sharing the same room and NOT being smote by a just God renders me both nauseous and more convinced in my atheism.

I'm only a pseudo-Anglican, and thus the Pope does not represent me. As an Aussie, neither does Bush. I would not ever call myself a proper Christian but even so it makes me very angry to watch these two people pat each other on the back for their beliefs. Ugh.

I'm confident that as President, Rep. Tom Tancredo wouldn't give that Papal papist the time of day.

Please stop saying "child abusers" when we should all say "child rapists". "abuse" is a euphemism.

The pope, by protecting child rapists, shows, as clear as day, that religion has no moral high ground.

The vapid mouthpiecing of the opinion of a Nazi pedophile is bad enough; putting him on a dais next to a mass murderer and traitor to his own nation is simply hideous.

I have a theory on the Popemobile. It's not there to protect the pontiff from assassination attempts (after all, he has the Invisible Hand of God for that); I think it's there to keep His "Holiness" from fondling children as he sashays past them.

A most excellent post, that just about perfectly expresses my own sentiments.

Well said, with even more than a speck of stated respect for the history of religion, something I rarely see from you.

But yes, exactly, the Pope, and by extension, the Vatican, have this tremendous power and ABSURD wealth (not that that stops them from railing against the divide between the poor and the rich, there's a warning sign of a disconnect with reality right there), they could be using it to do good deeds. Instead they go around complaining that we're not religious ENOUGH, and then further help to make the world a worse place by fighting against birth control in places with out of control overpopulation.

Go ahead, pope Ratzi, do something useful. Dare to make yourself relevant to the modern world and maybe you could make religion relevant as well.

For now you're just another old fossil, repeating the outdated dogma and further revealing your complete irrelevance to the modern world with your every action.

#17 rsn

"The pope, by protecting child rapists, shows, as clear as day, that religion has no moral high ground."

I could argue that this assertion is not so clear. Depending on the age of Mary, the god the pope worships is himself a child rapist. Since dim-bulbs like the pope think that their deity defines morality, then he's being very moral.

For now you're just another old fossil

Wrong, Nomad. We can learn from fossils.

#31 Correction. Should be directed to #27, not #17.

Hmmmm ....
http://www.cubaverdad.net/images/pope.jpg

Ten years ago.

Please make a note of it. It may come in handy the next time someone drops in here and criticizes PZ for his "mindless bashing" of religion.

Alex,

Just because you can argue that the church is consistetly favorly disposed towards child rapists doesn't make it right. :)

Thanks for the link Hank. Some things are timeless. Chuckle.

Well said PZ. I'm in total agreement with you on all of these salient points. I only wish my command of the language was as masterful as yours. Never in a couple thousand years would I have used labile in a sentence. In fact, if one dropped that word in conversation, I would assume they were speaking of a very interesting segment of the female anatomy.

In all seriousness though, it's unbelievable that two delusional assholes can have so much influence over the rest of the world. In fact, I'm willing to bet that they're as lucid about the truth of their fantasy bullshit as the rest of us. They just exercise their right over the majority because how else could they have so much power and influence over the masses? If this asshole pope Maladict was true to himself and accepted the inevitable bullshit that his religion is, then how else can he control the masses? It's all a power struggle, and it's hard for me to believe that anyone in such an elevated position (president, most of congress, etc.) can actually believe the garbage that comes spewing out of a 2000 year old amalgamated jewish fantasy of a masochistic megalomaniac supposedly allowing himself to be tortured to save his insignificant corner of the world from the freedom to shirk religion, and then find that this fantasy was usurped by a cult that eventually came to dominate the world, until another offshoot cult eventually reproduced so much faster that they will now soon declare fantasy dominance on the planet.

Even the greatest fiction authors in the world, colaborating for years, could not devise such a convoluted and demoralizing story.

Pope Benedict is a spiritual leader to a billion people

Excellent post with a minor comment. The 1 billion number is clearly an inflation as they count every man,woman, and child ever born in the church even if they are atheists or attend other denominations.

The real number is said to be 25-50% of the claim.

He must be wise. Just look at that preposterous hat.

I haven't heard or read any of Benny the Rat's speeches this week (partly I'm too busy, partly because it may be bad for my digestion), but the coverage I have seen has him mourning the sex-abuse scandal -- and then blaming the problem partly on porn on TV and the internet.

What. A. Fucking. Evil. Hypocrite.

rsn.

Indeed.

I was attempting to point out how dogmatic thinking allows them to justify ANY behavior as 'moral'.

"These people's God has shown them by a million acts that he respects none of the Bible's statues. He breaks every one of them himself, adultery and all. ["Mark Twain and the Three R's, by Maxwell Geismar, p.124]

Cheers.

Did anyone see the front page of the NY Times the other day with the story of the pope and Bush talking about how precious life is and the story underneath was about the Bush administration arguing before the Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of lethal injections? Or was that the front page of The Onion?

Agree with all points except I wanted to point out that a lot of atheists praise Jesus for his concern for the poor and downtrodden etc. -- whilst ignoring the much older tradition in the Jewish bible of the prophets doing very much the same thing. It never changes the argument but still I've always found it curious why often these arguments skip over the much more extensive prophet literature and go straight to Jesus.

"...the secular concerns that should matter [why should they matter to people who believe in Christ? You've got the cart before the horse], the egalitarian word of a religious tradition that valued the cohesion of the social fabric [When? Where? How?] and demanded equal treatment for even the least of society [You mean like the unborn?] is ignored, given a little lip service perhaps [You call the entire corpus of modern Christian charity, from parish soup kitchens, adoption programs and third-world hunger relief to the endless praying done for your soul and others' 'lip service'?], but made subservient to the intangible theological nonsense of prayer, of an invisible god, of submission to dogma and hope in an unevidenced afterlife [But don't you have your dogmas, too? What could be more dogmatic than the assertion that man not made in God's image has any intrinsic worth?]. It's a religion that has shifted its eyes from a task to be done here on earth to an unearthly vision of a magical unseen world run by an ethereal tyrant who must be placated [The only modern religion that aims to placate an aetherial tyrant is Islam. Were you speaking this whole time of the Muslims, and I merely misunderstood?].

Questions:

(1) Why is the Pope directly responsible for the actions of priests, especially actions done previous to his pontificate? Should George Bush have to personally answer for the crimes of individual soldiers in Vietnam?

(2) Did you know that both the previous and current Popes have been opposed to the War in Iraq?

(3) Why is the Pope's meeting with Bush an endorsement of Bush? Did he actually endorse Bush personally?

Ceterum censeo Christum surrectum esse. Alleluia!

I just wish more people would see the irony behind the 'pro-life' people, since most of them are only 'pro-life' when it suits them.

I know it's been said before, but they are only "pro-life" for those that haven't been born yet or who are terminally ill. For those in-between, they are anti-life.

SteveT:

Benedict would be treated, at best, like a nutjob

Benedict, unfortunately, is most likely clinically sane. I hope so. He should really - at best - be tried at the Hague for genocide. If he were to be found guilty or not, I can't think of a better way to demonstrate how murderous his views on contraception and abortion are. Especially in those poorest countries most in need in contraceptives to reduce the incidence of HIV. George W. Bush should be implicated too.

Not that I get angry when I read about Ratzinger .

I think I see a dim-bulb flickering.

Isn't it possible that the availability of prophylactics actually increases the promiscuity in a culture and leads to a rise in HIV because condoms often break or the heat of the moment simply makes one forget?

"Turn the other cheek" is often misused.

Historically, when a Roman soldier hit a Jew, he would hit him with the back of his hand, to show they were not equals. "Turning the other cheek" implies that you make the Roman hit you on the other cheek, like an equal, with the palm of his hand.

Of course, then the Roman soldier would probably kill you.

Don't worry - I haven't met one christian who actually knew the meaning behind those words.

"How about you, Christians? These are your leaders, your paragons, your representatives of the power of your faith. Do you feel some slight tremor of shame that your values are on parade in an empty ritual in the foreground, and a brutal indifference to human life in the back?"

Jesus, you're harshing my buzz...Dick Cheney is a wonderful guy, or so the minions tell me.

"Oh cieca cupidigia e ira folle,
che sì ci sproni ne la vita corta,
e ne l'etterna poi sì mal c'immolle!"

Christopher, that explanation sounds like a bit of folk etymology. The commonly accepted meaning of the phrase "turn the other cheek" jibes much better with the context, wherein Jesus also commands us to give even our tunic to one who demands our cloak, etc.

I think everyone here understands the reality of the situation. Just to be clear...
Just between the Iraq war, and church policy on condoms, these two men are directly responsible for the horrible deaths of millions of people in just the last few years.

I don't have the time or the stomach to compile a complete laundry list, but my grievances are legion. Bush has attacked the constitution, attacked our schools, and has caused more death and destruction than a hundred Saddam Husseins ever could. The Pope has endorsed insane and deadly church policies, endorses right-wing terrorism, and loyally protects child rapists to save himself some headaches.

To be perfectly honest, if a mob of people dragged them to the ground and killed them both in the street, it wouldn't bother me a bit. I think that their multitudinous victims deserve no less vengeance, though I doubt they will ever get it.

Isn't it possible that the availability of prophylactics actually increases the promiscuity in a culture and leads to a rise in HIV because condoms often break or the heat of the moment simply makes one forget?

No.

How has the Pope endorsed right-wing terrorism, Neil? How has he personally protected any rapist?

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, you know... and a Christian didn't even say that...

#45
Answer to Question 1:
a) The pope is directly responsible and should be held accountable.
b) No.

"Isn't it possible that the availability of prophylactics actually increases the promiscuity in a culture and leads to a rise in HIV because condoms often break or the heat of the moment simply makes one forget?"
So according to your logic, getting a tetanus shot makes you want to jump into a barrel full of rusty nails.

Quaeror,

10 When you make a loan of any kind to your neighbor, do not go into his house to get what he is offering as a pledge. 11 Stay outside and let the man to whom you are making the loan bring the pledge out to you. 12 If the man is poor, do not go to sleep with his pledge in your possession. 13 Return his cloak to him by sunset so that he may sleep in it. Then he will thank you, and it will be regarded as a righteous act in the sight of the LORD your God.

That's Deut. 24,10ff. You do the maths.

Oh, and by the way: Any news on when the christ will rise? Aren't his three days up by now?

Bravo, PZ!

...addendum to MikeB:

Should George Bush have to personally answer for the crimes of individual soldiers in Vietnam?

b) No (especially since he was running away at the time).

Is correct, but we should redirect the question to something more appropriate:

Should GB have to personally answer for the crimes of individual soldiers in Iraq?

As the sitting Commander in Chief of US armed forces...

Is the Pope, as Commander in Chief of Catholic Priesthood, responsible for crimes committed ON HIS WATCH?

you damn betchya.

What could be more dogmatic than the assertion that man not made in God's image has any intrinsic worth?

In the entire great expanse of the universe, every human being is unique. The human race is the result of 4 billion years of life struggling to survive on this tiny spec of a planet. You yourself are the result of countless generations of people fighting, struggling, suffering, so that you could have a chance at life. There is no dogma or God or faith required to show the intrinsic worth of man.

"the secular concerns that should matter, the egalitarian word of a religious tradition that valued the cohesion of the social fabric and demanded equal treatment for even the least of society is ignored, given a little lip service perhaps, but made subservient to the intangible theological nonsense of prayer, of an invisible god, of submission to dogma and hope in an unevidenced afterlife."

In my bitter ex-Catholic way I blame the Protestants for valuing faith over works, but I know there's more to it and the Catholics weren't exactly saints either, if you'll pardon the pun.

(1) Cardinal Ratzinger was acting according to Canon Law, which is was not within his power to change

(2) Sili, I see how the two passages in question are similar, but why do you bring this one up?

I don't see how my uniqueness or my ancestors' struggles give me intrinsic worth!

"Bush calls us a nation of prayer -- a depressing label that makes us a country of delusions."

Everyone should take comfort in the fact that if George Bush says it, it's probably not true.

P.S. On an irrelevant note, if any of my previous comments on this blog or any other take you to a biblical website, it's because I misspelled my blog's URL. I do NOT sympathize.

Believing in something that can not be demonstrated is dogmatic. Following arbitrary rules and dictates is dogmatic.

Abiding by vetted truths is not dogmatic. You may as well call a skydiver dogmatic for wearing a parachute.

Your ideas are really poorly formed and not logical.

Why is the Pope directly responsible for the actions of priests, especially actions done previous to his pontificate?

Aside from the problems of "directly responsible," one can just as easily ask: why wouldn't he simply denounce what was done during that time, instead of simply talking vapidly about "healing wounds" bullshit?

The "actions of a few" is also crap. There was clearly top-down awareness and cover-up. They threatened excommunication to anyone who exposes those people, and nothing has been done to denounce that.

And, speaking of damage control, have they excommunicated Hitler yet?

Catch-up to morality before calling yourselves the foundations for morality...

PZ: I completely agree, in content, tone and form, with everything you have to say above. Whenever you come to Philly, I'll buy you lunch (and I'm just a poor grad student!).

And now, I'll go and do something that is probably stupid: reply to a religiously motivated poster, who certainly won't listen...

Isn't it possible that the availability of prophylactics actually increases the promiscuity in a culture and leads to a rise in HIV because condoms often break or the heat of the moment simply makes one forget?

To expand on what Kseniya said above: this has been studied in many different cases, and essentially all of them find that the incidence of STDs goes down drastically when condoms are readily available and people know how to use them. It also leads to a decrease in pregnancy, and sometimes leads to a decrease in promiscuity. You're believing otherwise doesn't make it so!

And this is just one of the reasons why the Catholic Church's stance on contraception is not only stupid, but harmful. They are willing to let people die of terrible diseases and let children be born to families who cannot support them, all in the name of dogma.

(1) Cardinal Ratzinger was acting according to Canon Law, which is was not within his power to change

think about how many men in history have tried that defense and failed.

like at Nuremberg.

hiding within the tenets of a law is no excuse for abandoning responsibility for actions committed outside of the law.

...so, Q, is GB responsible for troop actions in Iraq?

RE: #49

No. I was going to put forth an elegant argument including the stats of the US (or some other "first-world" country) vs an African country, as an example of what education and availability can do to the aids rate...then I realized this is the same person who was defending religion in an earlier post and realized it'd be a waste of electrons to try and convince the poster.

And then I go and screw up with an improper "you're"... Phoo.

Quaeror. Come off it, Cardinal Ratzinger was the Pope's consiglieri, and especially when JP2 was clearly a very sick man he pulled the strings and pulled them hard. It's how he got elected, nothing to do with the holy spirit in that conclave.

JP2 sat on applications to leave the preisthood and recommendations for defrockings a long time he just didn't believe priests were capable of abusing their positions and raping kids and parishioners: Ratzinger had a lot to do with Vatican policy towards handling of child-abusing priests.

I'm a regular commentator here under my own name, but I have one friend in and a relative with contacts high up in the Vatican who tell me eyebrow-raising stuff so I'll keep this confidential. Ratzi knew, and was more concerned for the Church's reputation than the welfare of the victims, or the fact that there were victims.

This pope has a lot to confess when it comes to what the church's agents got away with. And no, I'm not a bitter former abuse victim, but I know a few who are. And I know their abusers got away with it. And I know our bishop knew.

I don't see how my uniqueness or my ancestors' struggles give me intrinsic worth!

irrelevant to the fact that many do, yes?

ignorance is no excuse.

Seems you prefer meaning to be handed to you by somebody else, rather than seeking it on your own.

which, you could say, is an argument against your own uniqueness in this case, since apparently there are many others that share a similar worldview.

sheep, for example.

Quaeror - You are the result of what has come before. All of your ancestors struggled, lived and died so that you could live. Yet you would turn your back on all of them and claim that you only have worth because you look like God? I pity your ancestors.

"I don't see how my uniqueness or my ancestors' struggles give me intrinsic worth!"

Really? Are you even human? Do you have any idea how utterly stupid, fallacious, and empty that sounds?!

I guess maybe bugs,..if they could speak, might articulate such a thought.

Perhaps Ichthyic, instead of "sheep", you should have said "ants".

@ Christopher Wing Re: Turning the other cheek

Your explanation for the saying sounds like an urban legend. How would turning the other cheek make the Roman hit you with his palm? That configuration actually seems less favorable: It would probably just make him backhand you in the face. It makes no sense. I've never been a Christian but most people I ask tell me it means that you offer up your other cheek to be slapped again. In other words, you bore the burden of violence against you to preserve the peace.

"I don't see how my uniqueness or my ancestors' struggles give me intrinsic worth!"

You poor, pitiful, deluded schlub. I really pity you. No sarcasm intended.

Perhaps Ichthyic, instead of "sheep", you should have said "ants".

I stand corrected. That indeed is much more apt.

The image of them smiling together is close to the grossest (word?) thing I've had to look at and for some reason it makes me think of the lyrics to
Leonard Cohen's 'The Future'

I don't see how my uniqueness or my ancestors' struggles give me intrinsic worth!

You suffer from the existential despair born of the nihilism at the core of your religion: "I am nothing, life has no purpose, nothing has any meaning without my belief in my culturally-specific god."

Why is the simple fact of your existence not sufficient justification for seeing yourself as valuable as any other thing in the universe of which you are an undeniable part?

Ask yourself: What would you do if you learned beyond the shadow of a doubt that god did not exist, that we are material beings in a material universe with no duty or obligation to any power higher than ourselves. Would you live your life differently? Would you go on a crime or killing spree? If not, why not?

Quaeror,

The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, has said, "The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom."

This is a brazen, barefaced, downright lie. Ratzinger has never repudiated it. Do you find this lie, and the failure to repudiate it, morally acceptable?

"I am nothing, life has no purpose, nothing has any meaning without my belief in my culturally-specific god."

Spot-on Kseniya.

It's obviously a great control mechanism too, btw.

"Why should [secular concerns] matter to people who believe in Christ?"
That kind of sentiment is exactly what we don't like about religion. Besides, why should belief in Christ matter to people who have secular concerns?

"You call the entire corpus of modern Christian charity, from parish soup kitchens, adoption programs and third-world hunger relief to the endless praying done for your soul and others' 'lip service'?"
The "endless praying," yes, because lip service is exactly, quite literally, what it is. I know work is prayer, but since when does prayer count as work? What good--what secular, real-world, earthly, here-and-now good--is a bunch of soulful well-wishing to anybody?

"What could be more dogmatic than the assertion that man not made in God's image has any intrinsic worth?"
Honest, non-sarcastic question: How is that dogmatic?

"The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom"
By that logic, every germ under the sun should just be waltzing into our body right now via the pores in our skin.

#4 rita:

essence

I've just sent that scintillation to over a hundred people, hoping that some of them will reflect on it & then more benefit their self & others from that ponderance.

thank you

"Why should [secular concerns] matter to people who believe in Christ?"

Because they breathe the same air, share the same resources, and have EXACTLY the same human needs as non-xtians. What an asinine question. As soon as all of you myth-believers are able to actually make-good on all of your magical claims, you won't need to follow the mandates of Nature. Until then, you are primarily secular. Whatever retarded beliefs you have does not change that fact.

George W. Bush is even more infallible than the Pope.

I have my pope-on-a-rope. Is anybody making dope-on-a-rope with you-know-who's visage?

Honest, non-sarcastic question: How is that dogmatic?

it's not, but if you have surrounded yourself with the psychological defense mechanisms of projection and denial, which appears to be the case with the terminally religious, then you can easily project the dogma you were force-fed onto everything around you.

It's the standard MO of every creationist I personally have ever been witness to, and that's over a thousand by my count so far.

break down the psychological defense mechanisms, and the religion goes with them.

made in GOD'S image???

hardly. they are made in whoever's image force fed them religion as they were growing up.

Q's "intrinsic worth" was forced upon him by his parents and/or peers, which of course explains why he is simply unable to imagine worth outside of such ideology. You ask the impossible if you ask him to try to define his self worth outside of the cult.

It really is a cult mentality.

"What could be more dogmatic than the assertion that man not made in God's image has any intrinsic worth?"

Another honest, non-sarcastic question:

If, on your five-year-old daughter's very first day of kindergarten, she brought home a rough watercolor picture she'd painted of herself, her mommy and daddy, the family dog, and her favorite tree all standing in front of your house, would you value it? If so, why? If not, why not?

i've lost count of how many times i've heard that "Roman backhand" apologetic

what i have NOT lost count of is how many historical references provided that confirm "Romans reserved backhand slaps as an insult to lesser classes". that's an easier number to remember, because it's zero

i'm always open to being shown i'm wrong, of course =)

It takes sheep to make a Bush. It takes sheep to make a Pope.

Let's place the blame where it belongs.

To expand upon #80, I quote a blog entry from Bronze Dog.

"If There Were No Traffic Cops...
...would you turn the road into a demolition derby?
It seems some fundie commenters might just answer 'yes.' Take a break to read the nihilism of a troll my circle of friends is quite familiar with (ninetyfivepercent.blogspot.com/2007/01/stupid-thing-people-say-3-you-have-no.html)
I don't need law enforcement of the natural or supernatural kind to behave. I have compassion for my fellow sentient beings. When I'm at the grocery store, I put up shopping carts that barbarians placed in the exact center of good parking spots. If I take an item off the shelf, and the remainder are way in the back, hard to reach, I will bring a few closer to the front for the next person's convenience. And that's just the tiniest of things I do. (Need to start getting my checkbook ready for a slew of donations, by the way.)
Why do I do these things? Well, for starters, the world would be a better place if everyone was generous. Altruism helps everyone, and altruism helps oneself: People have an instinct for reciprocation:
"Scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."
"Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself."
It's the concept behind returning a favor. Doing kind things for others makes them more willing to do kind things for you. Hence, if I want something kind to be done for me, I should be kind to others. If I don't want nasty things done to me, I shouldn't do nasty things to others. It's probably written in our DNA somewhere. It's also taught to most of us at early ages. Even if it's not explicitly taught, we tend to learn by observation.
For the typical divine command theorist, such concepts are alien: They only know obedience, not love or compassion. They typically require bribery (Heaven) and blackmail (Hell) to reach a decision. When I try to imagine what it's like to be one of them, I think of an animal just barely intelligent enough to understand the concept of deferring gratification. This animal is locked in a cage, separated from all other members of its kind, and is promised a reward from the food slot if they hit the right sequence of buttons. They don't care what the buttons do (no matter how horrible it is), just whether or not something will come tumbling down from the machine."

I am not going to defend the Catholics. They have a real problem with inserting man into their churches and I think that is a bad idea.

Priests should be married and the Bible isn't taught as much there. See mankind is corruptable. What you are looking at is people getting in the way of what God intended.

The pope should have taken care of the people that were harmed by them and should have dealt with the priests harsher (like banning them from the church).

Bush, I also agree with what you say about him. He isn't a Christian but a person who takes those Christian votes. He wanted the Iraq war and it wasn't needed.

No, I never liked Bush. I never voted for him.

However, the Bible is not a myth. There are lots of eyewitnesses of Jesus's birth, death, and resurection.

People also have witnessed his healing and his caring of the poor.

The old testament also predicted of his coming 600-1000 years before he came. There are thousands of prophecies on this.

Also it predicts that Israel would be back together as a nation on this planet and in 1948 that happened.

I would imagine that you think the bible is full of myths because the flood did not happen and you have evidence to prove it or creation did not happen etc... Well that is what I am trying to tell you. I believe it did happen and I believe you have evidence but the evidence that you have did not happen the way you think it did.

Since you do not believe in the flood and you don't take the evidence from that point of view you are going to get your science all messed up. I think more research has to be done to prove this right. However, the theory of evolution has many holes in it that you will not acknowledge anyway.

That is why it is pointless. If evolution had no holes and was a 100 percent correct theory then all people would believe it. However there is a lot that don't believe.

I believe that all life on earth is simular and can have some of the same compounds. However, I have not seen the proof that says that evolution is the reason why. I am not convinced. I have read dawkin's book. It is more of a harsh way of saying that religious people are nuts, but it doesn't fully give proof that they are wrong.

Just like on here, I see a lot of blog posts from PZ saying Christians and relgious people are morons and yet I see no evidence that is true, nor do I see any evidence that they are wrong about their God.

I do see a lot of misplaced arrogance by PZ and I see no evidence of him making this a better place on the planet. Religion can do harm as I said above. However, that is not the way it is intended to be. Jesus loved the poor and wanted people to help the poor. Many people are doing that. Even though PZ is not a Christian he is religous about science and being an atheist, but what has he done to help other people out?

I mean if PZ was never on this earth, would anything change? Probably not. Someone else would just pop-up and be the mouth piece of dawkin's work. However, I have not see anything good he has done on this earth and yet he tells people that religion is horrible and doesn't do any good. hmmmm I guess that is a matter of opinion.

There are lots of good things going on in the world today, but I guess if you are blind you won't be able to see them.

Atta boy PZ! You are the champion.

I am not going to defend the Catholics.

ROFLMAO

shocker!

Planet Killer:

Nope. There are no eye witnesses to Jesus. Authors who lived during his life time and were engaged in writing about current events make no mention of Jesus, the hours of darkness at his death, the earthquake, or any other events. We do have Roman documents that do talk about several Jewish messiahs that were crucified, but Jesus is not listed among them. Even Christian scholars agree that the earliest books of the bible were written at least 30 years after the death of Jesus, and likely as much as 100 years after his death. There is no evidence, anywhere, of anything written during the life time of Jesus that mentions his name.

Two can play that game, PK. Joshua 8:28 says that Ai was never again occupied after it was destroyed by Joshua. But Nehemiah (7:32) lists it among the cities of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity.
In 2 Samuel 7:13 and 7:16, God says that Solomon's kingdom will last forever. It didn't of course. It was entirely destroyed about 400 years after Solomon's death, never to be rebuilt.
Psalms 89:3-4, 34-37
"I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." But the Davidic line of Kings ended with Zedekiah; there were none during the Babylonian captivity, and there are none today.

Truth be told, I'm rather grateful to mein Schatzi Ratzi, he was the one who finally converted me from being a "Shane MacGowan Catholic" to a complete non-believer. There was a real affection for Wojtyla, he hung out with Bono, and heroically opposed the Soviets (I also have to confess, I dated a Krakow girl who kinda looked like JP2 would have looked had he been a hot 20-something girl- something about that droll, good-natured moon face. On the other hand, he was really reactionary regarding matters of faith and morals, and vehemently opposed Latin American "liberation theology", probably at Ratzi's behest.

Also, the real heinousness of the sexual scandal was how offending priests were shuffled from parish to parish. Then some ass like Santorum blames the scandal on "librulism"... I'd say that it was largely due to the fact that sacerdotal celibacy allows guilt-ridden young men with sexual hangups to dodge the issue of their psychosexual health until, in later years, when they can't hold themselves back, they seek out sexual "peers", i.e. insecure adolescents with overly trusting parents. Even now, Ratzi seems to think it's an American problem, but there were always horror stories from Ireland and Australia as well.

mein Schatzi Ratzi

ooh, I rather like that.

It's like saying:

my precious little rat.

(if a bit of a sloppy translation)

If evolution had no holes and was a 100 percent correct theory then all people would believe it. However there is a lot that don't believe.

You seem to have left a little thing called "understanding" out of the equation.

Then some ass like Santorum blames the scandal on "librulism"

but of course!

Hurricanes, floods, 9/11, all are the fault of the "libruls" in the US.

just ask Robertson or Falwell (well, OK, don't ask Falwell any more, that might be a difficult task).

I'm sure at some point though, Roberston attributed the demise of Falwell to american librlism.

George and Joe were relaxing after a hard day congratulating each other on their performances. Joe decided to do a crossword puzzle and after a few moments asked "George, do you know a four letter word referring to a woman that ends with the letters 'u-n-t?'"

George was completely stuck and so phoned Laura who said "I think the word you're looking for is 'aunt'."

"Of course," said Joe. "Do you have an eraser?"
--------------------------
That's all I have to say about these two old and useless ornaments.

However there is a lot that don't believe.

which of course, is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the theory itself actually works to explain what we see, and works equally well in prediction.

nobody ever fucking asked you to believe.

nobody cares whether you do, or even whether I do for that matter, as someone who actually does employ it to study the evolution of traits in animal populations.

In fact, I can't recall any scientist I've ever met who asked me to "believe" in the theory of evolution.

It's simply a non-sequitor to force "belief" on to a theory, and is nothing more than a projection of your own dogmatic upbringing.

Ichthyic, I have to confess that I sorta cribbed it from the wonderfully disturbed Ramones' song "Today Your Love, Tomorrow the World".

"I'm a shock trooper in a stupor yes I am,
I'm a Nazi Schatzi fight for the Fatherland."

My one consolation in the last seven years was that Joey Ramone (peace be upon him) was spared the sight of his beloved city being attacked.

Ichthyic: Q's "intrinsic worth" was forced upon him by his parents and/or peers...

But somehow he overcame that and led a long and fruitful career as James Bond's gadgetmaster and tactical advisor.

Yet what I also see in modern religion is a re-prioritizing: the secular concerns that should matter, the egalitarian word of a religious tradition that valued the cohesion of the social fabric and demanded equal treatment for even the least of society is ignored...

That (and really that entire paragraph) is perfectly written. I couldn't have said it better if I tried.

"JP2 sat on applications to leave the preisthood and recommendations for defrockings a long time he just didn't believe priests were capable of abusing their positions and raping kids and parishioners..." This reminds me of the episode of South Park where the priest goes to Rome to get the rule saying it's okay to molest boys. J2P2 was never so out of it that he didn't know priests were raping kids. Nothing has ever been done to the priests and bishops involved in the cover-ups.
Wasn't it a cardinal who said that condoms were infected with HIV?
And, after reading Planet Killer's comment I had to lie down to keep my brain from exploding. What a fucking moron.

"If evolution had no holes and was a 100 percent correct theory"
SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!!

"I don't see how my uniqueness or my ancestors' struggles give me intrinsic worth!"

But being a pawn in a superbeing's little game of reward-or-torture does? How?

sorry...

"If evolution had no holes and was a 100 percent correct theory"... then how come there are still PYGMIES AND DWARFS!!!

Isn't it a requirement at this point to do that with blanket statements from crack-smoking creobots at this point?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngula_(blog)#PYGMIES_.2B_DWARFS

But somehow he overcame that and led a long and fruitful career as James Bond's gadgetmaster and tactical advisor.

LOL

According to The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church:

"The United Methodist Church calls upon all who choose to take up arms OR WHO ORDER OTHERS TO DO SO to evaluate their actions in accordance with historic church teaching limiting resort to war, including questions of proportionality, legal authority, DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN COMBATANTS AND NONCOMBATANTS, JUST CAUSE, and PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS...."

Considering that his VP was already on record doubting that success could be had in the "quagmire" that would follow an Iraqi invasion (in 1996, I believe), not only is Bush great at snubbing the desires of his electorate, but apparently he has no problem ignoring his own church's directives concerning restrain in the use of force.

Hell, if he won't listen to his own religious leadership, and by proxy God, then how in the hell can the voters expect him - or any of his staff, as we've seen every single time a member of his administration testifies - to conduct himself with any kind of honesty or integrity.

Draped in guilt, too.

How would a bunny hold a whip? The same way a potato can type, I guess.

then how in the hell can the voters expect him - or any of his staff, as we've seen every single time a member of his administration testifies - to conduct himself with any kind of honesty or integrity.

surely after W's 10+ years in politics, you know the answer to that question.

A:

the voters don't give a shit about whether their politicians are honest, so long as they feel safe from the commies/terrorists/liberals...

...and PlanetKiller slinks off like a whipped cur. Must be embarassing to a fundie to find out an athiest knows the Bible better than you.

You nailed it PZ.
One slight omission I see that perhaps needs some attention would be the curious way they "work" together: Bush kills them and then the pope blesses them on the way to the netherworld as he collects the inheritances, tithes and offerings.

War is kinda like self-perpetuating corporate (corporal?) welfare for the church...the church provides the willing cannon fodder through lies and cherry-picked biblical passages which then manifests ignorance and a willingness to die for angelic wings and eternal life. What a tidy package...the church gets the money, blesses the government and no one is alive or has the cash to challenges the powers that be. Sweet!

There are millions of eyewitnesses to the fact the PK picks his nose and eats it. Millions. You can't possibly ignore this truth, there are MILLIONS of pieces of evidence supporting it.

I know you're not going to comprehend this, I know you're going to ignore this evidence and keep your eyes closed. You're going to ignore the MILLIONS of eyewitness accounts.

I've given you the proof that PK eats boogers. MILLIONS of eyewitness accounts. You people are so thick, so one more time I will show you this proof: MILLIONS of eyewitness accounts.

...and PlanetKiller slinks off like a whipped cur. Must be embarassing to a fundie to find out an athiest knows the Bible better than you.

as you wrote that, his mental defenses have already spun it as a victory for himself, and he will return, at the latest tomorrow, as if he hadn't heard a word you said.

I'll bet a bottle of scotch on it.

Planet Killer,
You say that you believe the flood happened. I'm going to assume that you believe that it occurred sometime within the last 40,000 years. If my assumption is correct, how do you explain Australian Aborigines?
You would have thought that the entire world flooding would have put a bit of a dampener on their day.
I'm just curious as to how you can hold such a view in the face of overwhelming evidence.

How can there be such a thing as intrinsic value in a world where man is not created and has no immortal soul, but is only the product of chance? In a world without God, an individual's value is only the value which other people are willing to give him. He is a commodity like any other commodity, and his value is only as high as a speculator is willing to assess him at. And if the man with the gun, like Pol Pot or Stalin, finds you not to be valuable at all, you may just wind up another skull in a pile of millions and millions.

I am not offering this as a reason to believe in God; I am offering it as a sincere question!

I was hoping for a real explanation of how man can have intrinsic value from an atheist standpoint, but perhaps I should have only expected what I got: a load of nasty sneers from people blinded by bitterness towards all religion (probably from years of bashing their heads against a table after watching ridiculous farces like Expelled).

#85 Cyan

Vital hue,
thank you.

Addenda...

re: Africa, what a Eurocentric claim, to pretend that the Pope is responsible for the spread of AIDS. As if Africans have no will of their own, and will follow whatever the white man tells them to do. They really are people with real wills who make real choices, and they really are responsible for the results of those choices.

re: Pope's culpability on rape cases... anyone who thinks that the Pope has the same level of control over priests that the President has over troops has never spent any amount of time in the post-Vatican II Church. No Pope in living memory has had anywhere near that amount of control over anyone in the Church (Pascendi was a sign of weakness, not strength!), and holding him morally culpable for their actions is laughable. As for rumors in the Vatican, I heard that John XXIII was a Freemason too, from much more 'reliable sources in the Vatican'...

Isn't it possible that the availability of prophylactics actually increases the promiscuity in a culture and leads to a rise in HIV because condoms often break or the heat of the moment simply makes one forget?

Man thats just dumb. I mean mindnumbingly dumb. Since they don't have them en mass there shouldn't be a problem then eh? If they had them the problem would be lessened.

Cardinal Ratzinger was acting according to Canon Law, which is was not within his power to change

It's just man made stuff he needn't abide by it if it is wrong and is immoral to do so.

Quaeror:
In a world without God, an individual's value is only the value which other people are willing to give him. He is a commodity like any other commodity, and his value is only as high as a speculator is willing to assess him at.
You are a master of the non-sequitor.
It doesn't follow that because there's no "intrinsic" value inscribed in the heavens that we are a commodity.

#124-yeah, like I said, that's like saying getting a tetanus shot gives one an uncontrollable urge to jump into a pile of rusty nails. And Quaeror, please read #93.

Er, #92. Wait, just read this.
http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2007/10/if-there-were-no-traffic-…

surely after W's 10+ years in politics, you know the answer to that question.
A:
the voters don't give a shit about whether their politicians are honest, so long as they feel safe from the commies/terrorists/liberals...

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 17, 2008 9:22 PM

Yeah, it was a rhetorical shot in the dark - I think it was more a vent for my frustration than a call for answers...because we know how good that guy is at giving THOSE, now don't we?

I KNOW my post about altruism was at #93 before. What the hell happened?!

If the CEO of a company ordered the cover up of sex abuse within the company, that CEO would be guilty of a crime. Why does the pope get a free pass?

because we know how good that guy is at giving THOSE, now don't we?

hell, watching a half hour of W trying to address serious questions makes one lose the ability to even define what the word "question" is, if the idea is that his responses are supposed to be "answers".

He goes WAY beyond Clinton's momentary attempt to redefine the meaning of the word "is".

Why does the pope get a free pass?

what is it with all the rhetorical questions tonight?

Quaeror,
If you can't see why knowing that each person only has one life to live gives that life intrinsic value, you need psychiatric help.

I'm not convinced that torture is intrinsically immoral.

The extent of its application should be determined by tactical considerations, not by the consensus of popular opinion. Our concept of torture needs to be seen in the context of warfare, not law enforcement. Proportionality must be the determining factor.

Please do not construe this as an endorsement of the current practice. Torture is, without doubt, a revolting idea, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss it outright.

When the pope says "the Republic", I get flashbacks to Senator Palpatine.

"I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it."
- George Carlin

anyone who thinks that the Pope has the same level of control over priests that the President has over troops has never spent any amount of time in the post-Vatican II Church.

LOL

so now you are moving the goalposts for us?

I thought he was "covered"?

If George Bush says torture is OKEDOKEE, and a soldier does indeed decide to torture someone in violation of our own written constitution, as well as violating agreements we had made with other countries previously (using all three branches of government), how is it not the responsibility of the one who essentially is the final arbiter of the rules of conduct for soldiers?

It's like saying the CEO of Enron wasn't responsible for how corrupt Enron became.

funny, but I recall the legal system not exactly agreeing.

you've backed yourself into a completely untenable position; either the pope speaks for the Catholic Church, and bears responsibility for its actions, or he does not, in which case...

what the hell is a pope?

sounds to me you aren't a true(TM) Catholic.

might I suggest a switch to one of the other thousand or so xian sects, where there is no human accountability chain?

or, heck, with your level of understanding and dogmatic upbringing, might i suggest trying out a complete break from ANY organized religion so you can answer your own question as to what intrinsic worth you have?

In a world without God, an individual's value is only the value which other people are willing to give him. He is a commodity like any other commodity, and his value is only as high as a speculator is willing to assess him at. And if the man with the gun, like Pol Pot or Stalin, finds you not to be valuable at all, you may just wind up another skull in a pile of millions and millions.

I am offering it as a sincere question!

Posted by: Quaeror | April 17, 2008 9:41 PM

Quaeror,

Let's give this a try, and if you don't view this as a sincere, unbiased attempt to truly answer your question, then you're simply not honestly looking for one.

The main flaw in your statements above is that - absent God - man's value is determined by those around them. This is patently untrue, because if you truly value humanity and want to contribute to making the world a better place, YOU as an individual are the only one who can determine your value and efficacy as a good human being. People who look outside themselves to determine their intrinsic worth, they are simply looking in the wrong place, and their definition of 'worth' is fundamentally flawed.

And another flaw in your statement is that tyrants and murderers like Pol Pot do NOT kill others because they determine that person's intrinsic worth is less than desirable, even though they may offer that as their ostensible reason. They do so because they look at such people and decide that they are worth nothing to HIM and his goals. (If you doubt this, you should study the many psychological profiles of Stalin, Pol Pot, and other dictatorial mass-murderers - they are abundant and easily accessible. They clearly state that these people's underlying motives sprout from a special kind of narcissism - centered not on the worth of others, but a sense of entitlement and worth they assign to themselves.

And if I happen to wind up as "a skull in a pile of millions," that has nothing to do with my intrinsic worth while I was alive. If I was a terrible human being while I was alive, then I was a terrible human being who died in an ironic, if not deserving, manner. If, however, I was a decent human being who loved and tried to contribute tot he improvement of my life and that of those around me, then I was a very intrinsically worthy human being who met an unfortunate and undeserved end - nothing more, nothing less. This in no way detracts from my character or worth while alive, it simply means I met an unfortunate end to a good life at the hands of a terrible human being. These things happen in a world such as ours.

I think this is a common misconception - that the manner of your death must always speak to the type of human you were while alive. While some definintely deserve the end they meet, whether it be good or bad, the great majority of humans meet ends incommensurate with the way they lived their lives. Many a bastard has lived a long, happy life, while many decent, loving human beings have met unfortunate and quite unfair ends. It is a fact that those of us with an atheistic worldview grudgingly accept as a cold, hard truth. But this in no way demeans the time we do spend on this earth. If anything, it compels many of us to make sure that the time we do have, since we never know when it will be up, is spent trying to live lives based on humanism and the furtherance of the fight against tyranny, mysticism, and the other things which we believe stand in the way of freedom of thought and action.

If you read this post and find in it anything other than a rational, cordial attempt at answering your question posted above, then it will be proof positive to me that you seek no such thing, but rather project hostility into my statements that originates somewhere other than within me. These statements are simple explanations of my positions, and positions I believe (but by no means affirm) are shared by many atheists on this board. I hope you take them as I intend, which is simple friendly discourse. If you do, I will be more than willing to continue discussing these things with you. If not, you should direct your response elsewhere.

"That is why it is pointless. If evolution had no holes and was a 100 percent correct theory then all people would believe it. However there is a lot that don't believe."

So, if this is true, I guess that whole religion thing must be a load of crap, huh? Because if it was a correct idea, then all people would believe it.

Shucks. How embarassing for you.

What does the phrase "intrinsic value" even mean to you folks? Could I get a definition, a ta ti en einai?

I just saw a clip of the pope, sitting on his HUGE throne, receiving gifts from the other faiths in America: Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Jains. Apparently other christian franchises don't count.

Hey daenku32 (post #135)
Check this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9sJVJMiYM

To Quaeror:

OK, you don't consider the pope culpable in the child abuse cases (Not even a little?). Please point us towards any articles which detail how the Vatican intends to prevent future child abuse in the church. The only one I can find is about the pope's call for prayer, hoping it doesn't happen again.

The question is, if it DOES happen again, would you say that the pope is culpable then?

I like the CEO analogy regarding situations like sexual harassment:

CEO: I assure you this kind of behavior is not tolerated in this company! It was done by a few psychologically disturbed employees.

...After 1 year...

CEO: I assure you this kind of behavior is not tolerated in this company! I told everyone my position on this the last time!

When does not taking action become grounds for culpability?

Thanks, brokenSoldier (#138), I appreciate someone actually speaking as a grown intelligent adult for once here and not shrilly, like a child throwing a tantrum.

I think, however, that your concept of meaning and the value of a life is problematic in that it is ephemeral and relative. If my life only means something to me, only has value to me, then that isn't intrinsic value.

You're using value in the sense of the transitive verb, "to value". It requires a subject as well as an object. In your way of looking at things, I'm the only one that values me, or maybe my kids and my wife do, or my mother and father, etc. But what this boils down to is just feelings of needing and liking. I like myself; my kids need me; etc.

The problem with this is that, for example, a depressed retarded person who lives on the street with no friends has no value to any mortal. He does not value himself, nor does anyone else. You would literally be doing him a favor by snuffing out his life, wouldn't you? Doesn't that make sense, from an atheist perspective?

This is why I think there can only be relative value of people, and no intrinsic value of them (which can only come from the fact that they are created in God's image and loved by Him) in a universe uncreated by God, where they are just animals.

PZ, that was a gorgeous, righteous rant.

"It's a religion that has shifted its eyes from a task to be done here on earth to an unearthly vision of a magical unseen world run by an ethereal tyrant who must be placated."

Nothing warps human morality like the myth of the eternal soul. The surest path to monsterhood is to place salvation after life above the lives and suffering of the real beings here on Earth.

"There's an evil tableau for you: the callous torturer stands up with blood on his hands and a lie in his teeth, while the priest draped in gilt reassures him of his righteousness. How often has that scene played out in history, I wonder?"

I have this big calendar on my wall, and each week, I find my favorite sentence, or short paragraph, and put it on my calendar. It's interesting to go back later and read what moved me from week to week throughout my life. For the week of April 14, 2007, the above paragraph was my choice. I'm so glad I read this blog. Truly excellent writing.

How much money is all this costing us taxpayers? I have a feeling all that security is not being paid for by the pope...

#143, I reiterate, the Pope is weak. Analogies of the CEO or the President are not accurate. Nobody would blame the Dalai Llama for the anti-ethnic-Chinese riots that broke out in Tibet recently, would they? Because violence is against the principles of Buddhism, and the Dalai Llama has told them not to riot, but they did anyway.

Same thing here. Priests disobey the Pope all the time, just attend a youth mass in Germany sometime -- they're in the Pope's backyard and they repeatedly do things that fly in the face of the liturgical reforms he's trying to implement. Priests since Vatican II have repeatedly and intentionally defied the Church and done whatever they feel like doing, bishops too; it's just a question of how bad a deviation they want to commit, whether it's the relatively mild changing the liturgy or ordaining women, or the heinous rape of children.

The national news has just run passed my time zone here in redneck of the woods USA. Now I see what you folks have been on about. The smirking, backslapping good-ol-boyism of the Chimp & the Pimp is sickening.
The announcer of the news said that the Pimp was going to do a hard hitting straight forward address on the subject of child rape by clergy in the USA... take the red pill... the Pimp said he is going to "pray" for the victims. He also said followers should love their priest... Balam's Ass speaks.

I'm not convinced that torture is intrinsically immoral.
The extent of its application should be determined by tactical considerations, not by the consensus of popular opinion. Our concept of torture needs to be seen in the context of warfare, not law enforcement. Proportionality must be the determining factor.
Please do not construe this as an endorsement of the current practice. Torture is, without doubt, a revolting idea, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss it outright.
Posted by: Kyle | April 17, 2008 10:23 PM

As a soldier, I know that statement to be ridiculously false, and not for reasons of splitting hairs between law enforcement and warfare. As someone who has very recently faced open combat, I will tell you that the soldiers committed to humane treatment of detainees, unlawful or not, do not hold that position out of either tactical or public opinion considerations. We do not torture simply because it is a horrid institution in the first place. If you can somehow reconcile the blatantly inhumane and cruel treatment of an individual (who is - by design - never even brought to trial to defend themselves) with your own morality, then I would suggest that your morality is fundamentally flawed. We rode into combat every day KNOWING that if we were captured, we would more than likely live the rest of our short lives in unbearable pain at the hands of torture. We don't torture for the simple reason that it is morally reprehensible to do so. And your equivocation claiming that it might not be so is specious at best, but absolutely indefensible at worst. It smacks of a claim being made by someone who has never personally seen torture (there is no law in Iraq preventing Iraqi forces from torturing their detainees, and I vomited on many occasions because I had to supervise in order to make sure they didn't KILL the detainee - but I could not intervene due to international law). Until you feel that internal revulsion at such inhumane treatment, you have no moral ground to stand on while debating the morality or lack thereof concerning the practice of torture.

I'll end with a sentiment I felt - along with many of my fellow US soldiers - every time I saw an Iraqi soldier beating and otherwise torturing their detainees. While watching this, I always had this thought in my mind:

"I sure hope that person is guilty."

Within that sentiment lies the very reason torture is - and always will be - morally reprehensible. The torture this administration is so diligently trying to justify is borne out of an urgent need for vital information to avert some crime which is to be committed in the recent future. By definition, this violates the principles of due process our nation is founded upon. If you have an imminent danger, the exact WRONG way to handle it is to limit civil liberties, trample due process, and consolidate power in one governmental echelon. The exact RIGHT way to go about this problem is to develop systems of detection and intervention that work IN ACCORDANCE WITH our principles.

To use an old cliche, "If you can't do it right, it ain't worth doing."

To Quaeror:

Look, I realize that the pope's powers are limited. And that people disobey authority figures all the time. But couldn't he at least try doing something (other than prayer, I mean)? He still has excommunication up his sleeve, doesn't he? I'm trying to find the exact number of excommunicated pedophile priests, but I'm having trouble doing so.

In this regard, I still think the analogy to the CEO stands. CEOs can impose fines, demotions, even fire sexual offenders. CEOs can create programs for preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. And usually, when such measures still fail, CEOs are fired or resign.

Uh, the short answer is, "no."

Well done peez.

The defrocking (not necessarily excommunication, two different things) of priests is done by the bishops, not the Pope. I know in my diocese several priests have been defrocked or moved to non-pastoral positions over scandals (real or not), since 1999 when the big scandals broke in Boston and elsewhere and the Church realized the enormity of the extent of the problem. Seminaries scrutinize young men now beyond belief to make sure that this will no longer happen. There has been plenty done to prevent the problem from persisting; but the last thing needed is a witch-hunt, where every money-hungry crook with a beef against the Church makes up rape accusations. Witness the false claims made against the late great Chicago Archbishop Cardinal Bernadin a few years ago.

One important thing to keep in mind, though, is that the Church, following the teachings of her founder Jesus Christ, believes in forgiveness for those truly sorry, and does not believe in vengeance. Certainly the penitent molesters ought not to be reinstated in positions where they might reoffend, and certainly the victims ought not to be ignored, but neither should the offending priests be pilloried as some would have it!

>So, if this is true, I guess that whole religion thing
>must be a load of crap, huh? Because if it was a correct
>idea, then all people would believe it.

>Shucks. How embarassing for you.

Not embarrasing at all. I mean science is supposed to be 100 percent correct based on evidence that can be observed. Correct?

Whoops there went that theory.

It is pretty simple to understand. If it can't be observed, then it is an educated guess of what happened. If this guess is just a little bit wrong, then the entire process is wrong. This is kind of like a train wreck. If one piece is incorrect than your entire view point on the evidence is incorrect.

We have idiots in science pushing their world view on people and shoving this so called view point down our throats and we don't even have evidence it is correct.

Evolution is NOT SCIENCE. ID IS NOT SCIENCE. It's pretty simple to see. It's crap science being put forth from our lovely atheist scientists. There are other views of the data from the evidence that is not being presented and I am not talking about ID. These views and the scientists that represented in these views are fired from their work.

Atheism is a religion that is being backed by scientists since that is their world view. They are tired of religion and want to get rid of it so they are doing everything they can to achieve that goal. The first way in was to get to teach at the top level of the universities from their it has spread all over. Religion is holding us back and must be destroyed. After that it will be morals that are holding us back. Religion is for simple minded fools that must be killed. See, where this leads us? Right back to the kinds of things Hilter did.

Quaeror:

I was hoping for a real explanation of how man can have intrinsic value from an atheist standpoint, but perhaps I should have only expected what I got: a load of nasty sneers from people blinded by bitterness towards all religion

Well done. You've played the martyred victim role to the hilt. Well, that's your fantasy, not mine. Buzz off, you lying piece of shredded doormat. Benighted codswallop! Go to Texas. If you can't figure out why I'm angry with you, buzz off seven times seven times more. Abrade your jaded corneae with a cheap plastic crucifix. Ratdong. Cellpore. Nanophalic drone.Go away, nihilist. You're a poison on this earth, a cancer, a cold, writhing, hungry parasite on the heart of humanity.

And if the man with the gun, like Pol Pot or Stalin, finds you not to be valuable at all, you may just wind up another skull in a pile of millions and millions.

Jesus Christ On Melba Toast! You forgot Hitler, the Catholic. You forgot The Crusades and The Inquisition. You forgot Cortez, Pizarro, and countless other convert-or-die missionaries of imperialistic Christianity, who exterminated entire civilizations in the name of The Holy Roman Emperor.

How conveniently you overlook those actions based on the value Christians place on non-Christian life.

How dishonest you are, you bevenomed, motley-minded ratsbane.

Begone, slithering snake. Simpering crookpate. Malodorous gasbox. Doghearted horn-beast. Gangrenous carbuncle. Virulent pustule. Puking, fat-kidneyed flap-dragon. Witch-burning pigsherd. Rump-fed clotpole.

Go pray now, lambchop. Leave us, and go whisper sweet nothings under the sheets to your murderous little fever-dream.

The problem with this is that, for example, a depressed retarded person who lives on the street with no friends has no value to any mortal. He does not value himself, nor does anyone else. You would literally be doing him a favor by snuffing out his life, wouldn't you? Doesn't that make sense, from an atheist perspective?

No. There is a thingcalled empathy and it's a pretty big concept. His life has value because he is oneof us and hurting. Youseem to equate atheism with nihilism and it just ain't so.

This is why I think there can only be relative value of people, and no intrinsic value of them (which can only come from the fact that they are created in God's image and loved by Him) in a universe uncreated by God, where they are just animals.

Even if what you say it true you would have no way of knowing if God loved you or not past your own imagination. And you are choosing one particular version of God.

So what your saying is that God is some form of invisible space primate who loves us all except the billions he sweeps under the rug in your theology? Where is the human value in that perspective?

In reality this view doesn't give you any more value you are just pretending it does.

Quaeror,

How can there be such a thing as intrinsic value in a world where man is not created and has no immortal soul, but is only the product of chance?

We are not just the product of chance. Evolution is not as simpleminded as you have been led to believe.

What is your hang up with value? Why do you feel the need to rate yourself against a scale of worth? Is it really you asking the question or your church leaders? (seriously) Whose definition, and whose scale are you trying to make reality conform to? How do you know that you would recognize intrinsic value if you were staring right at it? Intrinsic value may be all around you and your missing it because your head is full rules on how to look, what to look for, and how to describe and judge what you see when you find it.

And whether you have an immortal soul or not, you do exist. Don't you find that interesting? Worth exploring on its own merit? You are a product of the universe, and you are connected to it by simply existing. How do you know that there is no intrinsic value in that? Because other people have told you?

In a world without God, an individual's value is only the value which other people are willing to give him.

What are you, a slave? Because you sound like a slave.

He is a commodity like any other commodity, and his value is only as high as a speculator is willing to assess him at.

Honestly, you sound like a brow beaten slave.

And if the man with the gun, like Pol Pot or Stalin, finds you not to be valuable at all, you may just wind up another skull in a pile of millions and millions.

You may. We are all going to die, no question about it. You can either stick your head against the gun like a useless slave being discarded, or you can live, and die, on your own terms--no matter what your situation.

From your comments, you sound like someone who has been been carefully taught to believe that you cannot be your own authority, and that life is worthless, and that you are worthless without god--you really do seem to be a slave to people who have told you what to believe.

The problem with this is that, for example, a depressed retarded person who lives on the street with no friends has no value to any mortal. He does not value himself, nor does anyone else.

Why would you say such a thing? Who is wise enough to know these things? Is it your church dogma telling you again that no one has any worth except to god?

You would literally be doing him a favor by snuffing out his life, wouldn't you? Doesn't that make sense, from an atheist perspective?

again, who is wise enough to know these things? You're bound and determined to get a god in their someplace, aren't you?

Kseniya

LOL!

To Quaeror:

That's very interesting. I'll have to do more research on your examples. I have to ask though (a bit facetiously), who's responsible for excommunicating bishops?

Still, it would be better if the priests in question (providing they had their time in court) had been sent to prison, instead of simply removed from their positions.

Btw, I also find your comparison of the pope to the dalai lama in your comment a bit disingenuous. The dalai lama is in exile. Going to the press to appeal for peace is one of the few things he CAN do. (Unless, of course, he has some kind of secret tibetan monk-ninja assassination squad or something :) )

I mean science is supposed to be 100 percent correct based on evidence that can be observed. Correct?Whoops there went that theory.

Patience-Killer, your ignorance (apparently) knows no bounds, and is matched only by your excruciatingly mundane arrogance.

Have you no shame?

Really. Have you? Have you any self-respect? Or humility? Are you completely lacking in desire to fill the embarrassingly obvious, gaping holes in your education? Your only desire seems to be to inflict your own misinformed views on the rest of us, repeatedly, at a higher words-per-day rate than I've seen around here... well, ever.

I'm sorry, but I just had to repeat the good parts:

Buzz off, you lying piece of shredded doormat. Benighted codswallop! Go to Texas. If you can't figure out why I'm angry with you, buzz off seven times seven times more. Abrade your jaded corneae with a cheap plastic crucifix. Ratdong. Cellpore. Nanophalic drone.Go away, nihilist. You're a poison on this earth, a cancer, a cold, writhing, hungry parasite on the heart of humanity.

How dishonest you are, you bevenomed, motley-minded ratsbane.
Begone, slithering snake. Simpering crookpate. Malodorous gasbox. Doghearted horn-beast. Gangrenous carbuncle. Virulent pustule. Puking, fat-kidneyed flap-dragon. Witch-burning pigsherd. Rump-fed clotpole.
Go pray now, lambchop. Leave us, and go whisper sweet nothings under the sheets to your murderous little fever-dream.

I don't know what prompted it (specifically, I mean, since we get creobots here every day), but its a gudun.

"I think, however, that your concept of meaning and the value of a life is problematic in that it is ephemeral and relative. If my life only means something to me, only has value to me, then that isn't intrinsic value."

This is exactly what intrinsic value means. In the case of an inanimate object such as a diamond, its intrinsic value is necessarily determined by outside agents due to its obvious inability to determine its own value, but when you're talking about a sentient being, they - and only they - can determine the value that originates from within them- the very definition of intrinsic value. The value placed on me by an external being - any other human - is, by pure definition - the extrinsic value they have assigned me.

"You're using value in the sense of the transitive verb, "to value". It requires a subject as well as an object. In your way of looking at things, I'm the only one that values me, or maybe my kids and my wife do, or my mother and father, etc. But what this boils down to is just feelings of needing and liking. I like myself; my kids need me; etc.
The problem with this is that, for example, a depressed retarded person who lives on the street with no friends has no value to any mortal. He does not value himself, nor does anyone else. You would literally be doing him a favor by snuffing out his life, wouldn't you? Doesn't that make sense, from an atheist perspective?"

No, that makes sense from a perspective that allows people to determine the worth of others based on their own worldview, and then assume that their own conclusions are somehow more valuable than that person's own inner judgement of themselves. Being an atheist necessarily separates you from the idea that someone outside of you has the authority to determine YOUR worth. They can assign their opinion of your worth all they want, but this is again - by definition - an expression of their opinion of your EXTRINSIC value. (Be careful, you're conversing with an English major. :) Transitivity in our language - because it does have other functions and connotations on other languages - mostly languages belonging to the family of tongues native to Siberian communities) simply refers to the amount of objects a verb has - i.e., transitive verbs have one or more objects, while intransitive verbs have no objects. And transitivity plays no part in the phrase "to value," because 'value' is the verb, and in the phrase "to value" there is no object to the verb - "to value" is simply an infinitive, and the transitivity of the verb value cannot be determined, because it has no object until it is applied to something that is being valued. Thus, stating that in that instance I was speaking of value in respect to its transitivity does not really mean anything in the grammatical sense.

"This is why I think there can only be relative value of people, and no intrinsic value of them (which can only come from the fact that they are created in God's image and loved by Him) in a universe uncreated by God, where they are just animals."

Whether or not someone BELIEVES an object or person can have intrinsic value has no bearing on whether or not it actually does possess that value - any object, people included, DO have both intrinsic and extrinsic value, necessitated by the definition of the two terms. I could say - hypothetically, I assure you - that I don't believe Paris Hilton has any intrinsic value at all, and that her popularity is solely based on her (and her family's) extrinsic value, I am sure that she and her family would object, because she obviously feels that she DOES have an intrinsic value as a human. While we find it - in our society - reprehensible to place a tangible extrinsic value on human life, some societies do not, and regularly trade in humans for commerce. (Not that our nation is free from repercussions of past actions to that effect by any means...) And do not take this as a slight against your beliefs, as I believe in - and fought and was wounded for - your right to any belief you choose, but when speaking in terms of concrete knowledge (as in your statement that a person's extrinsic value "can only come from the fact that they are created in God's image and loved by Him"), we must necessarily restrain the parameters of discussion to the natural, observable world. No one should fault you for your convictions, and your desire to use them in your justifications, but you will definitely run into a great deal of skepticism concerning your assertions if you resort to supporting them with anything supernatural, simply because supernatural assertions are beyond observation, objective study, and mutual consideration.

Posted by: Quaeror | April 17, 2008 10:55 PM

One important thing to keep in mind, though, is that the Church, following the teachings of her founder Jesus Christ, believes in forgiveness for those truly sorry, and does not believe in vengeance.

Some of the alleged teachings of Jesus. Don'tbelieve in vengeance,perhaps, but 'turn or burn'seems to have been pretty prevelant in the bloody past.

Certainly the penitent molesters ought not to be reinstated in positions where they might reoffend, and certainly the victims ought not to be ignored, but neither should the offending priests be pilloried as some would have it!

They freaking molested children, CHILDREN GOOF! They should be sitting in prison. End of story.

#155, Your thesaurus must be well worn! I have never been so verbosely maligned. Well done!

#156, I'm going to once again assume an atheist universe:

What is empathy but a feeling? Why should anyone care about feelings? After all, they're ultimately just movements of molecules in some particular hominid brain. Right? What can an atheist say in response to that, except that anyone who feels that way is an unfeeling monster, which is just a fancy way of saying "Boo!" (as in, the opposite of "Yay!")

Also, yes, I do believe in a particular God, I believe in the God whose son was a real part of history, who came to earth to be one of the least of us, to suffer with us, and to redeem us, all of us because we are all made in His image and imbued with immortal souls and intrinsically valuable! This God has actually been worshiped by people of all cultures, and by many cultures before the modern white Western Protestant culture you probably associate with Christianity existed.

" Since you do not believe in the flood and you don't take the evidence from that point of view you are going to get your science all messed up. I think more research has to be done to prove this right. However, the theory of evolution has many holes in it that you will not acknowledge anyway.

That is why it is pointless. "

You're right, it is pointless. According to you, because we haven't assumed the conclusion (the Flood and other ancient myths) before we even do any research, we're somehow wrong.

"It is pretty simple to understand. If it can't be observed, then it is an educated guess of what happened. If this guess is just a little bit wrong, then the entire process is wrong."

You're utterly wrong. Newton's laws of gravity were found to be "wrong", at least in the sense that they don't apply in the very large and very small scales. But this was found out by essentially the same process as Newton used, i.e., the scientific method, once we had access to the kind of data that Newton could not have, due to technological limitations. New data comes in, theories are refined, science marches on. Religion, meanwhile, remains playing catch-up, since they have no reliable antidote to error.

"Evolution is NOT SCIENCE."

You don't know the first thing about science. I'll let the actual scientists among us school you on that point. You're a pest.

Not embarrasing at all. I mean science is supposed to be 100 percent correct based on evidence that can be observed. Correct?

PK, you have posted now, what, 20 or 30 comments? And scores of people have replied to you. If you can still make such asinine statement as that after all this time then you are nothing more than a brainless typing machine. And a waste of everybody's time.

sorry about that last line before my name in my last post - I forgot to remove the "Posted by Quaeror" line before hitting 'post.'

It's crap science being put forth from our lovely atheist scientists.

well, thankyou, but you're still full of shit.

there's an easy way to tell what is crap science and what is not:

primary publications.

There have been tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles in hundreds of journals documenting the history of experiments trying to DISPROVE various aspects and predictions born of the ToE.

that one such as yourself is not willing to admit that (surely you aren't blind, right, so it must be willful) is not surprising to me any more, but it sure as hell aint rational, neither.

suggest you seek other areas of your life where you refuse to see whats in front of your face, and once you find them (or someone with some sense points them out to you), the pattern should tell you something...

*psst*

you're nuts.

What is empathy but a feeling? Why should anyone care about feelings?

I find it odd that religiots all easily immagine this world of non-empathy, but no atheist I know feels that way. Very telling.

This God has actually been worshiped by people of all cultures, and by many cultures before the modern white Western Protestant culture

Zoroastr?

Patience-Killer:

After that it will be morals that are holding us back.

Wow! Impressive. A strawman set up on a well-greased slippery slope!

O_o

HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

Religion is for simple minded fools

You're making that case well, though I would never be inclined to attempt it, myself.

...that must be killed.

Another despicable, flimsy strawman.

HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

How does it feel to be the exemplar of Expelled's target audience? Empowering?

See, where this leads us? Right back to the kinds of things Hilter did.

Yeah, inspired by Martin Luther, and IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, you beslubbering, onion-eyed skainsmate!

beslubbering, onion-eyed skainsmate

Ok, I wanna shot of whatever has got you so eloquent tonight!

"After all, they're ultimately just movements of molecules in some particular hominid brain. Right?"

So what?

"Also, yes, I do believe in a particular God, I believe in the God whose son was a real part of history, who came to earth to be one of the least of us, to suffer with us, and to redeem us, all of us because we are all made in His image and imbued with immortal souls and intrinsically valuable!"

So...this "intrinsic" value is actually "extrinsic" because it was imposed on us from without by some supposed deity. How is this value worth more than the value we give each other again? And where does the son/self sacrifice come in, exactly?

"This God has actually been worshiped by people of all cultures, and by many cultures before the modern white Western Protestant culture you probably associate with Christianity existed."

And the crazy comes out. Whee.

If you can still make such asinine statement as that after all this time then you are nothing more than a brainless typing machine. And a waste of everybody's time.
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 17, 2008 11:48 PM

Ramblin, you are definitely a man after my own heart! We have a special name for people like this in the military - though it may be common outside the service also, so forgive me if it's not new to you - but I think it fits this guy to a tee. Besides being a waste of time, he is the epitome of we call an "Oxygen Thief."

Zoroastr?

no, no.

DAGON, you simpering landlubber.

http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/dagon-1.jpg

For extra fun, read Kseniya's latest posts in Mr. Burns' voice.

What is empathy but a feeling? Why should anyone care about feelings? After all, they're ultimately just movements of molecules in some particular hominid brain. Right?

But you are killing your own argument for that is all your belief is as well. Or an atheists unbelief. But one should care about feelings not from where they originate which I suspect your correct about butthe real impact they have in reality both on the projected and projectee.

Also, yes, I do believe in a particular God, I believe in the God whose son was a real part of history, who came to earth to be one of the least of us, to suffer with us, and to redeem us, all of us because we are all made in His image and imbued with immortal souls and intrinsically valuable!

Real part of history? That as you know is not verifiable.

Saying Jesus was the son of God is again a belief and not verifiable. Many other beings are also said to have been Gods.

This God has actually been worshiped by people of all cultures, and by many cultures before the modern white Western Protestant culture you probably associate with Christianity existed.

All cultures? I'm prettysure Israel isn't real big on Jesus worship along with 2/3 of rest of the planet. And that is fairly irrevelant in any event as truth isn't determined by vote as the bible was when it was put together.

DAGON, you simpering landlubber.

Arggh, that be a mighty God, matey.
But I never cared much for Aquaman.

Quaeror:

What is empathy but a feeling? Why should anyone care about feelings? After all, they're ultimately just movements of molecules in some particular hominid brain...

I don't understand this particular hang-up about feelings originating from chemicals. Taste is basically just chemical interactions in our brains. It doesn't mean it's not important/useful to us.

This God has actually been worshiped by people of all cultures...

I don't think you've thought this part through. Are you claiming that when the Aborigines were worshipping their gods, they were actually worshipping Yahweh? Do you consider all gods across all cultures essentially the same being? I'm not trying to build a strawman here. I'm just trying to understand what you're writing.

Ichthy:

I don't know what prompted it (specifically)

(It was prompted by the passage blockquoted at the top: the utter disregard for myself and others who'd engaged his questions and concerns openly and fairly - a point which escapes him still, apparently.)

#162, brokenSoldier, I still don't buy your argument that intrinsic value comes of a man comes from his estimation of himself. That's still extrinsic and conditional; he's assessing himself, just as someone else would do. A depressed, self-hating and "brow-beaten slave", to borrow someone else's abusive language, would have no intrinsic value -- so then is he not a man, if all men have intrinsic value? That's why I bring up the use of value as a transitive verb; you say that I value myself (transitive), therefore I have intrinsic value.

I would contrast this by saying that from a Catholic perspective, a man is valuable because he is made in the image of God and is loved by God. His value is something ontological, not imposed by anyone but his Creator, and imposed in a completely different way from the way men impose value on cattle, because there is no ontological mark on the cattle.

Of course the idea of an ontological mark on the soul will meet with skepticism, as will any concept integrating the supernatural. The only thing I can offer to that is that one should remain open to the possibility of supernatural phenomena, for just because they cannot always be put under a microscope and recreated by people all over the globe at any time, it doesn't mean they are definitely not true; the criteria for evaluation of theories of physics will clearly not work for the evaluation of claims of the supernatural. But if one remains open to the idea of the supernatural, and listens, and sincerely desires the Truth, one will be led to it.

What more can I say? I sign off for the night, wishing you all a blessed remainder of the Paschal season.

I believe in the God whose son was a real part of history

paging Dr. Hector Avalos.

Dr. Hector Avalos to the thread, please.

....

"Dr. Avalos, please tell us "How Archaeology Killed Biblical History" please?"

"Why certainly..."

http://mnatheists.org/component/option,com_seyret/task,videodirectlink/…

Excellent article, about a rather sad reality.
Congratulations on the wonderful blog. Keep it up!

But if one remains open to the idea of the supernatural, and listens, and sincerely desires the Truth, one will be led to it.

Well, obviously! 'Cause if you're that lazy, you can be led anywhere. :)

I'll close with an addendum in response to #178: I'll qualify what I said, that certain people from all cultures (broadly defined), have at one point worshiped this God. And we have no reason to suspect that people who have not heard of Him will be allowed to suffer for that fact alone. Check out the writings of Karl Rahner on the subject of "anonymous Christians".

I believe that you have a great deal of value brokenSoldier.

I think I see the problem. Quaeror's definition of "intrinsic value" is: The value a person derives from being made in God's image and being loved by Him.
Therefore in a Godless world a person would have no "intrinsic value" for "intrinsic value" would not exist without God to provide it.
We must establish our own definition for "intrinsic value" that does not include God (which we have done) and defend it (which we have done). Unfortunately, this will not satisfy Quaeror because he asked us to show how his definition of "intrinsic value" can exist in a Godless world, which by definition can't.
Congratulations, Quaeror, you caught us in logical trap because we didn't fully understand your definitions. However, I don't see how it follows that I have some greater value than that which I already apply to myself because I am made in God's image and am loved by Him.

To brokensoldier:

I think I misrepresented my argument.

My understanding is that the non-contact forms of interrogation (eg sensory deprivation) are the only effective means of gathering reliable intelligence from non compliant prisoners.

I am NOT advocating indiscriminate torture against civilians (or even against the vast majority of POW's). This seems to me to be on par with using rape as a war strategy.

As for civil liberties, I must disagree with you. The prosecution of war necessarily entails the killing of a certain number of non-combatants, acting on insufficient evidence etc. is this not so? This seems to me incompatible with the practice of US law.

Q: The commonly accepted meaning of the phrase "turn the other cheek" jibes much better with the context, wherein Jesus also commands us to give even our tunic to one who demands our cloak, etc.

You missed the meaning by a mile. Jesus is affirming that the person being struck is at least equal to the person that strikes. By turning the cheek, he asserts his equality - at least to God - which is what you claim as one of the aims of your religion. The person is affirming his intrinsic worth and demanding that he be recognized as an equal at his own peril.

The matter of the demand for the cloak and also offering the tunic also has meaning in the context of Hebrew beliefs and mythology. If you give the tunic, you are naked, which is taken as a serious impropriety in that society. [See the curse on Shem after Noah gets drunk and his son sees him exposed] However, the one that causes you to become naked is held in greater shame for causing you to be unclothed. It is questioning the greed and power of the one demanding your cloak and asking that the person giving up the cloak and tunic to risk his own peril and embarassment to show that the one demanding too much will be the one who is abased even more.

The idea was incorporated into Thoreau's, then Ghandi's and later King's concept of non-violent action in the face of a greater temporal power. One has to risk one's own pain and suffer the consequences of facing a powerful institution or person, but in the process the powerful will be shamed for their harmful actions. It's about the risks one has to take to assert one's equality. Even if you die on your feet rather than live on your knees.

(It was prompted by the passage blockquoted at the top: the utter disregard for myself and others who'd engaged his questions and concerns openly and fairly - a point which escapes him still, apparently.)

as i said...

that happens every day here.

all of us, including Kseniya, see evidentiary arguments discounted as a matter of course by the various moronic creobots continually "beslubbering" through here.

She happens to be in rare form tonight, is what I'm saying.

My understanding is that the non-contact forms of interrogation (eg sensory deprivation) are the only effective means of gathering reliable intelligence from non compliant prisoners.

oh please let's not let this become another thread belaboring the details and philosophy of torture?

there are already several. use the damn search function.

I'll qualify what I said, that certain people from all cultures (broadly defined), have at one point worshiped this God.

how do you know?

(that's a rhetorical question, as there simply is NO way you CAN know)

you really haven't thought much about the history of your own religion before, have you?

Well, obviously! 'Cause if you're that lazy, you can be led anywhere. :)

oh, *snap*

LOL

...in other news, "Malodorous Gasbox" would make a great name for a rock band.

(I may not believe in gods, but I believe in Kseniya! Holy crap! :D )

But I never cared much for Aquaman.

oh yeah?

try to get superman to call off that Carcharadon next time you go swimming in the ocean...

:p

Quaeror:

I'll qualify what I said, that certain people from all cultures (broadly defined), have at one point worshiped this God. And we have no reason to suspect that people who have not heard of Him will be allowed to suffer for that fact alone...

Wait, wait! Aren't you using the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" defense here? While technically true, the most prudent action in this case would be to suspend judgement, until further evidence.

course the idea of an ontological mark on the soul will meet with skepticism, as will any concept integrating the supernatural. The only thing I can offer to that is that one should remain open to the possibility of supernatural phenomena, for just because they cannot always be put under a microscope and recreated by people all over the globe at any time, it doesn't mean they are definitely not true;

No but minus any evidence it can be stored with fairies, goblins and vampires. And nothingis actually supernatural. If it exists it is by definition 'real' and subject to science. If God is outside the system thatis fine butmost theism happens in world.

the criteria for evaluation of theories of physics will clearly not work for the evaluation of claims of the supernatural. But if one remains open to the idea of the supernatural, and listens, and sincerely desires the Truth, one will be led to it

And we have no reason to suspect that people who have not heard of Him will be allowed to suffer for that fact alone. Check out the writings of Karl Rahner on the subject of "anonymous Christians".

This shows the utter and complete vacous nature of your position. So people who have not heard of himget a free pass, kinda kills the Jesus is the only way concept. It also makes an even greater mockery of the religion in that people whohave heard but don't follow WILL suffer with scant more evidence past a mention.

"how do you know?"

Easy. He made it up. Put that under your microscope and smoke it, smartie.

This shows the utter and complete vacous nature of your position. So people who have not heard of himget a free pass, kinda kills the Jesus is the only way concept.

OTOH, it also kills the idea that there is a role for missionaries, so it has that going for it at least.

broSoldier:

he is the epitome of we call an "Oxygen Thief."

Yesss... very apt. :-)

Rey:

So...this "intrinsic" value is actually "extrinsic" because it was imposed on us from without by some supposed deity. How is this value worth more than the value we give each other again?

BINGO. You totally nailed it. What we're advocating is intrinsic value. The theistic version is extrinsic, as you say. But the "advantage" of the theistic model is the assumption that the eternal soul exists. What value would you place on a physical life that's over in the blink of a god's eye, when you have all eternity to sit at the feet of the lord - in perfect peace, of course. *yawn*

Mr. Burn's voice? LMAO.

Q:

I still don't buy your argument that intrinsic value comes of a man comes from his estimation of himself.

Of course you don't. You never will. You've already made up your mind. This is just sport, for you.

That's still extrinsic and conditional; he's assessing himself, just as someone else would do. A depressed, self-hating and "brow-beaten slave", to borrow someone else's abusive language, would have no intrinsic value -- so then is he not a man, if all men have intrinsic value?

Indeed.

Your value comes from the mere fact that you exist (and, I suppose, that you are aware of your own existence - but I think trees and rocks have intrinsic value, too. Call me crazy.) Your value is therefore an inherent aspect of your nature. Q.E.D.

If you'd been paying attention, thou milk-livered giglet, we could have had a conversation about it. But nooooo... you had to play the martyr, which is, when get down to it and protestations to the contrary, what your little game seems to be all about. I hope you're enjoying it.

Put that under your microscope and smoke it, smartie.

well, Ok, but I'll have to use the dissecting scope instead of the compound.

Quaeror, I wasn't trying to insult you or be abusive. I was just calling it like I see it. You don't seem to be your own person.

Setting aside your assumption of the soul, I actually agree with much of the following.

The only thing I can offer to that is that one should remain open to the possibility of supernatural phenomena, for just because they cannot always be put under a microscope and recreated by people all over the globe at any time, it doesn't mean they are definitely not true;

and as for: the criteria for evaluation of theories of physics will clearly not work for the evaluation of claims of the supernatural.

It may with better understanding, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But if one remains open to the idea of the supernatural, and listens, and sincerely desires the Truth, one will be led to it.

It's a nice idea that sincerely wanting the Truth will lead you to it, but how do you know that the "Truth" will be something that you recognize?

"How can there be such a thing as intrinsic value in a world where man is not created and has no immortal soul, but is only the product of chance? In a world without God, an individual's value is only the value which other people are willing to give him. He is a commodity like any other commodity, and his value is only as high as a speculator is willing to assess him at. And if the man with the gun, like Pol Pot or Stalin, finds you not to be valuable at all, you may just wind up another skull in a pile of millions and millions."

Even if you are right, what does that have to do with the hows and whys of the beginning (if there was one) and existence of the universe? How is that an argument for the existence of God?

You're simply arguing that there must be a god because you feel the need for one - because you find the idea of a non-created universe upsetting or empty.

Well, the universe came about the way it came about. It was here before you were. How you feel about it has nothing to do with reality. If you find out the "truth" about the universe and like it, it doesn't effect the universe. If you find the "truth" of the universe and find it intolerable and slit your throat, it doesn't effect the universe.

Unless YOU are god. And I'm pretty sure you're not.

As I've said before - narcissism. You aren't the center of the universe. How you feel about reality does not change reality. I find these kind of questions so tedious, because the answer days NOTHING about the universe or the existence or non-existence of God. The only thing you can learn from these kinds of "philosophical" discussions is how the minds of the questioners and answerers work.

And you're just not that fucking interesting.

I'll close with an addendum in response to #178: I'll qualify what I said, that certain people from all cultures (broadly defined), have at one point worshiped this God. And we have no reason to suspect that people who have not heard of Him will be allowed to suffer for that fact alone. Check out the writings of Karl Rahner on the subject of "anonymous Christians".

It's all so arbitrary. We might as well be talking about D&D or Middle Earth - but those constructs make a little more sense, because we don't have to crush them into unrecognizable shapes to make them conform to the necessarily less forgiving restrictions of our reality.

Wow, PZ! that was an amazing post. such powerful writing

we'll see more of the pointless, self-promoting ceremonial nonsense of the mass in New York this weekend than we'll see addressing the unconscionable evil these great pious leaders condone.

Evil? Like the mass slaughter going on today, a/k/a aborted fetuses?

Worse, he claims that we respect life as sacred, a lie straight from his lips.

True statement, PZ.

Now, just where do you fine folks stand on abortion?

Oh yeah,

brokenSoldier: "but I think it fits this guy to a tee. Besides being a waste of time, he is the epitome of we call an "Oxygen Thief."

Perhaps tonight he should be called an "ulcerous, whiny glibsnotty vital-gas bandit.

(Hmmm... I don't think I have the touch.)

"Now, just where do you fine folks stand on abortion?"

With cleats, 'cause they're all slippery.

Evil? Like the mass slaughter going on today, a/k/a aborted fetuses?

yeah 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. That means God is an evil motherfucker, killing all those babies.

Well crap, that woulda made more sense if you had said "HOW do you stand..." etc.

I'm tired.

Kseniya has a Molly already, doesn't she? Because if there's a One-Night-Molly trophy, she deserves it right now, just for the pure pleasure of reading.

"That means God is an evil motherfucker, killing all those babies."

Maybe their work on earth was done. Some people get all the cushy jobs.

Life begins at conception and ends at birth, eh, Pyotr?

Frankly, I'm against it.

RambDude: How about "Mammering, flap-mouthed vaporhook!"

yeah 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.

You mean miscarriage, don't you(?), versus the purposeful termination of a fetus by "other means" than what nature (and some might say Nature's God) dictates?

You guys are really so sweet. Brings a tear to my eye.

Mr. Sullivan: If anything, I may deserve a Mauly, for creative loss of temper.

At least I didn't say anything unbecoming a young lady of my social position.

*innocent look*

Nature doesn't dictate anything. And don't anthropomorphise her, she hates that.

RambDude: How about "Mammering, flap-mouthed vaporhook!"

There you go! That's our Molly winner in action!

You mean miscarriage, don't you(?), versus the purposeful termination of a fetus by "other means" than what nature (and some might say Nature's God) dictates?

Every medical procedure is a human intervention into what nature would "dictate." As is every building of a Walmart and anything else.

As far as some people saying "Natures God" (and what is it all the capitalization with you people?), well yes, some people say silly nonsensical things.

In order to determine a sensible, ethical, moral policy about abortion or any other matter, it is first necessary to disallow the introduction of nonsense, superstition and ancient mythology. Like they say, garbage in, garbage out.

You can't get sane policy if you interject requirements meant to sustain delusion.

Nature doesn't dictate anything. And don't anthropomorphise her, she hates that.

Posted by: Zarquon | April 18, 2008 1:23 AM

What evidence do you have that she hates that? Do you have some spiritual connection with her? For all I know she might love it, if indeed she is a she.

Maybe their work on earth was done. Some people get all the cushy jobs.

LOL... touché.

Kinda reminds me of when I was young and my mom was pregnant and she and Dad had already started talking about names and she went in for a checkup and they couldn't find the heartbeat and it turned out that the baby had been "called home by God" and so my mom had to go in for a D&C instead of waiting for the miscarriage. It was sad. But then God called my mom home like seven years later anyway so I guess it was all for the best.

Uh... sorry. What was your question, Salt? Oh yeah. I'm against it. Whatever it is - I'm against it. Didn't Tom Lehrer write that? I'm not so much pro-life as I am anti-death.

What evidence do you have that she hates that? Do you have some spiritual connection with her? For all I know she might love it, if indeed she is a she.

OMG... Tovarisch Sol', where's your sense of humor?

Posted by Quaeror:

"That's still extrinsic and conditional; he's assessing himself, just as someone else would do. A depressed, self-hating and "brow-beaten slave", to borrow someone else's abusive language, would have no intrinsic value -- so then is he not a man, if all men have intrinsic value? That's why I bring up the use of value as a transitive verb; you say that I value myself (transitive), therefore I have intrinsic value."

As pointed out below, you are simply not working with the commonly, and very widely, accepted definitions of words, but rather are requiring that we work with the definition of the word as it pertains to your theistic world-view. The problem with that is that your theistic world-view is the very thing that prevents you from accepting the commonly accepted definition of intrinsic value as it pertains to human beings. If you can't use the word with its commonly accepted definition, then this argument is akin to each of us beating our head on a wall. I say man can have intrinsic value because man can attribute value to himself - making it necessarily intrinsic. But you say man has no authority to assign himself value, as that is a privilege reserved for God, and since only God holds that authority, then intrinsic value for humans is non-existent. My definitions come from Webster, while yours come from King James - that was not meant as an insult at all, but merely an illustration of the dichotomy that will forever prevent us from seeing eye-to-eye on this subject.

"I would contrast this by saying that from a Catholic perspective, a man is valuable because he is made in the image of God and is loved by God."

I was a lifelong Catholic prior to my loss of faith, and many in my family are still devout Catholics, and as it is known to me, it should be well-known to you that Catholicism in modern society is an intensely personal faith. Gone are the days when priests were necessary as interpreters of the bible's verses, replaced by a faith that is managed on an extremely internal level. And I know you know as well as I do that - while it is a religious tenet that God loves all of us - Catholicism is specifically - and infamously - known for its propensity for invoking guilt as a means of spiritual motivation to worship. What you get from this is a notion that God loves you, but only if you are truly bereft with guilt for being the evil sinner that you were born to be. So, when compared to many of the protestant religions, the idea of the benevolent God of unconditional love and forgiveness is decidedly less prevalent in the Catholic faith.

"The only thing I can offer to that is that one should remain open to the possibility of supernatural phenomena, for just because they cannot always be put under a microscope and recreated by people all over the globe at any time, it doesn't mean they are definitely not true"

I, nor any scientist worth his credentials, has ever said that they were certain that something in the way of a creator, or even supernatural being, is not out there somewhere, and this is where the basic miscommunication lies. (Though it is my opinion that many of the proponents of the inclusion of religious tenets in scientific curriculum know full well that this is the case, but choose instead to portray themselves as ostracized victims. This is not a baseless statement, and is in no way meant to be derogatory. For evidence of my statement, listen to Mark Mathis (assoc. producer of Expelled) and his suggestion that inclusion of respected biologists who are also religious believers into his film would have "confused the film." Which is very true, because the very premise of the film is that a scientist's expression of such religious beliefs necessarily causes the scientific community to ostracize him or her. While it is a valid topic of discussion and consideration in academics, it belongs in the philosophy classroom, where empirical data and observable, falsifiable hypotheses do not matter in the least.

Posted by: Bill | April 18, 2008 12:11 AM

"Congratulations, Quaeror, you caught us in logical trap because we didn't fully understand your definitions. However, I don't see how it follows that I have some greater value than that which I already apply to myself because I am made in God's image and am loved by Him."

I disagree. Failing to abide by commonly accepted definitions of words, and forcing the conversation into definitions dictated by a world-view held by only one of the parties in the discussion hardly constitutes a valid and honest strategy in discourse, and definitely does not deserve congratulations.

Posted by: Kyle | April 18, 2008 12:11 AM
"My understanding is that the non-contact forms of interrogation (eg sensory deprivation) are the only effective means of gathering reliable intelligence from non compliant prisoners.
I am NOT advocating indiscriminate torture against civilians (or even against the vast majority of POW's). This seems to me to be on par with using rape as a war strategy.
As for civil liberties, I must disagree with you. The prosecution of war necessarily entails the killing of a certain number of non-combatants, acting on insufficient evidence etc. is this not so? This seems to me incompatible with the practice of US law.

As an honest question (and in no way am I trying to be condescending here...), have you ever been subjected to prolonged sleep deprivation? (And I mean the sort of deprivation that lasts for weeks, not days.) I can tell you that it not only causes extreme physical stress and pain on the body, but it also evokes forced hallucinations that are very unpleasant, and you often do not remember anything that was said to you, anything you may have said or signed, much of anything that was done to you, or any other occurrences once you are allowed to rest and recuperate. Besides the fact that non-contact torture is still torture (I'm sure you already know that it is not necessary to actually touch someone to inflict great pain upon them), scientific studies have shown that information obtained under such extreme duress is often very unreliable, because our very human nature drives us towards survival in those situations. And often, in order to survive, your mind will allow you to say, sign, or do anything that it takes to get you out of the life-threatening situation that you may find yourself in when you're being tortured. So even if torture was somehow morally excusable (which I can never bring my own conscience to affirm), it is a highly coercive and therefore unreliable method of eliciting reliable information.

And as for war necessitating the deaths of innocents, have you ever picked up a rifle and fought in a war? If you had, and you had inadvertently killed a woman and child - though you may have had no true intent to do so - you would not have such a nonchalant, distant attitude about human suffering and death. And arguing that the preservation of civil liberties is somehow incompatible with the practice of US law - thereby asserting that - by proxy - the governmental authority to use torture IS somehow compatible with it - is extremely specious, if not outright disingenuous. In your last post, you specifically said:

"Our concept of torture needs to be seen in the context of warfare, not law enforcement."

You can either argue that torture is necessary in wartime, or you can argue that it is permissible in both war and peace (to be used by law enforcement in peace), but you cannot logically argue for both without coming across as a somewhat fervent supporter of its application in general.

And (finally, I know -- I'm sorry for the long post) you will NEVER convince me that it is a viable option to reduce civil liberties of a notion's citizens based on a threat of violence. Sure, to some degree, the government has the authority to take control over certain civilian systems or industries in times of dire need, but exchanging security for basic freedoms is an idea form the ages of feudalism that needs to stay firmly planted six feet under. This is one of my few convictions that should I ever waver from, I will lock MYSELF away and throw away the key. In my mind, there is nothing more dangerous than a person who presumes to have discretionary authority over the removal of other individuals' basic freedoms that we were guaranteed would - and should - never be violated.

Snicker.

In order to determine a sensible, ethical, moral policy about abortion or any other matter, it is first necessary to disallow the introduction of nonsense, superstition and ancient mythology.

Posted by: craig | April 18, 2008 1:30 AM

One must first establish the correctness of your statement, which I highly doubt you are capable of doing. But since you wish to "disallow" that which you disagree with, I'd say you wish to "stack the deck" in your favor.

Not very sporting of you.

Salt @ #216

See that thing rocketing through the air above your head?

That was the 'point'. You seem to have missed it.

What evidence do you have that she hates that? Do you have some spiritual connection with her? For all I know she might love it, if indeed she is a she.

OMG... Tovarisch Sol', where's your sense of humor?

Posted by: Kseniya | April 18, 2008 1:34 AM

Guess I should have said she's taking a walk on the wild side.

;)

Quaeror,

You say that the pope can not be held accountable for the actions of individual priests. That is true.
But surely, he can be held accountable for his own actions. He, as a cardinal, ordered the church to cover up these cases. He was the one who ordered bishops and priests not to cooperate with the police. By the simple act of not turning the guilty over to the police, he is an accessory after the fact. Any member of the church who knew about this, and didn't report it to the cops, committed a crime.

As for your arguments about intrinsic value, I wasn't kidding about the psychiatric help. If you can only see value in human life as something given by your god, you are bordering on the sociopathic.

One must first establish the correctness of your statement, which I highly doubt you are capable of doing. But since you wish to "disallow" that which you disagree with, I'd say you wish to "stack the deck" in your favor.

Not very sporting of you.

You caught me there. It's true. I want to stack the deck in favor of reality versus delusion.

As far as establishing the correctness of "religion is superstitious nonsense," it has been established about as much as its possible to establish it, or anything for that matter. If that's not enough to make it fair to leave it out, then we'll also have to include the positions of the planets and the feelings of the thetans, confer with druids, have the bumps on our heads read, and chart the crop circles before we make any policy decisions.

A walk on the...? oh... *giggle*

Had to think about that for a sec...

Seriously, though, it does looks like Zarquon snuck one by you. It was subtle, the hour is late; it happens. ;-)

And one more thing... as far as me being "sure I'm right..." well, like I always tell the religious - I'm not the one making claims about how the universe came to be.
Fact is, I don't know. And neither do you.

I'm not "sure I'm right," I'm just pretty sure you're wrong.

One must first establish the correctness of your statement, which I highly doubt you are capable of doing. But since you wish to "disallow" that which you disagree with, I'd say you wish to "stack the deck" in your favor.
Not very sporting of you.
Posted by: Salt | April 18, 2008 1:38 AM

Salt, I think you missed Craig's point, but I think you missed it on purpose, so I don't know how much good this will do.

Nonsense - words or language having little or no sense or meaning

Superstition - a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge

Mythology - the science or study of myths

-- And just to be thorough:

Myths - A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology

All of the above are verbatim definitions from the dictionary, and none of the items above should ever be allowed into rational debate, not because someone disagrees with them or not, but rather because they are notions that describe concepts necessarily outside the realm of reason and logic. Therefore, it is completely sensible, and highly advisable, to keep these sorts of things and concepts out of the public debate, especially when dealing with a territorially huge, multi-cultural society like our own.

So, Craig, allow me to offer my opinion that such an observation was not only very sporting of you, but also very judicious and reasonable of you as well.

brokenSoldier: I like the way you think, mister.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 18, 2008 1:51 AM

Right back at ya!... though I don't quite know the gender description to put at the end there.... :P

"...the secular concerns that should matter [why should they matter to people who believe in Christ? You've got the cart before the horse]

Because Christ, if we are to believe the gospels, made everyday secular concerns such as poverty and peace an intrinsic part of his teaching. I find common ground with him in this, and indeed many of us non-religious liberal types do so. We regard these as pressing matters.

the egalitarian word of a religious tradition that valued the cohesion of the social fabric [When? Where? How?]

Is this not the bedrock of the entire Judeo/Christian tradition? What else were Commandments and Levitican law for if not to unify the tribe and, incidentally, warn the rich man of the consequences of lack of charity?

and demanded equal treatment for even the least of society [You mean like the unborn?]

You mean like the mothers who might otherwise die in the hands of backstreet abortionists if abortion were not legal and safe? It seems that the abortion rate in America is largely unchanged since legalisation, so what we are really arguing about is how many mothers will die and whether pregnant women driven to abort have the choice to take a safe procedure over an unsafe one.

given a little lip service perhaps [You call the entire corpus of modern Christian charity, from parish soup kitchens, adoption programs and third-world hunger relief to the endless praying done for your soul and others' 'lip service'?]

No and yes. The works of churches are patchy. We have seen the decline in the sorts of muscular Christianity that begat the socialist movement at the end of the 19th Century. Many modern churches, particularly those serving the middle-classes, favour a Presbyterian worldview that that emphasizes personal salvation at the expense of works and that poverty is a sign that someone is not of the elect. It's a form of modern Phariseeism that DOES pay lip-service to works.

[But don't you have your dogmas, too? What could be more dogmatic than the assertion that man not made in God's image has any intrinsic worth?].

That's not dogma so much as basic human decency. What kind of monster are you to deny this?

It's a religion that has shifted its eyes from a task to be done here on earth to an unearthly vision of a magical unseen world run by an ethereal tyrant who must be placated [The only modern religion that aims to placate an aetherial tyrant is Islam. Were you speaking this whole time of the Muslims, and I merely misunderstood?].

PZ was speaking of Christianity, but I have no doubt he'd say the same on the matter of Islam. There have been too many pogroms and inquisitions and crusades to argue the historical fact of Christian tyranny. Or that today there are self-defined Christians with public platforms (think Ann Coulter) who call for wars and forced conversions.

Soldier:

though I don't quite know the gender description to put at the end there.... :P

Ah, yes. That. Well, you're not alone. :-)

After I get comfortable in a place (or a "place") I start to forget how uncommon my name is here. Mine is a name that is quite common in Slavic lands, Eastern Europe and Russia, and which means "hospitable" or "hospitality". It comes from the Greek Xenia, from xenophile, or "love of strangers", and is unambiguously feminine. Most (but not all) feminine names from this region end in "a", and most (but not all) names from this region that end in "a" are feminine.

I'm 2nd-generation (Ukrainian) American. My grandparents came from the Kiev area. My late paternal grandfather was a Ukie nationalist who lived through the Holodomor and, as a young man, was part of a group that found itself at odds with both the Nazis and the Soviets... often at the same time. It's quite a tale.

This family history may shed a little light on my impatience with the false equivalences so often made between atheism and Stalinism (and "the Russianization of Communism"). If there's anything Hilter and Stalin taught us, it's that genocidal abuse of power strongly correlates not with atheism or theism, but with authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and the gross misapplication of scientific concepts.

My grandfather, nominally a Russian Orthodox but, by the end of his life, a de facto agnostic, had no illusions or misconceptions about the role atheism played in the history of the USSR. Atheism and Communism were ideological tools, just as Catholicism, anti-Semitism and Nationalism were tools for Hitler. Atheism itself - the lack of god-belief - caused nothing.

Neither religion nor irreligion necessarily promotes or inhibits abuses of power such as those which precipitated many of the worst events of the past century.

Of course, one century doesn't make a world history. The use and abuse of atheism is a relatively new thing, but the abuse of religious power is as old as mankind itself. It surprised me that theists don't realize that playing can-you-top-this-atrocity is always going to be a losing proposition. History tell us - no, it jumps out of its leather armchair and screams at us, with veins popping out of its neck and throbbing at its temple - that contrary to all claims, piety provides no guarantee of goodness, and even less protection against evil, cruelty, and all manner of corruption both spiritual and mundane.

The key to our future, then, is simply (!) to learn to reign in and to manager the darker aspects of human nature, and to learn to manage our global resources intelligently so as to avoid creating the kinds of critical shortages that cause the deaths of millions, either through starvation, illness, or war (or all three). I don't see a whole lot of evidence to suggest that ancient superstitions are providing a lot of aid in this forward-looking direction.

Oh, my. Just look at the time! So that's my 0300 Op-Ed. YMMV.

Now it's time for me, saucy hell-hated minnow that I am, to lay me down to sleep. I pray the Lord my soul to keep...

Salt,
Spontaneous abortion is the medical term for miscarriage.

Unless YOU are god. And I'm pretty sure you're not.

Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say: YES!"

To Brokensoldier:

The answer to your question is no.

I just want to make it clear that I have no special love of torture, or any desire to have it put to use. If I seem distant from the realities of war (which I am) then I apologize. Believe me, I do respect your experience on this topic. If what you say is true regarding the effectiveness of torture then I do not defend it.

However, it seems to me that the technological limitations of the military will necessarily put someone in the position of having to decide how much collateral damage is acceptable. I am imagining an air strike or similar action here. Maybe it is possible to avoid this on an individual scale but I do not see how it would be on a larger one. For the safety of one's own forces, how far can someone decide to err on the side of caution? If we assume torture to be an effective means of gaining valuable intelligence from high ranking prisoners with a comparatively low risk of collateral damage, why would it be immoral (in the context of war)? I don't see how civil liberties can be wholly preserved when the involved parties do not submit to a common authority.

Concerning the distinction between law enforcement and war: As far as I know this is why the Guantanamo prisoners can't be prosecuted under the current set of laws. The evidence against them won't hold up it court but there is no government to negotiate their release. I think a lot depends on this distinction.

However, the Bible is not a myth. There are lots of eyewitnesses of Jesus's birth, death, and resurection.

Only in the same way that there are eyewitnesses of Joseph Smith's reception of gold tablets bearing the inspiration for the Book of Mormon. Which is to say that these events are related by unreliable or fraudulent chroniclers, and in the case of the gospels written by hands roughly 30 to 100 years after Jesus's alleged crucifixion.

The old testament also predicted of his coming 600-1000 years before he came. There are thousands of prophecies on this.

More like the gospel writers and letter writers of the New Testament tampered with the narrative to try to make them fit the prophecies. However, their attempts were inconsistent. Otherwise how can one gospel say Jesus was born in Bethlehem in accordance with prophecy and another state emphatically that he was not and came from Galilee?

I would imagine that you think the bible is full of myths because the flood did not happen and you have evidence to prove it or creation did not happen etc...

The Jewish writers of the Old Testament regarded these things as myths. They understood how the midrash (or exegesis) worked, gleaning meaning from texts that were intended to be symbolic. The meaning of a text was not self-evident, a Rabbi had to go in search of it. They would have regarded a literal reading of their own texts as absurd, even heretical. Why else would they be content to include two separate and contradictory versions of the creation story in Genesis?

Since you do not believe in the flood and you don't take the evidence from that point of view you are going to get your science all messed up.

The problem is that the 'evidence' for a flood is easily dismissed. It is bad science to the point of being non-science.

Since you do not believe in the flood and you don't take the evidence from that point of view you are going to get your science all messed up.

Science does not proceed from belief but from evidence. You are told this repeatedly and are obtuse enough to ignore it each time. Sigh.

It is more of a harsh way of saying that religious people are nuts, but it doesn't fully give proof that they are wrong.

I somehow suspect that no proof would be full enough for you. Not that God can be proven or unproven any more than the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be . Faith in the supernatural denies proof. This much we know of religions.

Just like on here, I see a lot of blog posts from PZ saying Christians and relgious people are morons and yet I see no evidence that is true, nor do I see any evidence that they are wrong about their God.

Actually, what PZ says is more nuanced than that. He says that some Christians are morons, that some are deluded and others downright dangerous. The evidence he presents satisfies me of the truth of this and convinces me that religion distorts the beliefs and morality of its victims. You, for example, continue to ignore the clear explanations of scientific method that have been given to you. Sooner or later your obtuseness leads me to the uncharitable conclusion that you are a liar or a fool.

Religion can do harm as I said above. However, that is not the way it is intended to be.

However, that is the way it so often is. And so we must conclude that Christianity is a religion that begets hatred and war and mean-spiritedness as much as if not more than charity and good works.

Right on spot excellent article :)

"A nation of prayer" ???

Ah, prayer ! But which prayer ?
The one so clearly described in the bible ?

Matthew 6:6-8 - KJ

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

So is the Pope talking of that kind of prayer, or the kind that gets so publicly exhibited at every occasions, that of
the televangelists, of prayer marketeers, of prayer-show-offs, of "I-pray-for-youists", yes that of hypocrites, of the Scribes and Pharisees, of vain-glory and vain repetitions.

"Because it is not the reward God promises to those who do good, but the reward hypocrites promise themselves, and a poor reward it is; they did it to be seen of men, and they are seen of men."

So please Christians, pray all you want, but at least be honest and do it the way you have been told to do so :
IN SECRET.

wrpd, apologies, I wasn't teribly clear when I wrote: "JP2 sat on applications to leave the preisthood and recommendations for defrockings a long time he just didn't believe priests were capable of abusing their positions and raping kids and parishioners..."

I meant even when he wasn't greviously ill, when he was fully in possession of his faculties he was in denial that preists could so abuse their position of trust etc. as to abuse kids.

Now that some of the gloss has come off the church, I'm sure that diocesan legal advisers are getting sweaty palms at the possibility of an bishop or archbishop who hid or moved a paedophile and kept the police out of it (like here in the UK) landing up in the dock for aiding and abetting.

Since you do not believe in the flood and you don't take the evidence from that point of view you are going to get your science all messed up.

It's also worth noting that the geologists who showed that the supposed Noachian flood could not account for the geological evidence included Adam Sedgwick and William Buckland, who were Christians, ordained clergy of the Church of England, and what would now be called Old Earth Creationists. They both originally attributed British Pleistocene deposits to the flood, but publicly recanted this view when the evidence became clear that most of them were the result of glaciation.

I would contrast this by saying that from a Catholic perspective, a man is valuable because he is made in the image of God and is loved by God. - Quaeror

From a "Catholic perspective", those of us who have heard the "Good News", but have not believed it, will be eternally tormented for that thoughtcrime alone, let alone any other disobediences to the divine will we have committed. A being who threatens eternal torment, to anyone or anything, for any reason whatever, does not love those it threatens. Such a being is indeed infinitely evil. Why do you worship infinite evil, Quaeror? If it is because you believe it is the only way you will escape eternal torment yourself, I understand and pity you, and can only be glad - even if you are right and the infinite evil you worship does indeed have power over us - that I do not believe it. Because I admit that if I did, I am unsure I would have the courage to revolt against it, as it would clearly be my moral duty to do, even without hope of success. However, I bring you a message of hope: there is absolutely no reason to believe in this infinite evil you worship, and indeed the existence of good in the world makes it highly implausible. Cast off your chains and be free, Quaeror, cast off your chains and be free.

quaeror,

In a world without God, an individual's value is only the value which other people are willing to give him. He is a commodity like any other commodity, and his value is only as high as a speculator is willing to assess him at. And if the man with the gun, like Pol Pot or Stalin, finds you not to be valuable at all, you may just wind up another skull in a pile of millions and millions.

That is, unfortunately, the state of the world with or without God. Millions of people have been killed by tyrants, warlords and high priests who thought they were of no value, and neither deities nor laws of nature protected them. Of course, many of those mass murderers believed in gods who didn't value their victims either; perhaps they were correct.

I was hoping for a real explanation of how man can have intrinsic value from an atheist standpoint

I don't think man can have intrinsic value from any standpoint; the concept is meaningless. One can't have a value without a valuer. If there's a god, the value s/he places on you certainly matters from a practical point of view--Pol Pot can only shoot your ass, he can't damn you eternally. But god-given value wouldn't be any more intrinsic, any more real, than that bestowed by anyone else. The only qualitatively different form of value is that which you give to yourself.

The problem with this is that, for example, a depressed retarded person who lives on the street with no friends has no value to any mortal. He does not value himself, nor does anyone else.

Don't be silly. You value such a person, don't you? Wouldn't you be happier seeing him move into a comfortable home and have his depression treated? Do you really need Jesus to order you to care about that?

You would literally be doing him a favor by snuffing out his life, wouldn't you?

Um, generally speaking, the depressed, the mentally retarded and the homeless aren't better off dead, but I guess this hypothetical unfortunate might be. But even if that were the case, why would you want to do him a favor unless you valued him? Whatever you think of the morality of euthanasia, by definition it's an act of charity.

What is empathy but a feeling? Why should anyone care about feelings?

What choice do they have? Feelings are what you care with. If you have 'em, you care.

After all, they're ultimately just movements of molecules in some particular hominid brain. Right?

Sure. But when it's my brain, those molecular movements generate everything I care about. Because it's my brain.

Also, yes, I do believe in a particular God, I believe in the God whose son was a real part of history, who came to earth to be one of the least of us, to suffer with us, and to redeem us, all of us because we are all made in His image and imbued with immortal souls and intrinsically valuable!

So no Hell, then? That's nice, at least. But valuing us only because he made us to last and because we resemble him...I think I prefer my own values, thanks.

one hypocrite meeting another. nothing more

Professor Myers, as a Christian and a science student, these two do not represent my faith anymore than Lenin and Stalin represent your atheism.

Mike Cambiano said:

Professor Myers, as a Christian and a science student, these two do not represent my faith anymore than Lenin and Stalin represent your atheism.

Mike, much as your sentiments are appreciated, might I suggest you tell them that rather than us?

While you're at it you might also want to let the media know because the coverage the visit is getting is sorely lacking the perspective of Christians who share your views.

You might want to work on that if you don't want the image of your religion to be completely overwhelmed by sactimonious nutcases such as these two specimens.

Good points, Lilly, but my friends and I have worked at taking the steps you mention.

There are a lot of younger Christians who are not going to tolerate linking Christianity with conservative politics.

And you might question whether Professor Myers is really helping science education with his approach; not all the science bloggers think so.

Mike Cambiano said:

And you might question whether Professor Myers is really helping science education with his approach; not all the science bloggers think so.

Are you trying to tempt me into framing debate?

Get thee behind me satan :-)

Suffice it to say my own take on the issue is that PZ tells the truth as he sees it, an attribute which is essential in any free debate.

If people get offended that says a lot more about them than him but either way it has nothing to do with the merit or otherwise of what he has to say.

Also, given that he's running one of the most popular blogs on Scienceblogs I would query your premise that his tone automatically turns people away - they certainly appear to be happy enough to come back for more!

> Now, just where do you fine folks stand on abortion?

Irrelevant question as I do not consider abortion an evil - it's a fallback way of defending women's self-determination against attacks from culture and nature. One might play around with the meaning of "intrinsic value and self-worth" until arriving at the conclusion that every dust bunny has it. But if we take the terms at face value, then, as has been eloquently explained, intrinsic value logically requires an inner self, a mind which is able to value (in whichever way or form) its own being. And that's hard to do without an operational brain.

Geetha, these are A-list hypocrites, and that makes 'em hypercrites in my book.

Now, just where do you fine folks stand on abortion?

I'm for it. Where do you stand on appendectomies?

And if the man with the gun, like Pol Pot or Stalin, finds you not to be valuable at all, you may just wind up another skull in a pile of millions and millions.

And if God is the man with the gun, he can send you to Hell to suffer forever. How does that make you more valuable?

You would literally be doing him a favor by snuffing out his life, wouldn't you? Doesn't that make sense, from an atheist perspective?

No, since that would remove the possibility of change and improvement. It makes sense from a Christian perspective though...after all, our decades on Earth mean little in the face of an eternal afterlife.

Now, just where do you fine folks stand on abortion?

I stand on the principle that for as long as a foetus is unviable, a woman has a right to choose to abort. It was a choice that my wife and I once made. We did not make that decision lightly and I continue to stand by it, even all these years on, now that we have a lovely son.

I also stand on the principle that women (and couples too) have many sound reasons to decide to abort. Quite often it is to do with circumstances and the seriousness of bringing up children. I am sure the majority of women don't abort for frivolous reasons. Guttmacher Institute figures back this up, showing that the great majority of women who have unplanned pregnancies would have preferred to have babies at a later date when their circumstances had improved. A lot of data, some from Christian organisations such as the Fuller Theological Seminary, suggests a link between the economy and abortion rates. Personal circumstances appear to figure large in the decision, with many mothers (and couples like myself and my wife) making a responsible choice when they decide to abort.

I also stand on the principle that women should have access to LEGAL, SAFE abortion. If abortion was proscribed, as it once was in the US, the abortion rate seems unlikely to decrease by much, as many women will seek out illegal providers of services. However, the numbers of deaths would go up, and the numbers of women suffering infertility, infirmity and disease as a consequence of backstreet abortions would also climb. It is a fact that since liberalisation, the number of deaths of mothers has declined radically, from hundreds every year to the occasional death. Banning abortion would be a retrograde step that would condemn many young women to the grave.

I stand on the principle that this is a class issue. If abortion were banned tomorrow, the middle-classes would ship their daughters out to safe countries to have abortions. The poor, who could not afford this, would bear the brunt. A look at countries with repressive abortion policies, such as El Salvador with its 'womb police', reveal the truth of this. A liberal abortion policy is a more egalitarian one.

I stand on the principle that this is a feminist issue. That for some anti-abortionists, this is less about babies than about the control of women and their bodies. It is about the treatment of women as chattel. I've encountered a widespread reactionary view that associates abortion with sluttishness and views forced childbirth as a just punishment for wayward women. This Victorian attitude disgusts me.

I stand on the principle that this is a public health issue. European nations have very liberal abortion policies but, for the most part, a lower abortion rate than the US. The reasons appear to be better sex education and access to contraception. Contraception is a tricky subject in the US where some religious sects proscribe it and others spread lies to discourage its use. In some US states, the facts about contraception are barely taught at all to teens and funding for abstinence is encouraged. The result has been a great increase in unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

Finally, I stand on the principle that until a child becomes viable outside the womb, they are not a person. I do not believe in an immortal soul, so a foetus cannot be the carrier of one. I believe it is dangerous to anthropomorphize something so unformed. It leads sick-minded people to equate abortion with the Holocaust, when in truth there is no comparison. The Holocaust is an abomination forged in hate. There is no hate when it comes to abortion. It is a small tragedy, the product of circumstance and biology and, even, love.

No comparison at all.

Ratzo sounds like an effin' dork.. His voice is creepy - it's like he's trying out for the part of Palpatine.

Quaeror- You have forgotten that people tend to value their own lives, instinctively (or intrinsically, if you want to call it that), for a very good reason- it increases their own survival. Since people tend to live in groups, and groups tend to share the work of survival, we LEARNED to value each other. Over thousands of generations, as the work people shared, and the benefits of that work got larger and larger, we LEARNED to value more and more people.
You have forgotten that most of (actual, not biblical) history is simply the story of how people LEARNED, through bitter experience, through people overcoming their own fear and hatred, to value each other.
So Quaeror, no, we don't instinctively (or intrinsically) value other people's lives. We LEARN to value them, in order to better survive and in order to better enjoy our lives.
This idea that unless we're created by a deity, we can't possibly value our lives or the lives of others trivializes every ethical advance people have made from experience and persuasion through recorded history. It also shows a poor amount of scholarship into the actual value of life originally handed down from the Abrahamic faiths- only some lives were valued, and not equally.

Coincidentally, at the same time as Ratzi met Dubya, on a narrow street a few blocks from the national mall, a homeless man with a serious and diagnosed but of late untreated psychiatric disorder, now strung out on several controlled substances and hallucinating wildly, encountered another denizen of the streets, the latter now midway through his erratic course across the city in search of bottles to return for booze money.

"Are you not right with the moon, are you not right with the moon!?", said the former. Loudly. It was half a yell, half a growl.

"Praise be," muttered the latter. "Praise the moon." And shifted through a litter bin, looking for a bottle, hoping the former would recognize his piety and leave him alone.

So the conversation was roughly as coherent and meaningful as that down the street at 1600 Pennsylvania. But got slightly less coverage.

Thank you PZ. I have read -- I will not listen or watch -- the sanctimonious idiot from the Vatican go on and on about how ashamed he is about the clergy rape of children. And then I hear him talk about the sad decline of the family in the US! Surely, at some point, cognitive dissonance sets in, doesn't it? These pious monsters, who think more of their sanctified beliefs that they do for real people, should really be shown up for what they are. And you have done your part. Thank you.

Posted by: Eric MacDonald | April 17, 2008 5:44 PM

He's not sad about it at all. After all, it was his job to cover it up. His sad is Jailhouse Remorse, he's sad he got caught.

(1) Why is the Pope directly responsible for the actions of priests, especially actions done previous to his pontificate? Should George Bush have to personally answer for the crimes of individual soldiers in Vietnam?

(2) Did you know that both the previous and current Popes have been opposed to the War in Iraq?

(3) Why is the Pope's meeting with Bush an endorsement of Bush? Did he actually endorse Bush personally?

Ceterum censeo Christum surrectum esse. Alleluia!

Posted by: Quaeror | April 17, 2008 6:25 PM

It's called CONSPIRACY. The Pope, when he was a Cardinal, EXPRESSEDLY COVERED UP THE CHILD RAPE SCANDLE and ordered the Bishops to hide the child-rapist priests from legal sanction.

I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you that you think the head of an organized crime gang gives orders to hide the hit men is some how "innocent" of the conspiracy:

1. He KNEW the priests were molesting.
2. He ORDERED that they be moved and their crimes hidden.
3. He ORDERED Bishops to protect the Church at all costs.

The Pope is an EVIL MAN who hid evil to avoid EMBARRASSMENT. Not unreasonable sanctions, but just embarrassment.

Is it through your pointy head? He hid child rapists so the Church wouldn't be embarrassed. And now he's the Pope.

The rest of your questions are fallacies and red-herrings because you know you've got nothing.

An excellent original article, and for what it's worth from a long-time-lurker-but-rare-commenter, I nominate Broken Soldier for some a Molly - one of the best and most thoughtful commenters I've seen here. Do you have a blog, sir?

(1) Cardinal Ratzinger was acting according to Canon Law, which is was not within his power to change

Posted by: Quaeror | April 17, 2008 6:55 PM

So, like any good Nazi he was "just following orders." That didn't work so well at Nuremberg, did it?

Seriously, if this apologetic is the best I could do, I'd just shut up. You're in so far over your head you're drowning.

Now, just where do you fine folks stand on abortion?

I'm for it. Where do you stand on appendectomies?

Posted by: PZ Myers | April 18, 2008 8:36 AM

All for it, when necessary. I'd also guess that your idea of necessary and mine are quite opposite.

All for it, when necessary. I'd also guess that your idea of necessary and mine are quite opposite.

And of women....and sexuality...and most everything it would seem.

All for it, when necessary. I'd also guess that your idea of necessary and mine are quite opposite.

This may be true. But your statements and inflammatory use of the word 'slaughter' suggests that you would prefer to impose your definition of necessary on others, preferably by legislation.

Re #258. So, Salt, may we learn when you consider abortion necessary?

Full disclosure of my own view:
Until the foetus has a functioning nervous system, there is nothing whatever morally problematic about a woman choosing to have an abortion, any more than there would be about her choosing to have a mole removed. From then until birth, every effort consistent with reasonable safety for the mother should be made to ensure the foetus does not suffer, but the decision on abortion must be for the mother (or if she is wholly incapable, her legal guardians) to make. While personhood is not an all-or-nothing matter, for legal reasons a dividing line between non-person and person is required, and birth, the point at which physiological autonomy is achieved, is the only serious possibility in this context.

I am not going to defend the Catholics. They have a real problem with inserting man into their churches and I think that is a bad idea.

Sure you are. You're just going not be direct in your defense.

Priests should be married and the Bible isn't taught as much there. See mankind is corruptable. What you are looking at is people getting in the way of what God intended.

Really, because Paul advised people to not marry unless they were weak. Of course, Paul also taught the Rapture would happen in his lifetime. From Paul's views on sex, and some control issues, celibacy was made the rule.

The pope should have taken care of the people that were harmed by them and should have dealt with the priests harsher (like banning them from the church).

Bush, I also agree with what you say about him. He isn't a Christian but a person who takes those Christian votes. He wanted the Iraq war and it wasn't needed.

No, I never liked Bush. I never voted for him.

Ah, yes, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. When ever a Christian acts like a horrid person, he's "not a true Christian." Guess what, bucko, the Pope is a "true Christian." He's the fucking Pope, making him the Big Numero Uno.

However, the Bible is not a myth. There are lots of eyewitnesses of Jesus's birth, death, and resurection.

People also have witnessed his healing and his caring of the poor.

The old testament also predicted of his coming 600-1000 years before he came. There are thousands of prophecies on this.

Most of the bible is myth. Exodus is a myth. Creation is a myth. The flood is a myth.

Hell, you, like virtually all Christians don't even know how your religion came to in existence. None of you know how it was a Polytheistic religion where God had a wife and kids. How it was massively changed by the monotheists of King Josiah's reign in 700BCE.

You don't which myths were stolen from other religions and which were changed from it's original precedent religion. You know NOTHING.

And yet you arrogantly state as fact the "bible is true, yet:"

(1) Even when there is absolutely no credible evidence, especially of Jesus. Even the stories of Jesus weren't written down until decades, or centuries, after his alleged death. Actually, alleged existence as some 'mythological leader' of historic significance. I think the true story is he was just a nobody Essene Rabbi with a few followers a wacko-zealot named Paul made into a myth.

(2 )And, the bibles you use are deliberately mistranslated and changed. For example, in Genesis I, where the creation of Man and Woman from dust happens, there is the second voice most Christians use to "verify" the existence of Jesus, it was written in the FEMININE PRONOUN when talking about "Our Image." Why? Because it's part of the original polytheistic religion from which Judaism came!!! The Polytheistic one where men and women were EQUAL. Where God had a wife. And THEY made man and woman, from dust, as equals.Only the misogynistic monotheists could have nothing of that. So they added the SECOND GENSIS where Woman is made from Man's rib to be subservient!!!

You didn't know that. You were totally ignorant of that! Because you only know the lies you've been taught.

I bet you didn't know that the "firmament" should be translated as "metal dome" as the Hebrews thought the sky was a metal dome covering a flat earth. Gensis makes more sense, from a story perspective, when you know the sky they're talking about is a metal dome and we're, according to the Bible, living inside of a monsterous chafing dish.

Also, for what it's worth, there are lots of "eyewitnesses" and "miracles" for other faiths. Some of which no longer are practiced, like the Ancient Greek and Norse pantheons.

Also it predicts that Israel would be back together as a nation on this planet and in 1948 that happened.

I would imagine that you think the bible is full of myths because the flood did not happen and you have evidence to prove it or creation did not happen etc... Well that is what I am trying to tell you. I believe it did happen and I believe you have evidence but the evidence that you have did not happen the way you think it did.

No, it predicted the Messiah would:

a). Be born of a young woman, not a virgin, of the House of David. Didn't happen.

b). Would free Israel from the Romans. Instead the Romans destroyed Israel. Massive fail!

c). Most of those prophecies were either not filled, stretched to fit, some added post-facto, or are so vague they could mean anything.

Since you do not believe in the flood and you don't take the evidence from that point of view you are going to get your science all messed up. I think more research has to be done to prove this right. However, the theory of evolution has many holes in it that you will not acknowledge anyway.

That is why it is pointless. If evolution had no holes and was a 100 percent correct theory then all people would believe it. However there is a lot that don't believe.

You talk about "evidence" for the flood, of which there is none. Though people like Ken Ham try to make it up. Conversely, evolution is one of the most robust and oldest theories in science and his withstood the test time.

And you say "pointless" to discuss things because we have our eyes closed. Even though we know that the "Flood" in the Bible was ripped off from a Babylonian religion.

I believe that all life on earth is simular and can have some of the same compounds. However, I have not seen the proof that says that evolution is the reason why. I am not convinced. I have read dawkin's book. It is more of a harsh way of saying that religious people are nuts, but it doesn't fully give proof that they are wrong.

Just like on here, I see a lot of blog posts from PZ saying Christians and relgious people are morons and yet I see no evidence that is true, nor do I see any evidence that they are wrong about their God.

Dude, if you refuse to accept the evidence and decide to believe in a bronze-age religion that's made up out of whole cloth, that's your problem. Just stop trying to drag the rest of us into the dark ages with you.

I do see a lot of misplaced arrogance by PZ and I see no evidence of him making this a better place on the planet. Religion can do harm as I said above. However, that is not the way it is intended to be. Jesus loved the poor and wanted people to help the poor. Many people are doing that. Even though PZ is not a Christian he is religous about science and being an atheist, but what has he done to help other people out?

I mean if PZ was never on this earth, would anything change? Probably not. Someone else would just pop-up and be the mouth piece of dawkin's work. However, I have not see anything good he has done on this earth and yet he tells people that religion is horrible and doesn't do any good. hmmmm I guess that is a matter of opinion.

There are lots of good things going on in the world today, but I guess if you are blind you won't be able to see them.

Posted by: Planet Killer | April 17, 2008 8:03 PM

Arrogance out of PZ? You are one of the most ignorant bible-thumping fools I've seen in years while spewing your faux superiority on others and you call PZ arrogant?

Dude, you (like virtually all Christians) are cold, stone ignorant of your own religion's history and development. I dare say it is likely that PZ knows more about Christianity than you. I know I do. It's obvious you're just a drone with a head full of lies.

Get an education. Read some Hector Arvalos. Read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. Read "The Hebrew Goddess." Just get a fucking clue before you push on people who know more than you.

Because, really, arrogant certainly from total ignorance just doesn't play well.

I so do love seeing Moses bringing his wrath down on the worshipers of false idols.

Lee Brimmicombe-Wood #250; if that's not Molly-worthy I don't know what is.

Blah de blah de fucking BLAH!!!

We GET it already. You hate religion. You hate people who follow religion. You set yourself as much more intelligent than those that are religious.

You have hundreds of followers who think exactly as you do, such as Moses right above me, and this makes you feel good.

For Moloch's Sake, WE GET IT!!!

The point has been made. Could you possibly move on??? Like, go back to making actual science posts on a regular basis, like you used to do years ago?

I so do love seeing Moses bringing his wrath down on the worshipers of false idols.

I seem to be in need of a new keyboard.

Still more failed prophechies!
Genesis 46:2-God calls Jacob Jacob, though he said in Gen.32:28 and 35:10 that he would no longer be called Jacob but Israel.
Genesis 46:3-God promises to bring Jacob safely back from Egypt, but Jacob dies in Egypt (Gen.47:28-29)
Genesis 49:10-The tribe of Judah will reign "until Shiloh," but Israel's first king (Saul) was from the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 13:21), and most of the time after this prophecy there was no king at all.
Genesis 50:24-Contrary to the prophecy in 48:21, Joseph died in Egypt, not Israel.
Exodus 34:1-In this verse God says he will write on the stone tablets, but in 34:27 he tells Moses to do the writing.
Deut. 7:24-God says that the Israelites will destroy all of the peoples they encounter. But according to Joshua ( 15:63, 16:10, 17:12-13) and Judges (1:21, 27-36, 3:1-5) there were some people they just couldn't kill.
Deut. 7:14-15 Those who do as God says will never be infertile (neither will their cows!) and will never get sick.
2 Kings 25:7-In Jeremiah (34:4) God tells Zedekiah that he will die in peace and be buried with his fathers. But this verse and Jer.52:10-11 say that he died a violent death in a foreign land.
Isiah 19:18-This verse predicts that there shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language was never spoken in Egypt, and it is extinct now.
Isiah 52:1-"Henceforth there shall no more come into thee [Jerusalem] the uncircumcised and the unclean." But many uncircumcised people have visited and occupied Jerusalem after this prophecy was made.
Jeremiah 51:26, 29, 37, 43, 62, 64-God says that Babylon will be desolate and uninhabited forever. He says that only dragons will live there. But Babylon has been dragon-free and continuously inhabited since then.
Ezekiel 21:28-32-Ezekiel Prophesies (in the 6th century BCE) that Ammonites will not be remembered any more. They continued to exist until the 2nd century CE. (And they are still remembered in the Bible.)
Ezekiel 26:14,21, 27:36, 28:19-Ezekiel prophesies that Tyrus will be completely destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar and will never be built again. But it wasn't destroyed, as evidenced by the visits to Tyre by Jesus and Paul (Mt.15:21, Mk.7:24, 31, Acts 21:3)
Ezekiel 29:10-13-Ezekiel makes another false prophecy: that Egypt would be uninhabited by humans or animals for forty years after being destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar. But there was never a time when Egypt was uninhabited. Humans and animals have lived there continuously since Ezekiel's prophecy.

I'm pretty sure you'll try to explain it all away by complaining about "context", but I can give you the context of every single passage. AND I WILL.

"We GET it already. You hate religion. You hate people who follow religion."
No, we don't. We hate people who use religion as an excuse to be an asshat.

Re #258. So, Salt, may we learn when you consider abortion necessary?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 18, 2008 9:59 AM

Life of the mother for sure. My own opinion includes rape-pregnancy termination as a moral option which, concerning morality, appears to be the real crux of the argument.

As a Christian, let me quote the following lines from "A Man For All Seasons" which, imo, sums up my opinion quite well -

The Duke of Norfolk: Oh confound all this. I'm not a scholar, I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!

Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

I was just listing the failed prophecies to counter Planet Killer's "all Biblical prophecies come true" nonsense upthread. T.T

Shorter Nobody: WAH WAH WAH stop picking on my religion! WAH WAH WAH the big bad athiest is hurting my poor widdle feewings!
Someone call the WAAAAAAAHHHmbulance.

Speak for yourself, oh honorable High-Tech Pomme de Terre. I don't hate the asshats. I object to their actions. "Hate" is a very strong word best reserved for monstrous evil, insipid pop music and terrible food.

Salt said:

Life of the mother for sure. My own opinion includes rape-pregnancy termination as a moral option which, concerning morality, appears to be the real crux of the argument.

Then feel free not to have an abortion except under those circumstances if you wish, that is your right and I don't think any commentator here would dream of taking it from you.

However your opinion is really rather irrelevant to anyone else's decision when they, not you, are the one deciding whether or not to terminate their own pregnancy.

Re #269 Salt. I don't see the relevance of your "Man for All Seasons" quote. Please explain.

RE #273 -

Lilly, you either failed to comprehend or did not read the whole of my comment.

Quaeror (Comments #180)

from a Catholic perspective, a man is valuable because he is made in the image of God and is loved by God. His value is something ontological, not imposed by anyone but his Creator, and imposed in a completely different way from the way men impose value on cattle, because there is no ontological mark on the cattle.

Ah, the old "it's different for God" gambit. I suppose it would be too much to ask for an explanation of how this value is imposed "in a completely different way" from the way humans assign value? And why should values thus imposed have any more validity than (for example) the value an artist places on his/her paintings?

Of course the idea of an ontological mark on the soul will meet with skepticism

Correct, largely because it doesn't appear to be an intelligible proposition. What exactly is an "ontological mark", and how does it make something "intrinsically" valuable?

The only thing I can offer to that is that one should remain open to the possibility of supernatural phenomena

It would help if your particular claims about the supernatural were actually comprehensible. That way one might have some idea as to what one was meant to be open.

My own opinion includes rape-pregnancy termination as a moral option which, concerning morality, appears to be the real crux of the argument.

So arethe babies lives less valuable because they started with a rape?

Re #269 Salt. I don't see the relevance of your "Man for All Seasons" quote. Please explain.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 18, 2008 11:00 AM

What is there not to understand?

If you have never seen this film, I do highly recommend it. It has much to say, on many levels.

If you have never heard of Thomas More, he was Henry VIII's Chancelor (succeeded Wolsey) at the time of Henry's desired divorce from Catherine of Aragon (to marry Anne Boleyn).

Life of the mother for sure. My own opinion includes rape-pregnancy termination as a moral option which, concerning morality, appears to be the real crux of the argument.

Salt, your entire comment makes little sense to me. You mention 'morality' and 'crux' and 'argument' but give no explanation of what the crux of your argument is.

The crux of my argument is that the mother has a choice. It is likely to depend on her circumstances and may encompass situations unimagined here. It is an individual's choice over what is, as yet, an unformed and unviable foetus--something that is no more human than an organ is. I call any attempt to restrict the mother's choice immoral, particularly as carrying a child to term and bringing it up is such a profound matter. Forcing childbirth may encourage a mother to take desperate measures that can risk her life. One could argue that's a choice also, but it is Hobson's choice, and one that is avoided by providing a framework in which safe and legal abortion is permitted.

I think, however, that your concept of meaning and the value of a life is problematic in that it is ephemeral and relative. If my life only means something to me, only has value to me, then that isn't intrinsic value.

Posted by: Quaeror | April 17, 2008 10:55 PM

Intrinsic. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means:

1 a: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing

Your actually arguing this word when you say your worth comes from God:

extrinsic

1 a: not forming part of or belonging to a thing : extraneous b: originating from or on the outside; especially : originating outside a part and acting upon the part as a whole.

See, you keep saying your worth is intrinsic, because God values you. Yet that is the extrinsic concept, you have worth because God gave it to you and without God, it is impossible to have worth.

As a Unitarian, and atheist, I believe in my intrinsic self-worth. I am worth something because I exist and it is my responsibility to give my life meaning apart from outside testaments or philosophies to my worth without being co-dependent on some outside mythological or temporal force or actor to give me that worth.

Essentially, my worth comes from, albeit I'm neurotic, being pretty much psychologically whole/adult, rather than broken/childish in my internal make-up. Just as my morality comes from that position, instead of the childish "rule following to morality" of the typical Christian. Which is not morality, but is rule following.

Which gets me to my largest criticism of religion which is, by it's practice and design, religion keeps you psychologically childish and dependent in order for it to parasitize itself on you. Even as 1st Corinthians says: "When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things."

Yet you do not put away your childish dependency of worth and safety. Because Religion is vested in keeping you in state of psychological development akin to childhood, one of the things you'd put aside is childish dependency on religion to assuage fear and guilt. So it can profit from your labor and control you for the ends of those that administer religion to you.

So, while you can't recognize it, like a child looking at his incredibly competent (in his eyes) parents, you look at God as some great big protector and provider in a world in which you've convinced yourself/been brainwashed you're not capable of functioning. And, thus, you remain locked in a low-function, childlike state in some world of absolutes and dangers.

So put away your childish dependency and join adult living. It's pretty damn scary. But you'll find you don't have to blow up countries to prove you're the King of the Sandbox. You'll find you don't have to live in fear of transgressing some arbitrary and capricious rule set down by some bronze age savage 2,000 years ago.

And, you'll get to develop a wholesome morality where you don't have to hate people because they're different. And that alone is worth the pain of admission.

What is there not to understand?

Everything. Your message is less than clear.

I am trying to interpret whether or not you are trying to say that you cannot conscience abortion for it would condemn you to hell.

If you wish to stand aside and say 'I will not do this', then fine. No-one will stop you.

However, if you try to prevent others from accessing legal and safe abortion, then we have a fight on our hands. I have been involved in abortion decisions and I rather resent the interference of those godly who would take choice away from my wife and me.

paging Dr. Hector Avalos.

Dr. Hector Avalos to the thread, please.

....

"Dr. Avalos, please tell us "How Archaeology Killed Biblical History" please?"

"Why certainly..."

http://mnatheists.org/component/option,com_seyret/task,videodirectlink/…

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 18, 2008 12:09 AM

You know, I always mispell his name. Drives me nuts because I want to put an "r" in it.

I also tend to spell Feynman's name "Feinman." I hate spelling. Thank God for spellcheckers. :p

Re #278. Salt. I do know who Sir Thomas more was. I have seen the film. I don't understand why you think it relevant to the question I asked, which was when you consider abortion "necessary" (your word). Please explain.

So arethe babies lives less valuable because they started with a rape?
Posted by: JimC | April 18, 2008 11:15 AM

Not sure how you are applying the word "value" here, though
from an economic perspective, the answer to your question is no, as any loss of a (i.e.) potential taxpayer is a loss to society as a whole, whereupon one might logically conclude that if pregnancy were deemed of the highest value, then rape could be no less than one of the greatest acts one could perform.

RE: Kseniya, #155

I just have one question regarding this post...marry me?

'I mean if PZ was never on this earth, would anything change?'

If Ratzinger hadn't, then the Nazis would have had one less gunner, of course:

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/11864.html

... and perhaps a few more child abusers would have been caught earlier:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

An ex-Nazi who systematically excused child rapists. Yeah, cool role model you've got there, Catholics.

Oh come on, Salt. Don't be coy. It's obvious you place a value on the life of an embryo - the presumed value of the life itself. (Why else all the moral posturing?) And yet abortion in the case of rape is conscionable. Why? Because the product of rape is less worth saving, or because the extenuating circumstances outweight the inviolate and *cough* intrinsic worth of the embryo?

Salt, I think you're being intentionally dense, but if not, how about this: Why is it OK to kill some babies (those conceived through rape), but not others? Surely if all babies have souls, how they come to be conceived can't have a impact on the morality of killing them, no?

if pregnancy were deemed of the highest value, then rape could be no less than one of the greatest acts one could perform

I'm sure Salt is funning us with this crypto-Swiftian suggestion. He would like to bait us into a state of outrage.

Nevertheless the question was asked and Salt failed to answer. If life is so precious that only the health of the mother is clearly a reason to permit abortion, why does he make an exception for rape?

Re #278. Salt. I do know who Sir Thomas more was. I have seen the film. I don't understand why you think it relevant to the question I asked, which was when you consider abortion "necessary" (your word). Please explain.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 18, 2008 11:32 AM

I stated what I believe constitutes necessary (post #269, my first sentence). Do I need repeat myself?

Thomas More's statement to Norfolk concerned Norfolk's moral proclivity to blow with the wind.

'I'm sure Salt is funning us with this crypto-Swiftian suggestion.'

Poe's Law states that any sufficiently advanced form of Christian fundamentalism is indistinguishable from a parody of Christian fundamentalism.

What I don't understand ... if Catholics believe life is sacred and that every time you use a condom you deny the world a potential Einstein or Da Vinci ... why are their priests celibate? Think of all the Einsteins and Da Vincis we could have had.

why are their priests celibate? Think of all the Einsteins and Da Vincis we could have had.

From that lot?

Do I need repeat myself?

Yes. You have not made yourself clear. Your meaning, in particular the second sentence of post #269, is entirely opaque to me.

Thomas More's statement to Norfolk concerned Norfolk's moral proclivity to blow with the wind.

Sadly for you, I am not blowing with the wind. Nor are most of us here. There is a strong moral case for a mother's freedom of choice to abort. particularly as the evidence indicates that the majority do so mindful of the welfare of any child and are therefore making a responsible choice according to their circumstances.

You, it seems, would force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term in all but the most extreme of cases. You would also, it seems, prefer a state of affairs that would result in the deaths of those women desperate enough to have illegal abortions.

Think of all the Einsteins and Da Vincis we could have had.

Surely he meant, "all the Comforts and Kinkades."

OK, before the thread gets TOTALLY derailed by the abortion topic, I'll repeat Bronze Dog's post about altruism.
"I don't need law enforcement of the natural or supernatural kind to behave. I have compassion for my fellow sentient beings. When I'm at the grocery store, I put up shopping carts that barbarians placed in the exact center of good parking spots. If I take an item off the shelf, and the remainder are way in the back, hard to reach, I will bring a few closer to the front for the next person's convenience. And that's just the tiniest of things I do. (Need to start getting my checkbook ready for a slew of donations, by the way.)
Why do I do these things? Well, for starters, the world would be a better place if everyone was generous. Altruism helps everyone, and altruism helps oneself: People have an instinct for reciprocation:
"Scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."
"Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself."
It's the concept behind returning a favor. Doing kind things for others makes them more willing to do kind things for you. Hence, if I want something kind to be done for me, I should be kind to others. If I don't want nasty things done to me, I shouldn't do nasty things to others. It's probably written in our DNA somewhere. It's also taught to most of us at early ages. Even if it's not explicitly taught, we tend to learn by observation.
For the typical divine command theorist, such concepts are alien: They only know obedience, not love or compassion. They typically require bribery (Heaven) and blackmail (Hell) to reach a decision. When I try to imagine what it's like to be one of them, I think of an animal just barely intelligent enough to understand the concept of deferring gratification. This animal is locked in a cage, separated from all other members of its kind, and is promised a reward from the food slot if they hit the right sequence of buttons. They don't care what the buttons do (no matter how horrible it is), just whether or not something will come tumbling down from the machine."

I stated what I believe constitutes necessary (post #269, my first sentence). Do I need repeat myself?

Thomas More's statement to Norfolk concerned Norfolk's moral proclivity to blow with the wind.

Your #269, first sentence:

Life of the mother for sure.

OK, that's clear.

Your #269, second sentence:

My own opinion includes rape-pregnancy termination as a moral option which, concerning morality, appears to be the real crux of the argument.

Far from clear. Indeed, it is not obvious how to parse this sentence. I shall summarise what I think is your position, and you can either agree, or correct me:
"Termination of a pregnancy is morally acceptable to save the mother's life, or if the pregnancy results from rape, but in no other circumstances. It should be against the law in all other circumstances."

The relevance of the quote from "A Man For All Seasons" remains mysterious. Yes, obviously, More is implying that Norfolk is "blowing with the wind", although he does not make this explicit; rather, his words if taken literally, grant that Norfolk is following his conscience just as More is following his. Now, who are you asserting is blowing with the wind, and on what grounds?

Nevertheless the question was asked and Salt failed to answer. If life is so precious that only the health of the mother is clearly a reason to permit abortion, why does he make an exception for rape?

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | April 18, 2008 11:50 AM

I most certainly did not fail to answer. You appear to not be capable of the distinction between necessity versus (moral?) choice, both of which I clearly identified -

Life of the mother for sure [re necessity]. My own opinion includes rape-pregnancy termination as a moral option

Your mis-characterization - reason to permit abortion - of the original question posed to me

Re #258. So, Salt, may we learn when you consider abortion necessary?

introduces the legal aspect - permit. For your edification, [to] permit something, a/k/a receive license to [_____] -

License - permission from a competent authority to do that which would otherwise be unlawful, a trespass, or a tort. [see Black's Law Dict., 6th Ed.]

Lee,

you say "I call any attempt to restrict the mother's choice immoral, particularly as carrying a child to term and bringing it up is such a profound matter."

So, would you consider it morally acceptable if the mother's decision to abort was made after the moment when the fetus becomes viable ?

This member of the "fine folk" stands firmly behind the right of anyone who wishes to have any consensual medical procedure they wish in consultation only with their doctor, unless they themselves decide otherwise. That is, this member of the fine folk is against any effort to involve uninterested parties (and panty-sniffers) in any medical procedure. Discussion of anything else, at least as it pertains to the law, is irrelevant and a distraction.

Not, may I say, unlike the Pope. Would that Bush were the same way...

"Termination of a pregnancy is morally acceptable to save the mother's life, or if the pregnancy results from rape, but in no other circumstances. It should be against the law in all other circumstances."
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 18, 2008 12:16 PM

Never said the bolded part. Now nice of you to mis-characterize that I did. Never said "no other circumstances" either, you inferred that. One could also quite readily infer inclusion of those circumstances which one's conscience allow.

Yes, obviously, More is implying that Norfolk is "blowing with the wind", although he does not make this explicit; rather, his words if taken literally, grant that Norfolk is following his conscience just as More is following his.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 18, 2008 12:16 PM

Now that wasn't so hard to grasp, was it?

No, that was misquoting Nick Gotts' attempt at summarizing your position. I quote:

"Far from clear. Indeed, it is not obvious how to parse this sentence. I shall summarise what I think is your position, and you can either agree, or correct me:
"Termination of a pregnancy is morally acceptable to save the mother's life, or if the pregnancy results from rape, but in no other circumstances. It should be against the law in all other circumstances."

So, will you correct this statement?

So, would you consider it morally acceptable if the mother's decision to abort was made after the moment when the fetus becomes viable ?

No, I would not. You will have noticed from my writings above, particularly in post #250, that I make a clear distinction between viability and unviability.

Re #299 -

Well said. Are you libertarian?

I most certainly did not fail to answer. You appear to not be capable of the distinction between necessity versus (moral?) choice, both of which I clearly identified

You did not clearly identify the distinction. I had difficulty parsing what you had written, as did others here. So yes, you failed.

You still have not explained why you make an exception for rape? Why is this the only exception?

And how would you define rape? What if a husband forced sex on a wife against her will and caused her to get pregnant, is that rape? Would you sanction an abortion on that basis? Or would the history of abusive behaviour by the husband, or the degree of abuse, shade the decision?

Would you also make an exception for incest, for example?

What if a substantial birth defect was detected early? Would that be grounds?

I just would like to see where the boundaries lay.

Salt, you clearly think you are very clever, but you are mistaken: repeated failure to make yourself clear, in the face of requests to do so is, rather, evidence of stupidity. I did indeed propose a formulation of your views which went beyond what you had made explicit; this seemed the only chance of inducing you to make yourself plain - and it has, at least, brought about some progress toward that end.
You have also failed, once more, to make clear why your quote from "A Man for All Seasons" is relevant. It has become obvious you are accusing someone of "blowing with the wind", but you lack the honesty to say so outright, and have given no evidence for your opinion. I remind you that it was you who introduced the topic of abortion into this thread, asking those contributing to it where they stood on the issue; but you lack the moral courage to come out straightforwardly with your own view. Why are you wasting everyone's time?

"Termination of a pregnancy is morally acceptable to save the mother's life, or if the pregnancy results from rape, but in no other circumstances. It should be against the law in all other circumstances."

So, will you correct this statement?

Posted by: Laser Potato | April 18, 2008 12:39 PM

First, sorry I messed up on whom was quoting whom. As to correcting the statement above, I did as to its errors.

But in all fairness to you, I shall do so again and parse each part to make it easier for you-

"Termination of a pregnancy is morally acceptable to save the mother's life - CORRECT

or if the pregnancy results from rape CORRECT

but in no other circumstances - I never said that

It should be against the law in all other circumstances. - - did not say that either

Statement corrected. Or, perhaps, were you implying a further question?

Planet Killer blithered:

Evolution is NOT SCIENCE. ID IS NOT SCIENCE. It's pretty simple to see. It's crap science being put forth from our lovely atheist scientists.

Intelligent Design is put forth by atheists?

Congratulations. I was sure I'd seen every moronic claim Creationists could make, but that is a new one for me.

And yet, salt, you refer to abortion using words such as 'slaughter'. So, having told us that the life of the mother represents necessity and that rape is one situation where a moral case can be made, can you tell us where the bright line between morality and immorality can be drawn on this issue?

At what point does abortion cease to have a moral underpinning and become, in your own words, 'slaughter'?

#50

The reason you haven't met one christian who knew the "true" meaning of these words is probably that, in the bible, it's nothing remotely related what you've written here. At least as far as it's incorporated into the christian faith, "Turn the other cheek" comes from an admonition, "When a man strikes you on one cheek, offer to him the other also." To put it in context, it is part of the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus allegedly brought up the old "eye for an eye" and contradicted it with several examples of "moral" conduct, including this one. It is followed by "If a man sues you at law and takes your coat, give him your cloak as well." It's all about passive acquiescence.

The "Roman" explanation" sounds good, but has no basis in the actual origin of the saying. Christians, unfortunately, are educated from the bible alone for the most part, and thus no Chirstian would give any explanation other than the original.

Posted by: Kseniya | April 18, 2008 3:21 AM

1. "This family history may shed a little light on my impatience with the false
equivalences so often made between atheism and Stalinism (and "the Russianization
of Communism")."

It definitely does shed light - and give good reason - for such impatience. I definitely agree, and I consider that to be equivalent to my impatience, and often anger, with those who assume to know - for example - the plight of wounded vets when they have never so much as sniffed a Veterans' Affairs Hospital in this country. (I do NOT recommend it, if you couldn't tell.)
The last part of that comment strikes home for me as well, because I have studied very closely the beginnings - and subsequent applications - of the writings of Marx. (I'm almost certain that I'm on a terror watch list somewhere for ordering both Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto on Amazon. Who knew intellectual curiosity deserved such close monitoring?) And it is painfully obvious that the communism installed and lorded over by Stalin and his decedents was nowhere close to the utopian style of society advocated by Marx. Once you account for and take out the parts of Marx's writing that were obviously angry reactions to the society that spurned him, you end up with an idea for society that is anything but evil. (Possibly idealistic, definitely unattainable in the pragmatic sense, but not evil.) That's why I love that phrase you used - "the Russianization of Communism."

2. Neither religion nor irreligion necessarily promotes or inhibits abuses of power such
as those which precipitated many of the worst events of the past century.

I agree with you mostly on this one, though I want to go on record here and prevent someone's inevitable misreading of (what I see to be) your intent. Religion nor its negative counterpart are not responsible for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and other tyrants, nor are they responsible for the plans they put in motion for domination. What religion has been responsible for - and still is today, in some cases - is the incitement of violence, whether ti be on a small or large scale. When Pope Innocent III stood and proclaimed "It is God's will" during a call for a crusade, he gave the best and most blatant example for religion's complicity in the invasion of a foreign country. (And if you think things like this are obsolete, observe the current Pope and his praise of George W. Bush for his valuing the sanctity of life. Not the exact same, but disgusting, nonetheless.) And a more modern example of this on a small scale was the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini for the murder of Salman Rushdie. No matter what the contents, there is NEVER a valid reason for murder in retaliation to artistic or literary expression.

3. "The key to our future, then, is simply (!) to learn to reign in and to manager the darker
aspects of human nature..."

We are, it appears, two people sharing the same mind! If we could, as a society, keep religion in the personal realm and bring social and political policy down to the lowest common denominator between the peoples of the world, we'd be in a much better position. And if we could further realize that all of the evil we perceive (because evil, to me, is a purely human emotional construct - remove humans from the equation, and I doubt you'd find an evil comet or giraffe out there) in the world originates from within us and the human nature provided us by our species' evolution and survival, then we could begin to address the negative aspects of society in a rational way, and come up with rational solutions for their mitigation.

-- to quote a human being I truly value as a social prophet and universally loving being, "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." (Am I alone in the emotion that - though I never came even close to meeting him, I sincerely miss John Lennon and his message?)

I did indeed propose a formulation of your views which went beyond what you had made explicit

Thank you. Most people will not admit to such.

this seemed the only chance of inducing you to make yourself plain - and it has, at least, brought about some progress toward that end..

If you have a question which the one in question did not encompass, why not just ask?

You have also failed, once more, to make clear why your quote from "A Man for All Seasons" is relevant. It has become obvious you are accusing someone of "blowing with the wind", but you lack the honesty to say so outright, and have given no evidence for your opinion.

Not true. I simply said that that quote summarizes my view of morality. I like that quote. It is short and succinct. It allows for, lets say, nuance.

I remind you that it was you who introduced the topic of abortion into this thread, asking those contributing to it where they stood on the issue

If you reread my original post [# 203], and in light of PZ's rant, it just seemed so appropriate to include what so many see as a great evil going on (like torture), the wholesale slaughter of the unborn which many justify on so many grounds (does a fetus feel pain?). Just remember, when you point the finger at others, 3 are pointing back at you. And that my friend, is the very definition of hypocrite.

but you lack the moral courage to come out straightforwardly with your own view. Why are you wasting everyone's time?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 18, 2008 12:54 PM

I stated my view as pertaining to the question asked.

Salt, you are both a fool and a liar. I have done with you.

can you tell us where the bright line between morality and immorality can be drawn on this issue?

At what point does abortion cease to have a moral underpinning and become, in your own words, 'slaughter'?

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | April 18, 2008 1:00 PM

WOW! Someone who can actually frame a question.

Slaughter is an inflammatory word, though I do find it appropriate due to the numbers (life of mother not included). Abortions as a result of rape are not the majority as I understand it from the data I have seen.

Where's the "bright line between morality and immorality"? Well, that's what the public debate is all about if one harbors a desire to eventually come to a consensus, which, unfortunately, would necessitate court/congress participation.

Establishing the bright line for oneself, well, it was once said when asked what smut is -

"Can't give you a definition, but I know it when I see it."

It is possible that Salt is deliberatly keeping his position unclear in order to distract everyone from realizing that he has not answered why he finds it okay to "slaughter the unborn" in cases of rape.

Slaughter is an inflammatory word, though I do find it appropriate due to the numbers (life of mother not included). Abortions as a result of rape are not the majority as I understand it from the data I have seen.

This statement implies that you find abortion OK when it is rarely done. This concept doesn't speak to cases of rape specifically. I assume that this isn't what you actually meant or believe, so you may wish to explain further.

two nazis patting each other on the back may they both go to hell if I actually believed in such a place

Re Post 315

I do not see how my statement you quoted implies such.

Do I wish there were fewer? Yes. Do I wish to impose my will on others? No. Do I personally have any problem with abortion due to rape? No. Do I have any problem with government's participation in the debate? At the federal level, damn right (on principle alone).

"... that he has not answered why he finds it okay to "slaughter the unborn" in cases of rape."

Sexual intercourse > potential of pregnancy (contraception notwithstanding). People engage knowingly of the possible, even though unintended consequence, in two ways > consensual / un-consensual.

It's a distinction which I allow for. I notice you quoted my use of "slaughter the unborn" which I emphatically did not apply as to rape cases.

WOW! Someone who can actually frame a question.

How disingenuous of you. You have had many direct and clear questions asked of you and you chose to answer this one. Not that you gave an answer of any substance.

I was going to engage you on your inapt definition of 'slaughter', but I've decided not to play this game any more. I've concluded that you are trolling and I've spent more time on you than you are worth.

Goodbye.

If I were a Xian, I'd be ashamed. I used to be one, and that's what happened, many years ago.

It's darkly funny how some of you wish to question me on my views concerning abortion while ignoring what I firstly intimated concerning PZ's rant. I guess that is to be expected though, being as a fetus is but a mass of [insert scientific expression here].

PZ made it quite clear as to the leanings here at Pharyngula, his dismissive wave off of abortion as no more concern than an appendectomy. Further contemplation of such attitude yields some pretty interesting possibilities.

PK, #154:

Religion is for simple minded fools that must be killed. See, where this leads us? Right back to the kinds of things Hilter did.

Hitler, Munich Speech of April 12, 1922 :

I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.

In post 315, you responded to the following statement:

At what point does abortion cease to have a moral underpinning and become, in your own words, 'slaughter'?

To which you responded:

Slaughter is an inflammatory word, though I do find it appropriate due to the numbers (life of mother not included). Abortions as a result of rape are not the majority as I understand it from the data I have seen.

To sum up, the question was, why is abortion in cases of rape a moral option, while abortion in non-rape cases is not? You responded, there are fewer rape abortions than non-rape abortions. The only way this response answers the question is if you were arguing that rape abortions are moral because there are fewer of them. As I said, I don't think that's what you meant. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt there.

You answered more fully in post 319, although I don't think this answers the question. You have not explained why embryos resulting from rape are different as embryos than those not resulting from rape. I mean, they're no less baby-like, right? Is murdering a baby really an appropriate response to rape? If so, can the mother wait until the baby is born to murder it?

Benedict?

Hell, as far as I can tell he still is one.

Posted by: Kyle | April 18, 2008 3:49 AM

"I just want to make it clear that I have no special love of torture, or any desire to have it put to use. If I seem distant from the realities of war (which I am) then I apologize. Believe me, I do respect your experience on this topic. If what you say is true regarding the effectiveness of torture then I do not defend it."

I honestly respect your ability to change your viewpoint in the face of credible - I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds in calling my opinions that - information. It is a trait not shared by many who disagree with me and many others on this board. And no apology necessary - I would much rather prefer you and everyone you love remain distant from the realities of war. If I came across otherwise, it is I who must apologize. I will never object to someone's distance from combat - only when such people claim to have that knowledge do I take issue with them.

"However, it seems to me that the technological limitations of the military will necessarily put someone in the position of having to decide how much collateral damage is acceptable. I am imagining an air strike or similar action here. Maybe it is possible to avoid this on an individual scale but I do not see how it would be on a larger one. For the safety of one's own forces, how far can someone decide to err on the side of caution?"

This is the crux of what I think governments since the dawn of civilization have gotten exactly wrong. To me, after seeing it first-hand, there is no such thing as "acceptable collateral damage." The mere fact that the enemy does not agree with this is not a moral - or even situational - justification for stooping to their level. The entire mantra of "fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here" is at its core an affirmation that if the war comes here, the enemy's disregard for non-combatant casualties will result in the death and destruction of many of our citizens and much of our civilian infrastructure. So to "fight them there" is at its heart a mantra meant to prevent and decry collateral damage, and I see the concept as identical, whether dealing with American lives or those of citizens of any other country in the world. But therein lies the problem. To this administration, collateral damage in a foreign country is somehow morally within the bounds of possibility during wartime. (Hypothetical: If there WAS a battle here, how many politicians do you think would trumpet the phrase "acceptable collateral damage" when speaking of an American bomb that slightly missed its target and leveled half of a civilian neighborhood?)

"If we assume torture to be an effective means of gaining valuable intelligence from high ranking prisoners with a comparatively low risk of collateral damage, why would it be immoral (in the context of war)?"

That is the problem -- you can assume torture is a reliable means of gathering information all you want, but that does not change the fact of the matter - that is an incorrect assumption. For every piece of accurate information you draw out of someone during their torture, you will surely - and by necessity - draw out even more concessions based on the victim's want and need to have the torture stop. And no amount of baseless and war-centered justification can dispute the fact that there is no way to differentiate accurate information from inaccurate information except for confirmation after the fact. And our own country decided long ago that this was not acceptable, and thus instituted the practice of Mirandizing those who are taken into governmental custody and ensuring that they are in no way coerced. Yes, this was a human rights concern, but at the heart of it also was the issue of the reliability of the coerced information. And to answer the last question in that above block, war (and its context) is not a sufficient cause for the alteration of your morality. This is the entire basis for the Geneva Convention and the standards of conduct it set forth for warring nations. If anything, and this is my humble opinion, when you are conducting the controlled killing of foreign soldiers (which is, at its basic level, already a perversion of conventional morality in the first place), you should keep an even closer watch on what you allow in as part of your moral construct. This boils down to the following premise.

When you are forced by outside perversions of morality (attack or provocation) to abandon your own moral construct (and participate in war), you can either:
a. abandon your own moral construct completely OR
b. stay as close to your original morality as you can

Before you argue that torture can be viewed as a necessary evil and justified departure from our normal morality (therefore being an example of option B above), you need to realize that you are saying that war cannot be won, and disaster cannot be averted, without resorting to extreme violations of human rights. What the enemy does is of no consequence here, because it is their perversion or abandonment of morality that drew us into war in the first place, so they are certainly not what we should be using as guideposts for our own actions.

"I don't see how civil liberties can be wholly preserved when the involved parties do not submit to a common authority. Concerning the distinction between law enforcement and war: As far as I know this is why the Guantanamo prisoners can't be prosecuted under the current set of laws. The evidence against them won't hold up it court but there is no government to negotiate their release. I think a lot depends on this distinction."

This is where your argument - in my opinion - wanders too close to a totalitarian view, and it involves the point I made above. Yes, both parties involved in this war do not submit to a common authority (the Geneva Convention, I assume you to mean), but that does not change the fact that we, as a nation, signed our collective names to the affirmation that we will abide by the standards within that document. Nowhere in that document does it allow its signatories to stray from its mandates simply because they're fighting someone who is NOT a signatory, and does not abide by its principles. Again, I'll posit that since we were drawn into this war by way of the murder and aggression of the enemy, we should definitely not alter our conduct to be commensurate to theirs. It seems to be in contradiction with moral common sense to say that we should.

As for the prisoners at Guantanamo, our President has done us a great disservice. By not following either international or American law in the treatment of these people, their guilt or innocence is now of no consequence. When their cases are - inevitably - evaluated under our law, almost all be set free due to violation of their due process, in addition to the fact that many of them will have valid civil lawsuits against our country concerning their inhumane treatment at the hands of our nation's agents. And the only reason they could not be prosecuted under current law has nothing to do with their intrinsic legal standing under our system, but rather it has everything to do with the fact that our President and his administration tried to play word games with our laws. By calling them "unlawful combatants," a designation that by its original definition applies only to spies and other agents of espionage, he tried to justify denying them even the due process they are afforded under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The problem is that the great majority of these men were captured on the battlefield after defeat in open armed conflict, which - by international definition - makes them lawful combatants. The classification of them as unlawful originates only from the arrogant determination of President Bush and his administration that these men had no right to be fighting for the Taliban or Al Qaeda in the first place. (Of course, they veil this by saying that since they were wearing no uniforms, they were somehow spies, but if you have seen many foreign armies, you'd know how specious this claim actually is - many of our supposedly "nearly ready Iraqi Army soldiers" still have no uniforms to wear, and in those cases they wear similar-looking civilian shirts, pants, and shoes. Are these people unlawful combatants? I think not.)

Just to close, I'm quite enjoying this exchange, and if you take any of the above comments as arrogant or in any way condescending, point them out to me and I will either clarify my point or apologize, whichever the situation determines necessary.

I'm for it. Where do you stand on appendectomies?

Posted by: PZ Myers | April 18, 2008 8:36 AM

Dr. Myers, YOU are my hero... Great response.

RE: Kseniya, #155
I just have one question regarding this post...marry me?
Posted by: lurker1 | April 18, 2008 11:46 AM

haha, damn...beaten to the punch...

You answered more fully in post 319, although I don't think this answers the question. You have not explained why embryos resulting from rape are different as embryos than those not resulting from rape.

No difference, from a biological standpoint.

I mean, they're no less baby-like, right?

Correct.

Is murdering a baby really an appropriate response to rape?

So, it's a baby now. Not a fetus or a [insert scientific expression here]. Interesting.

If so, can the mother wait until the baby is born to murder it?

Posted by: kmarissa | April 18, 2008 2:22 PM

Murder. So, now we are discussing law are we?

"To sum up, the question was, why is abortion in cases of rape a moral option, while abortion in non-rape cases is not? You responded, there are fewer rape abortions than non-rape abortions." -

"there are fewer rape abortions than non-rape abortions" was in reference to my use of the word slaughter, not "why is abortion in cases of rape a moral option, while abortion in non-rape cases is not".

Which you later say I explained in post 319, then you went on to say "You have not explained why embryos resulting from rape are different as embryos than those not resulting from rape" which was never the question, and if it were, quite grammar school level, wouldn't you say?

Salt,

I am attempting to clarify your position. I don't know why you are making it so opaque. I used the term "baby" because your reference to "slaughter of the unborn" APPEARS (note: appears. You have yet to let us know whether this is the case or not) to indicate that you subscribe to the fetuses=babies camp. This is why I invited you to clarify by asking the questions as I did.

I note that you failed to answer my question 3, which means you still have not stated why abortion is okay in cases of rape, but not in non-rape cases.

Good Grief, wouldn't you know that I was gone all day Thursday and upon return on Friday the major topic is of that head moron from Rome laying waste to our country with the idiotic masses groveling and fawning in the presence of the holy farter, his shittiness puking homolies and ranting derangements to the demented rabble. There are so many comments, 326 so far, that I have not been able to read most of them and I apologize if I inadvertantly reiterate frim some of those great comments.
I will not watch the deplorable behavior of the insane rabble and their pathetic remarks as they try to get near or get a glimpse of the chief symbol of their collective insanity. The radio and the Internet are the only sources from which I have seen and heard of the trampling masses prostrating themselves in front of this insane fraud! Oh the sights and sounds of the bleating sheep as they partake of the vision of their annointed sweeping over them with blessings and rewards in the misty hereafter. It's a wonder the rabble didn't request to have the moron spray them with his blessed urine to wash away their sins and prepare them for the rapture. It is downright deplorable, demeaning and utterly insane to watch and hear this never ending crap spread before us to such rapt attention. And we4 are the example to the rest of the world? Leave me out of this mass appeal for an idiot of the insane masses.

Murder. So, now we are discussing law are we?
Posted by: Salt | April 18, 2008 2:44 PM

If you haven't parsed for yourself that the entire abortion debate is a debate over its LEGALITY, then you are intentionally diverting the argument. Of course it is about law. The only debate in the matter concerns whether or not you THINK it should be legal or illegal, which necessarily makes the entire conversation about LAW - as it pertains to the practice of abortion. The question of its morality is only relevant when you realize that a majority of citizens in this country believe that laws should have a common justification, and oftentimes that justification has to do with the law's moral implications.

ahh, damn it.... After all my (copious, I admit) posts that attempted to keep this thread on-topic, even I've been drawn away from the intention of the post. This seems to be a tactic quite typical of opponents to the decision reached in Roe v. Wade.

Let's try this ONE more time. This was the text that you quoted:

"can you tell us where the bright line between morality and immorality can be drawn on this issue? At what point does abortion cease to have a moral underpinning and become, in your own words, 'slaughter'?"

Please note the segment in bold. The poster here did not ask WHY you used the word "slaughter." She asked "at what point does abortion cease to have a moral underpinning and become...slaughter."

You appear to have totally ignored the "moral underpinning" segment of the question.

Poster asks: when does it cease to be moral?

You respond: Lots of abortions = slaughter. Therefore, IF you were attempting to define your use of the word "slaughter," you should have noted that you were not, in fact, answering the question.

then you went on to say "You have not explained why embryos resulting from rape are different as embryos than those not resulting from rape" which was never the question, and if it were, quite grammar school level, wouldn't you say?

This is the question of why rape abortions are OK, but non-rape ones are not. You responded with commentary on the behavior of the potential mother, but did not explain how these actions give non-rape fetuses any more moral right to be born than rape fetuses. Again, what is the difference between the two?

You'll never get Salt The Moving Target to admit his position on abortion. He's just using this as a setup for a "gotcha!" in case you couldn't tell from the tone of the initial question. Don't feed the troll.

I note that you failed to answer my question 3, which means you still have not stated why abortion is okay in cases of rape, but not in non-rape cases.

See post # 315. The distinction is based on consensual, or lack thereof. Guess I'm one who allows that one need not acquire the "unintended consequence" where one did not consensually, and knowingly, participate in an act to which such consequence is the result. Remember, it's only my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

Don't feed the troll.

You're right, you're right, you're right.

He's just using this as a setup for a "gotcha!" in case you couldn't tell from the tone of the initial question. Don't feed the troll.

Posted by: Laser Potato | April 18, 2008 3:14 PM

Not at all. I just found it most interesting that PZ would rant the way he did yet not also include the secular component of (applauded ?) abortion approval.

His short, concise, admittedly humorous reply said it all as to why such would not be considered. [see my post # 322)

"It's darkly funny how some of you wish to question me on my views concerning abortion while ignoring what I firstly intimated concerning PZ's rant."

They ignored nothing. You derailed this thread to make some "gotcha!" point on abortion, and you're quite clearly interested in nothing but obfuscation. I'm glad that most of them have realized that by now.

Murder. So, now we are discussing law are we?
Posted by: Salt | April 18, 2008 2:44 PM

If you haven't parsed for yourself that the entire abortion debate is a debate over its LEGALITY, then you are intentionally diverting the argument. Of course it is about law.
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 18, 2008 3:07 PM

Yes, I know that. It is about the legislating of morality (for lack of a better concept), though the morality component was on the table here at the moment.

Do try and keep up will you?

Hot damn Kseniya #155 & #170 way to wear the bronze bra and magical bracelets! Blue ribbion to you for not sitting down and shutting up in the face of stupidity. Also, another blue for use of my favorite word - codswallop.
Now to the question - what do you fine people think about abortion? Squeamish people look away... I can speak for two of us. I've flushed 433 of my own eggs down the toilet and not one tear shed by either myself or my husband. I'm a cougar not a kitten, if you don't like it - tough. Go tell the Pope...

Oh yes, I am unequivocally for abortion, for rape, incest,deformities, and whatever reason the female may offer. As I have stated on previous blogs, life is not sacred, and if it were then that god would so easily prevent it and prove that humans have absolutely no control or say in this matter. Only a god gives life and can take it away? Only a human can invent a god and then extrapolate it from there. This will be argued in the same vein as religion, but religionists have the double effort to reason and rant otherwise.

You guys are so pwned. But, as just a bare few of you are lying on the floor, bleeding, guess it is time for me to go so that you may pick yourselves up and declare victory.

Appreciated your droller answer PZ. Quite humorous.

His short, concise, admittedly humorous reply said it all as to why such would not be considered. [see my post # 322)
Posted by: Salt | April 18, 2008 3:24 PM

No, it was a reply given to his opinion of the practice that was devoid of any the religious implications that you necessarily insert into the debate.

Yes, I know that. It is about the legislating of morality (for lack of a better concept), though the morality component was on the table here at the moment.
Do try and keep up will you?
Posted by: Salt | April 18, 2008 3:37 PM

Actually, I'd give you the same advice. Your reply succinctly admitted the law's involvement in the debate - something you insinuated was outside its realms by snidely asking if we were now discussing law.

In repsonse to Claus, post #18,

Claus, please help stop these people.

Your leader, as you put it, and his followers- they may very well kick you out of their little club for doing so, but stand up to them and make them stop.

The crazy religious people in the world are not going to ever be particularly influenced by us, the other side of the fence- the secular, scientific, liberal, half of the world.

The sane religious people need to reel in the crazy religious people and find social workers for them.

You guys are so pwned. But, as just a bare few of you are lying on the floor, bleeding, guess it is time for me to go so that you may pick yourselves up and declare victory.

(Ahem.)

"Oh, oh, I see. Running away, eh? You YELLOW BASTARDS! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!"

(Sorry Laser Potato.)

Please, the two of them getting together and discussing "values" is laughable.

"President Bush has immense temporal power, leading one of the richest countries on the planet with the most potent military force."

Sadly, PZ, this may not prove to be true in the near future, directly because of Bush's handling of this situation. Don't take my word for it, though. This is what the President's senior military advisor, Admiral Michael Mullen, had to say about the present and future efficacy of our military in the face of our current deployment policies, and the consequences of continuing to pursue them.

"Iraq is an unpopular war, it's gone on for a long time, and we've lost 4,000 of our most precious young people." Vietnam marked the "beginning of what was a very drastic dive in terms of our military readiness," he says. "We just cannot afford to make that mistake again."

To that end, Mullen has stressed his concerns about the cumulative effects of multiple deployments on soldiers.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/04/18/admiral-michael…

A sad consequence of a sad situation, and it can all be laid at the feet of this administration. Which is why it pisses me off all the more when he and his cronies accuse proponents of withdrawal of "not supporting the troops." Hypocrite, indeed.

Seriously, what IS it with trolls declaring victory when they're clearly losing?

PZ Myers wrote:
"So instead he stands there and tells him that they share common principles founded in fear of a nebulous god. Those are 'principles' I reject -- they seem to be nothing but labile excuses for doing as you will to anyone who falls under your thumb."

This is the exact reason we as a society need to decide whose law we are going to follow. The "godless liberals" want to make it up as we go, so they can justify their own immoral behavior (It's all good, right?). On the other hand, we Christians see the beauty of obedience to God as taught in Biblical Christianity. Everyone knows that Christians aren't perfect, but given the choice of following an imperfect Christianity and the "morality" of the self-described "godless liberals", I will choose Christianity every time.

Consider this when choosing whose law you will follow: What force is there to restrain the "godless liberals"? They don't believe in God, so His law does not restrain them. When they get in power, they decide what is right according to their "own moral compass" (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, et. al.). Do you want to be subject to the moral compass of people who refuse to recognize a higher power than themselves? Not me. Give me those "fuddy-duddy" Christians any day. At least I can understand their rule-book!

God is God, I am not.

You guys are so pwned. But, as just a bare few of you are lying on the floor, bleeding, guess it is time for me to go so that you may pick yourselves up and declare victory.

well, I bet a bottle of scotch that PK would declare his utter annihilation a victory today, but instead see that Salt doesn't even need to wait to claim fictional victory.

his addled brain kicks in its defense mechanisms much more quickly.

I would have bet on Salt, but I kinda missed that horserace.

God is God, I am not.

the problem is, you don't seem to recognize the problems inherent in that statement.

"What force is there to restrain the "godless liberals"?
Ah, the "if you don't beleive in God, you have no morality" canard.
http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2007/10/if-there-were-no-traffic-…

Gorillas don't go on murderous rampages constantly, and *they* don't beleive in God. The reason is called altruism-perhaps you've heard of it.

You responded with commentary on the behavior of the potential mother, but did not explain how these actions give non-rape fetuses any more moral right to be born than rape fetuses. Again, what is the difference between the two?

Posted by: kmarissa | April 18, 2008 3:14 PM

Ok, one last post.

I never said it had anything to do with the fetus as the fetus is not in any moral position.

Think of a person, held by people who are arguing whether to eat him/her or not. Some say it is immoral, some say it is moral. Upon whom does the moral responsibility lay as to the decision? The person or captors?

Now, say it is two people held. One is good, the other evil (define as you wish). Does this alter upon whom the moral responsibility lays? Does it alter the question? Absolutely not.

So you see dear, your question is without meaning where you ignore upon whom the moral decision lays.

G'day.

You guys are so pwned. But, as just a bare few of you are lying on the floor, bleeding, guess it is time for me to go so that you may pick yourselves up and declare victory.
Appreciated your droller answer PZ. Quite humorous.
Posted by: Salt | April 18, 2008 3:45 PM

Unfortunately, this reply and its willful ignorance of the truth of what has actually happened on this board could be cut and pasted (excluding the "you guys are so pwned - though, his heretofore displayed intelligence is NOT what leads me to believe this part would be excluded) onto Presidential letterhead, and it would sufficiently describe Bush's apparent exit strategy for Iraq.

"Seriously, what IS it with trolls declaring victory when they're clearly losing?"

I find that they tend to do it when someone catches on to their true game (see your own comment #335).

"so they can justify their own immoral behavior"

Again, what immoral behavior? Come on, I'd love to see what you think you can pin on us.

"Do you want to be subject to the moral compass of people who refuse to recognize a higher power than themselves?"

President Bush acknowledges a power higher than himself, but that power seems to want him to do the things that he already wants to do, and that his cronies want him to do. Isn't it funny how that works?

Oh, and Hitler is one of yours, by the way.

"At least I can understand their rule-book!"

You must be on mushrooms, then. Either that or you haven't read much of it.

Oh, Salt will be back. Probably within a few hours, under a new name. If a troll tells you this is his "last post" in the thread he's almost invariably lying.

The "godless liberals" want to make it up as we go, so they can justify their own immoral behavior (It's all good, right?).

Ah! How delightful! Once again we are blessed with the thoughful and gracious views another odiferous bat-fowling popinjay, who is as valiant as the wrathful dove, or most magnanimous mouse.

When they get in power, they decide what is right according to their "own moral compass" (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, et. al.). Do you want to be subject to the moral compass of people who refuse to recognize a higher power than themselves?

Do you never tire of being so utterly stupid and predictable? Good God in Heaven! We're on the Unholy Merry-Go-Round of Blindly Hypocritical Christians!

Did "God's Law" restrain Hilter, the Catholic? How about Cortez? Pizarro? Torquemada?

No, no, no and not - but you won't SEE that, will you, thou wretched cur, who wouldst eat thy dead vomit up, and howlst to find it.

"Some have made the love of God the foundation of morality. This, too, is but a branch of our moral duties, which are generally divided into duties to God and duties to man. If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to-wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. have observed, indeed, generally, that while in protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God."

~ Thomas Jefferson, in a Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814.

Oh, Salt will be back. Probably within a few hours, under a new name. If a troll tells you this is his "last post" in the thread he's almost invariably lying.

Posted by: Laser Potato | April 18, 2008 4:22 PM

Au contraire. The light's just to dim in here today amongst all you brights that my eyes hurt.

Carry on.

See? See? Told ya.

Oh, Salt will be back. Probably within a few hours, under a new name. If a troll tells you this is his "last post" in the thread he's almost invariably lying.
Posted by: Laser Potato | April 18, 2008 4:22 PM

Au contraire. The light's just to dim in here today amongst all you brights that my eyes hurt.

'Au contraire'? WTF? You DID come back, so you basically proved LP right! Yeesh.

You guys are way too much fun.

Posted by: Kseniya | April 18, 2008 4:25 PM
"Once again we are blessed with the thoughful and gracious views another odiferous bat-fowling popinjay, who is as valiant as the wrathful dove, or most magnanimous mouse."

My dear Kseniya, you DO know the way to an English major's heart...

P.S.:
It just occurred to me that the - very, very necessary - warning of "Don't feed the troll" is strangely akin to the "Don't feed the lions" signs at zoos. It has nothing to do with provoking the one doing the eating, but rather preserving the safety of the ones doing the feeding. In this case, I think it is a wise warning to heed in order to preserve your intellectual sanity. Just a thought.

Salt exemplifies one of the things that so pisses me off about many religious -- they refuse to argue honestly. I can understand individuals who hold heartfelt beliefs and genuinely attempt to advocate for them, no matter how daft those beliefs may be, because at least they are being genuine. Folks like Salt, on the other hand, seem to think that evasion and doubletalk are signs of cleverness, and never honestly engage. They just amuse themselves and waste everyone's time, refusing to participate in meaningful dialogue.

And people wonder why we all cuss here so much.

re - "Don't feed the troll" is strangely akin to the "Don't feed the lions" signs at zoos.

Over at my usual haunt, we'd say monkeys, not lions - as the monkeys like to fling their poo at you.

Yeah, I think you're onto something, Tulse; his dishonesty and moving goalposts are the main reasons why I wouldn't bother engaging with him; the smarmy self-congratulation is just icing on the turd cake.

But I do wonder how much of it is conscious versus how much he believes his own simulacrum of an argument. I suspect that he sincerely believes he's really, truly, honestly that clever, and is incapable of seeing any difference between himself and the people who are bothering to engage with him.

Maybe it's an utter mercy that he doesn't have what Robert Burns asked the giftie gie us...

*ignores Salt, as everyone else should*
Early man didn't beleive in God and they seemed to get along fine (though life was obviously very harsh.) Wolves are altruistic, gorillas are altruistic, whales are altruistic. None believe in God.

Over at my usual haunt, we'd say monkeys, not lions - as the monkeys like to fling their poo at you.
Posted by: Salt | April 18, 2008 4:45 PM

...which is why I didn't use monkeys as my example. I'd much rather have poo flung AT my beliefs than have them devoured - a la the lion - and reappear as the poo spouted by the irrational and evasive bunch that insist on things such as quote-mining and blatant misinterpretation.

Salt exemplifies one of the things that so pisses me off about many religious -- they refuse to argue honestly.

Posted by: Tulse | April 18, 2008 4:42 PM

This is as disingenuous as it gets. You guys have said, on more than occasion, that honest discussion necessitates no involvement of any "sky god". But the sky god is involved so no wonder you do cuss so much.

You're like monkeys at the zoo (like that Darwin reference?), throwing tantrums and flinging poo.

Maybe it's an utter mercy that he doesn't have what Robert Burns asked the giftie gie us...

Wonderfully apropos. That Burns fellow, though...he can write well enough, but he sure ain't no Cuttlefish :)

Remember folks, don't feed the troll.
Hm....is there any way to check the IPs of the posters?

Seriously, what IS it with trolls declaring victory when they're clearly losing?

Rule 11 of the internet:
If the troll can make you spend hours and hours replying, that is a win for the troll and a loss for you.
The argument doesn't matter, it's the wasted time. You have been pwned. Have a nice day.

...which is why I didn't use monkeys as my example. I'd much rather have poo flung AT my beliefs than have them devoured - a la the lion - and reappear as the poo spouted by the irrational and evasive bunch that insist on things such as quote-mining and blatant misinterpretation.

Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 18, 2008 5:00 PM

BINGO! Don't feed the lions here or your argument(s) will be devoured. Better to not be challenged (preserving the safety of the ones doing the feeding). At my usual haunt, you science/atheist guys fling poo cause you couldn't devour anything. How right you were brokensoldier.

PWNED!

My dear Kseniya, you DO know the way to an English major's heart...

Careful brokenSoldier: like Kamala the empathic metamorph from ST:TNG, Kseniya knows the way to nearly every man's heart.

*Sighs while wistfully leafing through bound collection of Kseniya's comments*

The argument doesn't matter, it's the wasted time. You have been pwned. Have a nice day.
Posted by: PeteC | April 18, 2008 5:07 PM

You're assuming that amongst the troll rebuttals we do not enjoy the actual debate and conversation that takes place on this post. True, the troll posts are annoying, but that hardly makes the time spent here wasted. (That's ignoring the obvious fact that you're using a term ("pwned") that wholly originated from online video game insults - I was actually surprised (not to mention amused) to see anyone attempt to use it seriously in an intellectual debate.)

Careful brokenSoldier: like Kamala the empathic metamorph from ST:TNG, Kseniya knows the way to nearly every man's heart.
*Sighs while wistfully leafing through bound collection of Kseniya's comments*
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 18, 2008 5:11 PM

True, true....but I guess I'm a willing victim, then - I could think of worse traps to fall into... (Nice reference, by the way - our tastes obviously intersect in more areas than just Pharyngula posts...)

you science/atheist guys fling poo cause you couldn't devour anything

Exactly! When are you science-types gonna learn that science doesn't work? Show me a single example of science working! Just one! You can't, can you?

Ha ha, PWNed, you stupid idiots! IWINIWINIWINIWINIWIN!!!

Oh, dang, I'd better go. My computer's giving me error messages, this appendectomy scar is itching like crazy, and I'd better book my flight for my annual vacation right away. Anybody got the number of a good theologian?

Anybody got the number of a good theologian?
Posted by: Rev. Fr. St. Brownian, OM | April 18, 2008 5:24 PM

I certainly hope this doesn't indicate that you're going celibate on us, Brownian!

I certainly hope this doesn't indicate that you're going celibate on us, Brownian!

But, let us remember, celibacy by default is not a virtue, it's just bad luck.

I certainly hope this doesn't indicate that you're going celibate on us, Brownian!

Why? You know someone who's interested? Just make sure they like Piña Coladas, getting caught in the rain, and cheesy 80s music....

#49

No, studies have consistently shown that providing prophylactics does NOT increase promiscuity. Providing a combination of prophylactics and honest sex education reduces it.

Instead of wondering "couldn't it" do some research, you have the whole internet at your fingertips, for a start. Try the centre for disease control as a starting point.

#45

Why should the president and the pope be held accountable? Because that's their job. By definition, actually.

Uncle Ben says it best: "with great power comes great responsibility"

But, let us remember, celibacy by default is not a virtue, it's just bad luck.

Thanks, MAJeff, for stripping away the last of my self-delusions. Next I suppose you'll be telling me that my Mom is wrong when she says that I'm 'misunderstood', and my transcripts instead show that I am, in fact, just plain ol' stupid.

#121:

I'm sorry, why are we arguing HOW man can have intrinsic value.

how about HOW does man have intrinsic value..I mean seriously, this is my absolute LEAST favourite xtian dogma: Man has some intrinsic value (presumably which is not shared by the rest of life on earth)...

Newsflash: actually, we don't. None of us is any more special than we make ourselves. You want to be valued? Do a kindness for someone, contribute to the betterment of something and there's your value. Anything else is and arrogant fantasy of someone with serious entitlement issues.

BINGO! Don't feed the lions here or your argument(s) will be devoured. Better to not be challenged (preserving the safety of the ones doing the feeding). At my usual haunt, you science/atheist guys fling poo cause you couldn't devour anything. How right you were brokensoldier.
PWNED!
Posted by: Salt | April 18, 2008 5:09 PM

Again you miss the point, and you do so as you also prove my own point of your proclivity to quote-mine. (Thanks for taking the bait, by the way) If you could have understood the ENTIRE metaphor, it involved your "devouring" of my arguments (twisting, bending, and otherwise distorting them) and having them come out the other end (your mouth) as something undistinguishable from that substance your monkeys fling around. In that sense, your triumph in "devouring" my argument is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst, a complete ignorance as to the function of a metaphor. When it comes to posting on the board and using such high level tools as metaphor and creative allusion, you at least have to understand HOW to use them, and - more importantly - how to interpret them. (Perhaps a sign analogous to the ones at the amusement parks is required here - something like "You must be (intellectually) this tall to ride this ride."

I usually hate to drop down a few levels in intelligent discourse like that, but on occasion it sure is a lot of fun...

...like Kamala the empathic metamorph...

Hey! Wait a sec...!

The implication here is that my sole purpose is to mold myself into whatever form will best please whichever man whose attention I've managed to attract.

(Well, better Kamala than Saffron... I think!)

This calls for a period of intense self-examination.

The implication here is that my sole purpose is to mold myself into whatever form will best please whichever man whose attention I've managed to attract.

No, no, no! You've got it all wrong. There's no molding, no disingenuousness at all! You're just yourself, and that's, that's....

Great. Now I'm all tongue-tied and embarrassed. This is just like elementary, junior high, high school, university, post-university, and yesterday all over again.

This is just like elementary, junior high, high school, university, post-university, and yesterday all over again.

LOL! I'm not seriously offended, BTW, just playing along. (Nonetheless, it's never a bad idea to honestly examine ones own behaviors and motives.)

(Perhaps a sign analogous to the ones at the amusement parks is required here - something like "You must be (intellectually) this tall to ride this ride."

I usually hate to drop down a few levels in intelligent discourse like that, but on occasion it sure is a lot of fun...

Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 18, 2008 6:08 PM

Playing catch-up just is not your game, is it? You're pwned, and you know it.

"nothing to see here, move along, move along"

LMFAO

Brownian - are you sure you don't have Social Distortion's "Story Of My Life" playing in the background? I think I can hear it from over here...

Did Salt morph into Joe Blow while I wasn't looking? While it's a step above Mr. Jampton, I think, I wouldn't consider that an improvement on his capacities. Please be careful, Mr. Salt, or your brain will be stuck like that, and you'll only be fit for a job as a third shift McDonald's employee or a Fox News anchor.

Salt:

If I agree, and say that I know I'm pwned, would that allow your ego to move along and bother another site?

" And if the man with the gun, like Pol Pot or Stalin, finds you not to be valuable at all, you may just wind up another skull in a pile of millions and millions."

And if the man with the halberd, like Torquemada or Luther, finds you not to be valuable at all, you may just wind up another charred skull in a pile of burnt heretics.

Quaeror's confusion of intrinsic and extrinsic is positively Orwellian. Regardless of whether or not God even exists to be likened to Big Brother, a religion that intentionally misleads its members about objective facts (such as matters of scientific evidence or definitions of commonly-used words) is certainly like The Party.

Correct me if I'm wrong Salt, but you appear to see "unnecessary" abortion as a matter of personal responsibility where the government is justified in "legislating morality". If you would attempt to argue this instead of acting like a troll, you may find people willing to engage you seriously. For example, why is PZ wrong to liken abortion to an appendectomy? Do you understand the position his comparison is meant to convey and that it is not just a flashbang?

Playing catch-up just is not your game, is it? You're pwned, and you know it.

"nothing to see here, move along, move along"

LMFAO

Posted by: Salt | April 18, 2008 7:07 PM

I think I may have posted only once or twice to PZ's blog, although I enjoy reading it every day. But as a middle school teacher, I was prompted to add my two cents, because Salt's posts are so reminiscent of the "one-upmanship" B.S. I see in my classes that define relationships between 13 year old boys. For them, the point of discourse is not to communicate anything, but to come out on top - and the (incredibly annoying) "pwned" slang Salt has used is akin to my students saying "your momma" and "I'll eat your food". I suppose all primates go through periods of immaturity, when they are better drowned in a vat of their own prepubescent secretions than heard from in a conversation between adults.

"Pwned" indeed. Grow up.

No, Joe Blow sounds more like this: "Al Gore! Libruls! Al Gore! Demo-rats! Welfare queens! Al Gore! MREHHH!"

(He's probably been watching this whole thread waiting for a chance to jump in and spout that at us. I predict he'll show up in about twenty comments)

"As a dog returneth to it's vomit, so doth a fool to his folly." Put some Salt on that scripture...

Such revealing posts. Such a happy bunch. So much ego and pride involved that to look at an issue reasonably and rationally is out of the question. I love all the generalizations. I love the complete ignorance. I love it when only one side of an issue is looked at. Wouldn't want to get an authentic answer from the other side..that might spoil the two minute hate fest that silly blogs like this generate.I find it particularily amusing when atheists start quoting scripture and attaching their own meaning to it. Not many scripture scholars on here that I see. Not too many Church history scholars either. Why not instead of attacking blindly, you seek out answers from the other side...Oh, I don't know...the Catholic Church! Rather, you allow yourselves to be spoonfed ignorance from people with agendas.

Rev. Fr. St. Brownian, OM:

Oh, dang, I'd better go. My computer's giving me error messages, this appendectomy scar is itching like crazy, and I'd better book my flight for my annual vacation right away. Anybody got the number of a good theologian?

Oh, I think most of us have their number.

I love all the generalizations. I love the complete ignorance. I love it when only one side of an issue is looked at.

Posted by: plm | April 18, 2008 8:01 PM

plm:
If you actually took the time to read all the posts, you would see that all of the above "ignorance" actually follows repeated attempts to civilly and reasonably explain concepts to this person posting as Salt. Only when it was fully clear that he had no intention of exchanging openly and honestly did he start to become the butt of the jokes you referenced so hastily. And If you'd be so thorough as to count, you'll find that the ratio of rational argument-to-ridiculous insult/generalization is much lower on Salt's side.

But, in the interest of fair play, if you feel like presenting a side civilly and honestly, you'll no doubt find many here who will entertain your claims and ideas. But that would require a little time - if you choose to do so, the option is open to you. However, jumping into a thread of over 400 comments and somehow suggesting that only one side of an argument has even been addressed is specious at best, and deliberately false at worst. One warning, though - if you resort to the same kind of exclusionary, disinterested, and willfully opaque tactics in your exchanges, you'll probably eventually wear down the patience of those who post here, and will more than likely begin to receive the sort of replies Salt did.

#399: I guess one should be glad that you at least spelled "atheists" correctly.

How exactly does the Catholic Church not count as not having an agenda? It would seem that both the Bush Administration and Pope Benedict want to use the moment together to (re)gain respect for their respective institutions without having to change the nature of the actions that caused them to lose that respect in the first place. W's administration and the Catholic Church are the primary movers with agendas in this case - so going to the Catholic Church for an alternative viewpoint is like switching over from WhackNetDaily to Fox News for a more complete and balanced (*snicker*) political picture.

"Why not instead of attacking blindly, you seek out answers from the other side...Oh, I don't know...the Catholic Church! Rather, you allow yourselves to be spoonfed ignorance from people with agendas."

PLM, most of us have grown up in a "faith tradition" of some sort, no need to consult a religious scholar, who no doubt would be a person with an agenda. Me, my religious attitude is best described as apatheism... why spend my precious time and intellectual effort on such trivialities as the nature of the host in the eucharist, or whether christ was equal to the father, or not when I can spend it hiking to a vernal pool so I can try to see some fairy shrimp? Also, the amount of people immolated because of these doctrinal trivialities is mind boggling. To me, religion is a waste of time at best, a pernicious problem at worst.

Remember Abbe Arnaud, who famously said at the anti-Cathar massacre at Beziers, "Kill them all. God will know his own"? Did Arnaud seek answers from the other side? Are you legitimately seeking answers from the other side, or is the plank in your eye blinding you?

>Suffice it to say my own take on the issue is that PZ
>tells the truth as he sees it, an attribute which is
>essential in any free debate.

The "truth as he sees it" is called an opinion. :)

There are not facts in here. It is just a bunch of people such as PZ that doesn't get religion or Christianity. He doesn't understand it.

I'm sorry, Planet Killer, but it's a little hard to understand what you're trying to say, what with that plank stuck in your eye.

PK, I went to a religious school, I can argue theology with the best of them, and I agree with PZ

And yes, it is an opinion, but it's an opinion built on the facts, which is more than can be said for yours.

Plank? In PK's case it's more like a whole redwood.

Darn, I missed all of the Salt fun, but I see that Planet Killer is back. Hey, Planet Killer, you're still ignoring my question. Are aliens real, or is your argument that Heaven exists because people have seen it in NDEs a pile of shit?

I recommend that Patience Killer remove the plank from his own eye, and use it to give himself a permanent expression of great surprise.

Thats it? You bedwetting christian sissy's can't do more than whine?
Oh come on, whip out 1 Cor.14:34-35... the girls wanna play too.

..even more immaturity. You give agnostics a bad name.

I've just reviewed the tail end of the thread. Wow. I conclude that Salt is a self-satisfied weasel who "pwnd" no-one. Getting him to state (let alone commit to) his point of view was like trying to pull teeth from an over-caffeinated ostrich. I not only cannot see how he thought he "won", I cannot even see quite what it is he thinks he won. If his goal was to undermine and render pointless the very conversation he started, then he succeeded. Color me pwnd.

I guess he pwnd me by completely ignoring me. I'm having issues on this thread, issues about being ignored by people I'm trying to engage fairly. I guess that's my problem.

"Color me pwnd."
Posted by: Kseniya | April 19, 2008 12:49 AM

Kseniya, your choice of words never cease to evoke a sense of admiration from this not-so-old soldier ;)

I guess he pwnd me by completely ignoring me. I'm having issues on this thread, issues about being ignored by people I'm trying to engage fairly. I guess that's my problem.

You should get a magazine rack, then.

'Not many scripture scholars on here that I see. Not too many Church history scholars either. Why not instead of attacking blindly, you seek out answers from the other side'

Hi.

I pointed out that the current Pope manned an anti aircraft gun for the Nazis and when he was a senior Cardinal, he systematically moved paedophile priests around so they wouldn't be punished. I cited sources.

As an atheist I lack a moral compass. So ... which bit of 'scripture' and 'church history' do I need to explain whether being a Nazi or helping people to rape children are good or bad things? My instinct is that they are literally about the worst things a human being could be, and anyone who did *both* shouldn't set himself up a moral authority for a billion people.

But I'm naive about scripture.

I do know there's a bit in the Bible where God sends bears to tear apart some children for pointing at a man's bald head, if that helps.

"..even more immaturity. You give agnostics a bad name."

Who is? Any agnostics here, please raise your hand. And quit giving yourself a bad name.

Soldier,

Thank you. It seems we agree: words are fun. Especially words like "ratsbane" and "calliope". ;-)

Re: "the Russianization of Communism" and all that. Thanks for the comprehensive response. I can't reciprocate at this hour (it's been a taxing week out in the real world) and maybe I don't have much to add anyway... but I'm glad you understood and agreed.

By the way, "The Russianization of Communism" is a phrase I picked up a couple of months ago here on Pharyngula, from a very interesting comment which addressed the common characterization of the emergence of the USSR as "the communization of Russia," when the converse was more accurate. It made a lot of sense to me: Bolshevik Russia wasn't ready for Communism, for reasons similar in kind (if not in precise detail) to why Iraq may not be ready for Democracy. After centuries of tsarist rule, not even a revolution and a radical change of political system could shake Russia out of the mindset of authoritarian rule. In fact, I'd say the Putin years are an extension of that tendency, and perhaps Russia cannot fully embrace republican representative democracy for the same basic reason it couldn't fully embrace Marxist communism.

But I digress.

I doubt you'd find an evil comet or giraffe out there

LOL... there's a funny animé in there somewhere. ;-)

Re: John Lennon. I missed him completely (he was killed four years before I was born) but, like you, I find him very interesting. The beauty of Lennon was that he was an admittedly flawed but self-aware human being. Much of his work was driven by the darker emotions - anger, jealousy - and yet the darkness within never triumphed, and was succumbing to the light born of familial love and hope for humanity. (The darkness without is what caught up with him... sigh.)

I mean, hey, not that an atheist would know anything about hope, or love, or beauty, or light...

O_o

Me exhausted, gotz to go...nightnight.

Kseniya,

"It made a lot of sense to me: Bolshevik Russia wasn't ready for Communism, for reasons similar in kind (if not in precise detail) to why Iraq may not be ready for Democracy."

-I agree whole-heartedly, and when viewed in full perspective, this was already painfully obvious BEFORE we went in there in the first place.

"In fact, I'd say the Putin years are an extension of that tendency, and perhaps Russia cannot fully embrace republican representative democracy for the same basic reason it couldn't fully embrace Marxist communism."

-I agree here, too, and I'd add that this is the very thing that makes me apprehensive about who will end up leading Iraq after our military influence ceases. Putin didn't have the advantage of assuming power over a society predisposed to theocratic rule, and the implications inherent in a Putin-style tyrant over that kind of society is VERY scary to me.

In any case, I guess we shall see. Goodnight, and I'll look forward to crossing paths again soon.

casual torturer is the least of it. Shrub and his co-conspirators are mass murderers responsible for hundreds of thousands of murdered/maimed/tortured/widowed/orphaned/imprisoned/refugee Iraqis, all in order to steal Iraq's oil.

If the pope had the slightest shred of decency or humanity he would have shunned any contact with the despicable war criminal.

Oh, I think most of us have their number.

Well played, well played.

"...all in order to steal Iraq's oil."

Posted by: ran | April 19, 2008 3:00 AM

I agree with most of your post (especially being one of those maimed in the pursuit of this war), but from my experience, the aim was not poil, but rather the creation of a conflict/ situation in which certain businesses and contractors could be given the chance by this administration to rob our country's coffers blind. If there was no war, there would no need for multi-million dollar, no-bid reconstruction projects to be awarded to companies so closely linked with the sitting Vice President. And there would also be no need for funneling millions into paying a mercenary army (Blackwater) that is run by a Christian fundamentalist (Erik Prince) to operate in the, obviously mostly Islamic, Middle East, free from being subject to either Iraqi OR American law - an illegal privilege that they have famously taken advantage of in numerous occasions of obvious misconduct, gross neglect, and dereliction of duty on the part of his employees in Iraq. (And since they are speciously listed as "contractors," they are not subject top the Uniform Code of Military Justice, either.)

And in case anyone thinks the Blackwater comment is pure conspiracy theory, you'll find that the CEO of the company is a member of one of the very same families among the religious right that bankrolled Reagan's push to the White House in 1980 and contributed to the modern resurgence of the attempt to inject religion (albeit only the Protestant Christian form of religion) into the American government. And Prince himself has given copious amounts of money - well into the millions - to such organizations as Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and Calvin College - a Christian institution. And even aside from his donations, the fact that his company has received numerous financially lucrative contracts from this administration is borderline criminal due to his family's - and his own, exceeding $200,000 - numerous contributions to the Republican party, creating in the very least an obvious conflict of interest, and possibly a 'quid pro quo' situation that violates federal law.

I do know there's a bit in the Bible where God sends bears to tear apart some children for pointing at a man's bald head, if that helps.

Hey! That was about the only bit where I thought "Yeah, right on, God!" ;-)

from my experience, the aim was not oil, but rather the creation of a conflict/ situation in which certain businesses and contractors could be given the chance by this administration to rob our country's coffers blind. - brokensoldier@241

I don't think that's incompatible with a major war aim being related to oil - control of supply, of course, rather than simply access. If you look at the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" (2000), you find statements such as:
"Indeed, The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of Saddam Hussein." (p.14)
If the aim of the war were simply to provide profitable opportunites for such as Haliburton and Blackwater, any war would have done - if, indeed, Afghanistan did not provide enough. The current attempts to push through the Iraqi Parliament agreements to extend the occupation indefinitely, and to effectively privatize the Iraqi oil industry, indicate that the main aims are, and always were, permanent military bases and effective control of Iraq's economy, primarily the oil industry. Had the occupation gone as planned, I have little doubt an invasion and long-term occupation of Iran would have followed. Even invading Afghanistan can be seen as contributing to the aim of dominating oil and gas supply (I'm not saying that was the prime motivation for the initial ousting of the Taliban): up to December 1999, Unocal was leading a consortium negotiating with the Taliban to build a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to the Pakistani coast, via Afghanistan. If the planned route can be secured (and I believe most of the NATO troops happen to be stationed near it), expect building to begin. Many of the senior neocons are or were PNAC associates (Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are all signatories of its "Statement of Principles"), and the document I cited lays out with startling honesty the aim of unchallengeable US global supremacy. (At present, I can't access their website at http://www.newamericancentruy.org/. Assuming it hasn't vanished, do take a look at it if you haven't done so.)

One from Column A, one from Column B... "Stealing" the oil, no - access and control, unquestionably. War profiteering, obviously, whether by design or as a side-effect beneficial to the well-connected.

Assuming it hasn't vanished, do take a look at it if you haven't done so.)

Nick, I don't think the PNAC is going anywhere anytime soon...

Neither of these nutjobs values life in the slightest.

The Pope claims to cherish life, but he, like his predecessors, advocates a policy of breeding the planet into disaster and humanity into extinction. This year millions of people are likely to starve, partly in consequence of the "civilized" world having decided we need their food to fuel our cars, partly due to depletion of natural resources due to overpopulation, and partly due to the ever escalating cost of fossil fuel and the fertilizers we make from it. The Roman Catholic Church is not going to be helping to solve these problems. Like their Gods (The poor will be with us always), it has neither the capacity nor the will. Indeed the nett flow of money within the Catholic Church is from the world's poor to Rome. Were it to be reversed, centuries of tradition would be undone. And if the Pope stands for anything, he stands for tradition while mouthing platitudes.

As for the USA, aside from the devastation we are directly responsible for in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Sudan and elsewhere, along with the genocide we support in the Palestine, the USA has the worst infant mortality rate of any industrialized nation, and relies evermore on suicide as a cure for retirement and hospital costs, all while residents have a much higher probability of being killed by a securicrat than by a criminal (including so called terrorists) and while we lock up 1% of the total population in jails mostly for non violent "crime" with no victims. If one believes the view of the USA through the TV set, the only time that life is precious to an American is when the cortex is not yet formed (think fetus) or is brain dead (think Terry Schraivo) and there is capital to be made from it. Which, perhaps, says rather more than most Americans would like to stipulate to about how highly they value the brain. Perhaps that is why they have allowed the Bush unregime (a regime is a system under which progress occurs) to establish debts exceeding $450,000 per household. Which will almost certainly lead to more prayer in the future, poverty and prayer bing intimately connected.

As for the Pope's blather and Bush's beliefs about America being a nation of prayer, the USA does seem more prone to prey upon darker skinned people than upon its knees. And while we might be in a fair way to becoming a religious basket case today, with social and ethical problems rising commensurately with irrational beliefs, at least in opposition to the other industrialized nations which are doing the opposite, we really cannot blame it on the founders. The founders of the USA tended, by and large, to reject the Christianity, Theism, superstition and ignorance of our current leadership for a blander but rational and far more humanistic Deism in so much as they vested importance in religion at all.

Adams is illuminating on the subject. "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses....

Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. ["A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America", 1787-88, Adams, John]

The overwhelming trappings of religion and superstition in American civil life are not, by and large, historic. Some were introduced as a unifying theme in the horrible period after the civil war, which was almost as rampant with revivalism, fundamentalism and extemism as the right wing today, and these were reinforced and joined by other similar efforts in the 1950s and 60s as a response to the fear engendered in most Americans by the "godless communists".

I could go on to address the fact that our law is (thankfully) not based on the obscene Mosaic law, and point out the hilarity that those making this claim usually miss out on the fact that the "Ten Commandments" they reference were those supposedly written and destroyed by Moses, while the replacements, supposedly written personally by their Gods, are ignored. I could observe that the New Testament is worse in many ways, although genreally taken to be the opposite and as but one example, point to the many references permitting and regulating slavery in the babble. I might even discuss the complete failure in logic required to assert that the Gods are the source of ethics (morality being merely the customs and collected prejudice you are taught at your mother's knee, ethics being considered), and therefore right to follow, without being able to address how it can be known which Gods are ethical unless there is some non-god referenced source of ethics. I could but I won't. It has all been said before and supported with carefully researched references.

More critically, I could raise how these underlying references, like the language we use, support a "Christian," or at least religious perspective at a level which means that even as we argue against this blatant unrolling of the advances which secular humanism has brought mankind in the last 400 years or so (which vastly exceed all the alleged benefits of all religions and priests ever); so too we reinforce the religious tapestry against which we are objecting. I'm not sure that I have a solution to that, but I am sure I don't see one here either.

I weyken that until we overcome these hurdles, that for all we write most excellent rants, which the above is, that it is not going to change the fact that the USA appears to be trying desperately, and under Bush succeeding all to well, to turn back the klepsydra and return to the era when all men were ruled by religion - and there are reasons why that era is sometimes referenced as the Dark Ages. After all, "there is in every village a torch: The School teacher. And an extinguisher: The Priest." [Victor Hugo] For a recent excellent example of how religion helps people, values life, and is just plain wrong, never mind immoral, just follow this link, Jesus Still* Hates Non-Jewish Girl Children.

My recommendation is not to grant the religious bastards the moral high ground, because, like their god thingies, there is no evidence supporting this at all.

Re #423. Make that URL http://www.newamericancentury.org/ - but it's still not working at present.

#269 - Hey, you can't prove that those who follow the word of god won't get sick. The word of God is so convoluted and the bible to contradictory, it's impossible to follow. How's that for a cruel joke?

Alternately, if we'd like to argue that the word of God is easy to follow, perhaps it's the menstruating women prancing about. Their insistence on going out in public and spreading their toxic shame is making us all sick. Personally, I'll be locking my daughter in a room for a week every month, to do my part to save us all from illness.

Ref 435
Rats, I don't know if it was something I did, or if previewing or posting nailed the links. Let me try to provide them as plain text instead.
Corrected version of article at: http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;thre…
Definition of "weyken" at:http://www.churchofvirus.org/wiki?pagename=weyken
Jesus Still* Hates Non-Jewish Girl Children at: http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;thre…

If these links don't work either, visit the Church of Virus's BBS (Which Google can help you find) and then:

Corrected Article - Church of Virus BBS, General, Serious Business, Sanctimonious monsters
Weyken- Google for weyken and look for the Church of Virus reference
Jseus Hates - Google for Church of Virus BBS, General, Philosophy & Religion, Jesus Still* Hates Non-Jewish Girl Children

ANd let me explore a refs some more just to see if I can figure them out. WHat happens if I don't preview my post?
Corrected Version of Article
Definition of weyken
Jesus Still* Hates Non-Jewish Girl Children

Maybe this will be better.

#310 -

Lee, Salt will judge which women are morally permitted abortion on a case-by-case basis.

Salt for lord high reproductive inquisitor!

*sigh*

my own comment at 121 should read:

I'm sorry, why are we arguing what gives man intrinsic value.
how about HOW does man have intrinsic value..I mean seriously, this is my absolute LEAST favourite xtian dogma: Man has some intrinsic value (presumably which is not shared by the rest of life on earth)...
Newsflash: actually, we don't. None of us is any more special than we make ourselves. You want to be valued? Do a kindness for someone, contribute to the betterment of something and there's your value. Anything else is and arrogant fantasy of someone with serious entitlement issues.

Quaeror:

What Moses said in #282 is important enough to be repeated. On your view, where a person's value comes solely from God, people have no intrinsic value. And that's not some subtle point. That's just a matter of definition.

Look at it in general: the view that all value depends solely on God leads directly to the conclusion that nothing besides God has any intrinsic value. Recall that, on your view, nothing would have any real value in a world without God. But that just shows that, on your view, nothing in all of creation has any intrinsic value--after all, anything with intrinsic value would still have its value even without God.

Likewise, on your view, nothing is intrinsically wrong. Rape, torture, pick an atrocity. Again, your view is that its wrongness depends solely on God, so that it wouldn't be wrong in a world without God. But then the atrocity's wrongness is clearly not intrinsic. To see this, note that if you did think e.g. rape was intrinsically wrong, then what you'd say is that its wrongness somehow depends on the very nature of the act, so that it would be wrong even in a world without God.

(I don't mean to suggest that you really deny that rape is intrinsically wrong. I presume you agree with me that it is intrinsically wrong. I'm simply pointing out the consequences of your view)

Now I'm not saying metaethics is easy. I don't even mean to pick on theological approaches. I'm just saying your view (if I'm getting you right) has very implausible consequences when it comes to intrinsic value.

Ref #427
And while locking her up, perhaps you should knock back a few and knock her up too. After all, the Old Testament (Gen 11-19) does say that Lot was "saved" during the oh so moral elimination of Sodom & Gomorrah (parents and children together, as was the custom in those oh so moral days) for rather undefined general wickedness, maybe talking dirty (cf 2 Pet infra), despite having offered his virgin daughters to a randy crowd if they would just stop banging on his door and leave him in peace; and as any prescient being worth his salt would have known, later to knock up both of the daughters. Then presumably just to prove that this wasn't some kind of dreadful mistake, the New Testament is full of praise for Lot, for example in 2 Peter 2:6-8 it calls him a most righteous man.

So when a Christian tells you, with dirty smirk and shifty eyes (as they all seem to have, perhaps it comes from the brain damage which appears inherent in the process of being "reborn"), that he is righteous because he listens to his Gods, you know exactly what he means. And if he won't do the righteous thing by his daughters, perhaps you could offer to do the righteous thing on his behalf.

PS I have found that the deep theological message in this valuable scriptural lesson (and don't forget that according to the babble, all scripture is suitable for teaching and instruction), tends to cause the door knocking believers to flee in confusion.

"...If the aim of the war were simply to provide profitable opportunites for such as Haliburton and Blackwater, any war would have done - if, indeed, Afghanistan did not provide enough. The current attempts to push through the Iraqi Parliament agreements to extend the occupation indefinitely, and to effectively privatize the Iraqi oil industry, indicate that the main aims are, and always were, permanent military bases and effective control of Iraq's economy, primarily the oil industry..."

Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 19, 2008 8:57 AM

Indeed. As I take your point to be that they needed to set up a friendly (re: puppet) government, but needed one that controlled a globally valuable commodity (which is why Afghanistan alone did not satisfy their needs), you've convinced me. Nice point, my friend.

Hermit, be fair to Lot. He only knocked up his daughters because they got him drunk. And it happened two nights in a row, so he must have been really wasted.

And at least the crowd didn't rape his daughters to death, with Lot then cutting the corpses into parts and sending one hunk to each of the twelve tribes, a la Judges 19.

In the entire great expanse of the universe, every human being is unique. The human race is the result of 4 billion years of life struggling to survive on this tiny spec of a planet. You yourself are the result of countless generations of people fighting, struggling, suffering, so that you could have a chance at life. There is no dogma or God or faith required to show the intrinsic worth of man.
Isn't the exact same set of statements true for, say, every cockroach alive today?

On the Daily Show, John Stewart said it best. Watching the leaders of the two "greatest theocracies in the world" meet.

It's funny, because it's sort of sadly true.

This calls for a period of intense self-examination.

Posted by: Kseniya the emphatic nematomorph

Ouch.

...nematomorph

Enjoy these videos over a nice plate of vermicelli:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/extref/440756a-s2.mov

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu9bqt2OgFM

Isn't nature wonderful?!?

*will not look at wormy parasites*

*will not look at wormy parasites*

*will not look at wormy parasites*

*looks*

ugh.

Imagine if there were an equivalent species of this thing that only preyed on, say, chihuahuas. So your dog starts flopping around on the floor, yipping and whining, and then this frigging 20' garden hose writhes out of its ass and makes its way across your floor...

Do you reach for the machete or the flame thrower? If it's the latter, you better make sure it's gonna light, because there are no second chances and this thing is *hungry*.

Oh- sorry. Were we talking about George Bush and the Pope?

I knew David would spot that! Knewitknewitknewit! :-D

Quaeror, #121:

In a world without God, an individual's value is only the value which other people are willing to give him. He is a commodity like any other commodity, and his value is only as high as a speculator is willing to assess him at. And if the man with the gun, like Pol Pot or Stalin, finds you not to be valuable at all, you may just wind up another skull in a pile of millions and millions.

And in the world with God, people like Pol Pot and Josef Stalin do not exist and there are no mass murders, right?

You don't really understand the argument you're using. It's not the existence of God, but belief in the existence of God that affects people's behaviour. That belief would have the same effect on people's behaviour whether it was true or false. So the argument is founded entirely on the idea of telling people what, if they believed it, would control their behaviour in useful ways, and disregards truth completely. It's a deeply dishonest argument.

But the dishonesty isn't yours. You're just the latest in a long line of Christian zombies repeating this argument and others like it without understanding.