Why are there religious people?

[TheBarrd]

I already demonstrated that this is factually untrue. You didn't want to click the link, remember, so how would you know?

I didn't see a link.
And I don't ordinarily see crowds of planned parenthood types giving the post abortion woman the kind of help she needs...

What does this training involve?

One must undergo training as a Christian counselor, and be certified.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Okay...since Ana doesn't seem to have an answer...anyone else?
Exactly when is that "magic moment" when the developing life within the womb may be called "human"?

Wow...you gave me a whopping 18 minutes to reply before deciding i don't have an answer. I don't live on this forum Bard, it can take days for me to reply in some cases. Try a little patience, I think that's what your Jesus would do, don't you?

I'm comfortable with extending a person legal rights when they can viably exist outside the womb. I'll be honest and say I don't know when that is, but I'd guess that depending upon the person it would be sometime in the very late second trimester to early third trimester.

Now it's your turn...

I'd also like to point out that current estimates at the number of women pregnant from rape is around 30k yearly in the U.S. alone. Hardly a "vanishing" number .

 

[TheBarrd]

Wow...you gave me a whopping 18 minutes to reply before deciding i don't have an answer. I don't live on this forum Bard, it can take days for me to reply in some cases. Try a little patience, I think that's what your Jesus would do, don't you?

I'm comfortable with extending a person legal rights when they can viably exist outside the womb. I'll be honest and say I don't know when that is, but I'd guess that depending upon the person it would be sometime in the very late second trimester to early third trimester.

Now it's your turn...

I'd also like to point out that current estimates at the number of women pregnant from rape is around 30k yearly in the U.S. alone. Hardly a "vanishing" number .

You are right, I should have given you a bit more time. My most humble apologies.
Babies are surviving earlier and earlier outside of the womb. To my knowledge, the youngest premie to survive was around 21 weeks. So, you would be comfortable cutting off the "right to choose" for women who were around 20 to 21 weeks along?

 

[Dibby]

To add on to your post there Dibby. The rise of "new Atheism" is a consequence of the information age.

People are curious now more than ever and unlike previously are able to gain the knowledge and information they seek in a single click. This has brought rise to questioning of EVERYTHING.

The rise of information and curiosity impedes what religion wants. Religion wants obedience, structure, and no questions. Freedom wants as much as you are willing to seek.

The new atheism gathered a great deal of pace after 9/11.I have read Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens books and have to say there is much I agree with. Hitchens particularly has a brilliant, lazer like, acid ability to cut through religious bull.They do tend to overlook much of the good though, but nevertheless if religious people learned from them they could only improve. I look forward to the day when Richard Dawkins is invited to a church to present a talk on evolutionary findings.I wouldn't say that all forms of religion reject information, knowledge and questioning. Certainly here in the UK the church of England is a very broad church of opinion and has some very learned people. In fact there are many Christian people asking some very poignant questions and seeking to reinterpret the teachings of Christ for the 21st century such as the progressive christian alliance.Such organisations exist in the USA but they tend to be over shadowed by a noisy fundamentalism.

 

[TheBarrd]

The new atheism gathered a great deal of pace after 9/11.I have read Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens books and have to say there is much I agree with. Hitchens particularly has a brilliant, lazer like, acid ability to cut through religious bull.They do tend to overlook much of the good though, but nevertheless if religious people learned from them they could only improve. I look forward to the day when Richard Dawkins is invited to a church to present a talk on evolutionary findings.I wouldn't say that all forms of religion reject information, knowledge and questioning. Certainly here in the UK the church of England is a very broad church of opinion and has some very learned people. In fact there are many Christian people asking some very poignant questions and seeking to reinterpret the teachings of Christ for the 21st century such as the progressive christian alliance.Such organisations exist in the USA but they tend to be over shadowed by a noisy fundamentalism.

There is nothing wrong with progress, and I agree that Jesus belongs to each new generation.
However, be careful how you go about "reinterpreting" the teachings of Christ.

It seems to me that people want to blame "religion" for all sorts of things.
Religion is not responsible for 9/11. Oh, yes...I know that "religion" was used as an excuse...it is used as an excuse for all sorts of things.
What is truly responsible for man's atrocities?
C'mon, this is an easy one...

 

[GrimKingGrim]

There is nothing wrong with progress, and I agree that Jesus belongs to each new generation.
However, be careful how you go about "reinterpreting" the teachings of Christ.

It seems to me that people want to blame "religion" for all sorts of things.
Religion is not responsible for 9/11. Oh, yes...I know that "religion" was used as an excuse...it is used as an excuse for all sorts of things.
What is truly responsible for man's atrocities?
C'mon, this is an easy one...

Ancient archaic writings that encourage people to attack infidels? If you're a strict adherent to your religion then you follow its book guidelines to a Tee. If you're lax on religion and only do certain things but not all, WHY BOTHER?

 

[TheBarrd]

Ahh, yes...ancient archaic writings...writings that were meant for a certain time, a certain place, a certain situation...
But which are very handy to resurrect when you need a good reason to attack someone...
But what is war really about? Is it really over religion? Or...is it really about POWER! Who has it, who wants it...POWER! The intoxicating dream.

I don't know about anyone else, but, from what I see, it is not religion that starts wars. It is greed, it is selfishness, it is a desire to gain more POWER. It's convenient to blame it on some god...especially if it's the other guy's god...that way, we don't have to face the ugly truth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are right, I should have given you a bit more time. My most humble apologies.
Babies are surviving earlier and earlier outside of the womb. To my knowledge, the youngest premie to survive was around 21 weeks. So, you would be comfortable cutting off the "right to choose" for women who were around 20 to 21 weeks along?

Oh...I didn't say that.

I believe I said I'd be comfortable extending legal rights to a baby at the point it's viable outside the womb. If the baby at say...20-21 weeks didn't survive (and let's assume that it got every reasonable medical opportunity possible) then I certainly wouldn't be comfortable extending legal rights to it.

It's really nice of you to flip the question around on me...but it's a mute point. I don't judge nor shame nor label women who choose abortion as murderers. So really...the question is on you. Why not climb off that high horse of yours and explain why the rest of us are so, nuts....as you like to put it?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Ahh, yes...ancient archaic writings...writings that were meant for a certain time, a certain place, a certain situation...
But which are very handy to resurrect when you need a good reason to attack someone...
But what is war really about? Is it really over religion? Or...is it really about POWER! Who has it, who wants it...POWER! The intoxicating dream.

Yes being a sociopath does also go hand in hand with it. But no, holy conquests were carried out on "God's word" not for power, ironically. It is intoxicating as people are slaughtered and the people doing the work think a god is pleased by it.

I don't know about anyone else, but, from what I see, it is not religion that starts wars.

Do you want a list or something? A lot of people have been killed over religious wars, don't kid yourself. From major wars like the Thirty years war to minor things like religious and cultural purging to mass genocides. Religion is often a starting point. People don't just conquer for land.

It is greed, it is selfishness, it is a desire to gain more POWER.

This I concede, sociopaths and megalomaniacs. But who is a good example? Napoleon. There's obvious examples to the other side too.

It's convenient to blame it on some god...especially if it's the other guy's god...that way, we don't have to face the ugly truth.

Blame? I don't blame fairies. But I do blame people who believe fairies would be pleased to see people brutally murdered because archaic writings said so. You can't respect people like that.

I respect Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, sure, he believed in fairies but he also gave me one of the most respected and influential characters in mystery fiction. He didn't start a war off of them. And my favorite author Edgar Allan Poe did sure had a twisted mind, but he never went as far as to believe any of his machinations and act as if they spoke to him telling him to do horrid things. He led a strange life though.

People can have ridiculous beliefs in unfounded things, and that's fine. But when that belief becomes your basis or excuse to murder, that's when you and the belief become a serious problem.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Okay...since Ana doesn't seem to have an answer...anyone else?
Exactly when is that "magic moment" when the developing life within the womb may be called "human"?

There is no magic moment. It's complicated.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I didn't see a link.
And I don't ordinarily see crowds of planned parenthood types giving the post abortion woman the kind of help she needs...

I provided a link that refuted your claim.

One must undergo training as a Christian counselor, and be certified.

Which involves what?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Okay...since Ana doesn't seem to have an answer...anyone else?
Exactly when is that "magic moment" when the developing life within the womb may be called "human"?

Well It really depends on when the nervous system starts to develop and the baby is more in mid to later stages. And since we're not a Ford automobile I can't give you a specific timing. What do you want as an answer?

 

[TheBarrd]

Yes being a sociopath does also go hand in hand with it. But no, holy conquests were carried out on "God's word" not for power, ironically. It is intoxicating as people are slaughtered and the people doing the work think a god is pleased by it.

And, of course, this god who is pleased, will now reward them with _________________"insert political goals".

Do you want a list or something? A lot of people have been killed over religious wars, don't kid yourself. From major wars like the Thirty years war to minor things like religious and cultural purging to mass genocides. Religion is often a starting point. People don't just conquer for land.

Religion is the excuse, yes. And it is a shame that people would misuse faith in such a way, I agree.
Tell me you can't think of a more mundane reason why one group might want to "purge" another group?

This I concede, sociopaths and megalomaniacs. But who is a good example? Napoleon. There's obvious examples to the other side too.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, can be more dangerous than a megalomaniac who has convinced himself that his cause is HOLY. Still, it is his reasoning that is faulty...not necessarily his religion.

Blame? I don't blame fairies. But I do blame people who believe fairies would be pleased to see people brutally murdered because archaic writings said so. You can't respect people like that.

I agree. With the caveat that the "fairies" could actually exist. Still, that would not make the fairies at fault, but rather the people who used them as their reason to brutally murder people.
Suppose your "archaic writing" addressed a particular situation. We have a group of people who are, lets say, feeding young children to alligators, and your "fairies" want them stopped. So, they send another group in to execute those people, and save the children. (I'm making this up as I go along, here.) Bloodshed follows, and the children are safe. The fairy is pleased, not because people had to die, but because children are no longer being fed to alligators.
A few thousand years later, someone else wants to use this archaic writing to slaughter another group of people. Of course, they have misinterpreted the archaic writing, and twisted it to mean something it never meant, in order to use it against another group they perceive as their "enemy". This does not make the fairies responsible, rather the people who used their instructions for a particular situation thousands of yeas ago are at fault.

I respect Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, sure, he believed in fairies but he also gave me one of the most respected and influential characters in mystery fiction. He didn't start a war off of them. And my favorite author Edgar Allan Poe did sure had a twisted mind, but he never went as far as to believe any of his machinations and act as if they spoke to him telling him to do horrid things. He led a strange life though.

Nevermore...

People can have ridiculous beliefs in unfounded things, and that's fine. But when that belief becomes your basis or excuse to murder, that's when you and the belief become a serious problem.

I can't argue with that.
But what would you say to hundreds of thousands of people who hold the same "ridiculous belief" who never pick up a weapon? What of the people who hold that belief, and it is their basis for peace, their excuse for charity?
Would you abolish their faith, too? Wouldn't that be a bit like "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" as the old saying goes?[/QUOTE]

 

[TheBarrd]

Oh...I didn't say that.

I believe I said I'd be comfortable extending legal rights to a baby at the point it's viable outside the womb. If the baby at say...20-21 weeks didn't survive (and let's assume that it got every reasonable medical opportunity possible) then I certainly wouldn't be comfortable extending legal rights to it.

It's really nice of you to flip the question around on me...but it's a mute point. I don't judge nor shame nor label women who choose abortion as murderers. So really...the question is on you. Why not climb off that high horse of yours and explain why the rest of us are so, nuts....as you like to put it?

The question was, at what point does the developing life inside the womb become "human"...when does it stop being "a clump of cells" and start being a "person".
You said that would be when it was viable outside of the womb.
Somehow, you managed to twist it around to mean babies who are born prematurely, which is not what we were talking about.
It is interesting that you would be willing to extend legal rights to a child who had been born prematurely provided he lives...but if he dies, I guess he goes back to being "a clump of cells"? Let's not tell his parents that.
This sort of thing, right here, is a very good example of why I think that pro choice people are a couple of cards shy of a full deck.
Did you even think about this answer? You would be comfortable extending the legal right to life to a premature baby...so long as it survives...but not if it dies.
Your generosity in this situation is underwhelming....

 

[TheBarrd]

There is no magic moment. It's complicated.

Over a million abortions being performed every year. Lives shattered. Families torn apart. There have been young women who have suicided.
All of this, and the best you've got is "it's complicated"?
Yeah.
And then you guys wonder why I think pro choice people are missing a few marbles....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Over a million abortions being performed every year. Lives shattered. Families torn apart. There have been young women who have suicided.
All of this, and the best you've got is "it's complicated"?
Yeah.
And then you guys wonder why I think pro choice people are missing a few marbles....

It is complicated (see here for a discussion on the topic). There's no magic moment. Stop oversimplifying. And stop being so sanctimonious. It's nauseating.

 

[TheBarrd]

Well It really depends on when the nervous system starts to develop and the baby is more in mid to later stages. And since we're not a Ford automobile I can't give you a specific timing. What do you want as an answer?

Grim, I have come to expect more of you than I do some of these others. You actually seem to have a bit of sense, even if you are a wicked old atheist...

However, we're talking about a human life, here. Someone else said that a line must be drawn. There needs to be some point at which the developing life inside of the mother's womb becomes a "person", with all of the legal rights of any other "person"...including and especially the right to life.

You said "when the nervous system starts to develop". That's pretty early. Here is an excerpt from a medical site:
Week 5

• Week 5 is the start of the "embryonic period." This is when all the baby's major systems and structures develop.
• The embryo's cells multiply and start to take on specific functions. This is called differentiation.
• Blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells all develop.
• The embryo grows rapidly, and the baby's external features begin to form.
• Your baby's brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop.
• Baby's gastrointestinal tract starts to form.
• It's during this time in the first trimester that the baby is most at risk for damage from things that may cause birth defects. This includes certain medications, illegal drug use, heavy alcohol use, infections such as rubella, and other factors.

From http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

I'll bet that, like most pro choice people, you haven't really investigated too closely into fetal development. Most folks are surprised to find out that, as early as nineteen weeks the developing baby can hear, and later, he will recognize his mother's voice. There is some evidence that he will also recognize music he's heard while in the womb.

And yes...there is a growing bond between mother and child. Momma Nature's way of seeing to it that the mother will protect her young at any cost.
This is why there is so much trauma involved when the Mom goes against nature, and kills her developing child. It isn't "religious fanatics" like me who implant that guilt...it is, if you will, an evolutionary tool to ensure the survival of the species.

I honestly believe, with all of my heart, that if intelligent "pro choice" people actually did a little investigative research, instead of just parroting the latest politically correct anti life phrases, we'd have much more support for life.
Did you know that there are a very great many atheists who are pro life? It isn't a religious thing, necessarily. It is respect for life...and that can only be a good thing...

 

[quatona]

Ahh, yes...ancient archaic writings...writings that were meant for a certain time, a certain place, a certain situation...
But which are very handy to resurrect when you need a good reason to attack someone...

Yeah, they are often claimed to be eternal, objective, absolute truths.

But what is war really about? Is it really over religion? Or...is it really about POWER! Who has it, who wants it...POWER! The intoxicating dream.

I don't know about anyone else, but, from what I see, it is not religion that starts wars. It is greed, it is selfishness, it is a desire to gain more POWER.

Agreed. Religion with its appeal to the supposedly greatest power is but one of the most effective toolsfor that purpose.

It's convenient to blame it on some god...especially if it's the other guy's god...that way, we don't have to face the ugly truth.

It´s not more convenient than justifying your war with reference to your god - and this usually comes first.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Grim, I have come to expect more of you than I do some of these others. You actually seem to have a bit of sense, even if you are a wicked old atheist...

However, we're talking about a human life, here. Someone else said that a line must be drawn. There needs to be some point at which the developing life inside of the mother's womb becomes a "person", with all of the legal rights of any other "person"...including and especially the right to life.

You said "when the nervous system starts to develop". That's pretty early. Here is an excerpt from a medical site:
Week 5

• Week 5 is the start of the "embryonic period." This is when all the baby's major systems and structures develop.
• The embryo's cells multiply and start to take on specific functions. This is called differentiation.
• Blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells all develop.
• The embryo grows rapidly, and the baby's external features begin to form.
• Your baby's brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop.
• Baby's gastrointestinal tract starts to form.
• It's during this time in the first trimester that the baby is most at risk for damage from things that may cause birth defects. This includes certain medications, illegal drug use, heavy alcohol use, infections such as rubella, and other factors.

From http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

I'll bet that, like most pro choice people, you haven't really investigated too closely into fetal development. Most folks are surprised to find out that, as early as nineteen weeks the developing baby can hear, and later, he will recognize his mother's voice. There is some evidence that he will also recognize music he's heard while in the womb.

And yes...there is a growing bond between mother and child. Momma Nature's way of seeing to it that the mother will protect her young at any cost.
This is why there is so much trauma involved when the Mom goes against nature, and kills her developing child. It isn't "religious fanatics" like me who implant that guilt...it is, if you will, an evolutionary tool to ensure the survival of the species.

I honestly believe, with all of my heart, that if intelligent "pro choice" people actually did a little investigative research, instead of just parroting the latest politically correct anti life phrases, we'd have much more support for life.
Did you know that there are a very great many atheists who are pro life? It isn't a religious thing, necessarily. It is respect for life...and that can only be a good thing...

Why are you assuming that we haven't investigated? I studied biology, so I know about embryonic development. You are treating everyone who does not agree with you like a complete idiot. It bears repeating, you are not the only person who has considered the matter in some depth; not everyone who has done so agrees with you; not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

 

[TheBarrd]

It is complicated (see here for a discussion on the topic). There's no magic moment. Stop oversimplifying. And stop being so sanctimonious. It's nauseating.

Oh...I didn't say that.

I believe I said I'd be comfortable extending legal rights to a baby at the point it's viable outside the womb. If the baby at say...20-21 weeks didn't survive (and let's assume that it got every reasonable medical opportunity possible) then I certainly wouldn't be comfortable extending legal rights to it.

Here we have one who will graciously extend the right to life to a premie, as long as he survives. If he dies, however, she will withdraw the privilege.
And another who tells me "it's complicated", as if he were telling me some new thing.

And I am accused of being "sanctimonious".
Yeah...right.