Atheism - a desperate and dying breed?

[As I was saying]

You seem to have completely misunderstood the post of mine that you quoted, which I don't blame you for, since you're reading it out-of-context months after the conversation took place. Even then, though, I have to say, I'm not sure that naiveté is a logical or constructive criticism of what I said. None of what you said in response to my post actually addresses the point I was making. You've only provided very general rhetoric about abortion, which does not fit what we were discussing in March.

Allow me to explain. We were discussing whether abortion fits the definition of a genocide. It does not, though the word gets thrown around a lot by pro-life individuals. A genocide is not simply the act of killing millions of people. It is specifically murder with the intention of wiping out a group of people who share a trait, whether it's a religion, ethnicity, or other group. I was prompting someone to admit that abortion does not fit the bill by pointing out that a pregnant woman's decision to have an abortion is about her individual case. It has nothing to do with some conspiracy to kill all fetuses. Saying that abortion is a genocide implies that women who get them are effectively attempting to end mankind.

And you seem to have completely misunderstood my post. That fact that your definition of abortion does not fit my definition of genocide doesn't bother me one little bit. if you have a problem with it then all I have to do is call it something else as it doesn't matter as it is the same thing whatever you call it. So...................The mass killing of innocent babies is a gross injustice to all that is fair and kind and reasonable for the simple reason that abortion is a licence to kill innocent babies who have done no wrong. To say that it is a woman's choice just shows that we have made up slogans to justify that which is unjustifiable especially as their are millions of women worldwide that are regretting the fact that they had an abortion against their will.

 

[Cearbhall]

That fact that your definition of abortion does not fit my definition of genocide doesn't bother me one little bit.

Then why did you engage me and respond to my post at such length? It would seem that there's no issue between us, if you're not bothered by the contradiction in our views. I am curious, though, what is your definition of "genocide?"

if you have a problem with it then all I have to do is call it something else as it doesn't matter as it is the same thing whatever you call it.

It would be preferable to call it something that accurately describes it, yes.

 

[As I was saying]

Then why did you engage me and respond to my post at such length? It would seem that there's no issue between us, if you're not bothered by the contradiction in our views. I am curious, though, what is your definition of "genocide?"

It would be preferable to call it something that accurately describes it, yes.

I have a feeling that you are arguing for arguments sake. The term that is generally used by those in the know and are prepared to call a spade a spade is "Murder." Whatever so called pro-choice call it, every abortion kills a baby. Killing an innocent person is murder regardless of the fact that the government legalised it so one could say it is legalised murder.

Of course the so called pro-choice say it is not murder because the baby is not a baby, it is just a lump of cells. Of course that doesn't wash because Planned Parenthood are harvesting body parts from aborted babies to sell. Those buying do not want to buy a clump of cells they want hearts, lungs, liver, and so on. So much so that PP will kill the baby in a certain way to enable the harvesting of as many intact body parts as possible and avoid damaging them as a result.

I am informed from a reliable source that more babies have been murdered in the womb since Roe v Wade than all the people killed in all the wars in the 20th century. If that is not barbaric I don't know what is.

The dictionary describes barbaric as of or relating to barbarians: very rude or offensive : not polite or proper: very cruel.

Abortion is a very cruel act perpetrated by barbarians.

 

[Cearbhall]

I have a feeling that you are arguing for arguments sake.

Nope, not my intention. I had to think about it for a moment to remember the discussion, since this thread has been dead for a full month, but nope. I was just calling someone out on fear-mongering and dramatizing, which are two tactics that are anathema to constructive dialogue and the development of effective solutions.

The term that is generally used by those in the know and are prepared to call a spade a spade is "Murder."

This is as bad a misuse of a word as the above use of "genocide," and I believe it was addressed earlier in this thread. Murder is a legal term. It refers to illegal killing. What you're saying is that one type of murder is legal, which is a completely illogical statement.

 

[As I was saying]

Nope, not my intention. I had to think about it for a moment to remember the discussion, since this thread has been dead for a full month, but nope. I was just calling someone out on fear-mongering and dramatizing, which are two tactics that are anathema to constructive dialogue and the development of effective solutions.

This is as bad a misuse of a word as the above use of "genocide," and I believe it was addressed earlier in this thread. Murder is a legal term. It refers to illegal killing. What you're saying is that one type of murder is legal, which is a completely illogical statement.

No, that is what you are saying. Murder is never legal regardless what the government says.

 

[Cearbhall]

No, that is what you are saying.

No, I'm not the one who said that a certain form of murder is legal.

Murder is never legal regardless what the government says.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Murder is never legal, yes, but it's because of what the government says. Any legal abortion is not murder, by definition. That's not a statement about the nature of the act, to be clear. There are plenty of legal acts that I think are disgusting and disordered. There have even been certain acts of killing which were found to be within the law that I personally think should have been classified as murders. Perhaps you interpret the word "law" to mean "God's law," which is fine, but it would be helpful to specify that to avoid confusion.

 

[ianb321red]

No, I'm not the one who said that a certain form of murder is legal.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Murder is never legal, yes, but it's because of what the government says. Any legal abortion is not murder, by definition. That's not a statement about the nature of the act, to be clear. There are plenty of legal acts that I think are disgusting and disordered. There have even been certain acts of killing which were found to be within the law that I personally think should have been classified as murders. Perhaps you interpret the word "law" to mean "God's law," which is fine, but it would be helpful to specify that to avoid confusion.

Wait a minute - where did the term "murder" come from originally? Who or what first identified whether murder was right or wrong? Murder isn't defined as being legal or illegal because of what the government says, since they've imported this aspect of ethics/ morality in from established legal systems in the given country which the government rules.

 

[Cearbhall]

Wait a minute - where did the term "murder" come from originally?

In English, it appears that it comes from the word "mrtro," which simply means "to die." But that hardly matters. We have to abide by the modern definitions if we want language to be meaningful.

Who or what first identified whether murder was right or wrong?

One of the extinct homo species, I imagine. Going off of the Wikipedia page, it seems that the oldest prohibition in writing is roughly 4,000 years old. You probably could have found these answers yourself.

Murder isn't defined as being legal or illegal because of what the government says

Well, actually, it is, since the definition is unlawful killing.

 

[The Rt Hon. Jimmy]

Honestly I do not mind atheists because its up to them to decide, I won't judge them. However as there is a far larger atheist demographic within the UK, I've found myself being discriminated for actually being a christian in college and online. You can't mention god or say god bless without being called delusional now a days.

It does become exasperating when some of them are highly 'anti-religious' and call me immature for being a theist. You'll also find that anti-religious individuals always pick on Christianity and non-relevant Christianity controversial topics. They never pick on islam or any other religion, I stop listening to them at that point because they are just acting out and they are not what I call 'proper atheists'.

Accepting one other should work both ways, accept my beliefs (don't try to insult me ect) and I'll accept yours.

 

[ianb321red]

Well, actually, it is, since the definition is unlawful killing.

Yes, but you're missing the point - why have they deemed it unlawful? Is it an arbitrary decision, or is there some other reason?

 

[GraceDriven]

You can't mention god or say god bless without being called delusional now a days.

Yes religion is associated with being crazy these days. I am surprise they have not classify it as being a mental disorder yet. Stay tune..... And that is truly not funny.

 

[Cearbhall]

Yes, but you're missing the point - why have they deemed it unlawful?

I don't understand the point, then. What is "it?" Murder? Saying that they have deemed murder to be unlawful is a bit convoluted. The word refers to instances of killing which go against the law. The act of deeming a certain type of killing unlawful is what makes it murder. Which type would you like to discuss?

 

[King Mob]

Christianity is also a dying breed.

But one thing it doesn't feel the need to do is to try and distort, deceive and kid itself that it is more relevant than it is.

Christianity isn't relevant to most people. We know that, it's unfortunate but the church in this country is largely to blame for the state of apathy that exists. I'm not even going to try and argue this point - the state of Christianity in this country is a shambles and I am not proud of this.

Atheism on the other hand seems to keep thinking it is more and more relevent - that outing yourself as an atheist is liberating, and that atheism is becoming more and more "normal".

Atheism UK have BOLDLY claimed that "As atheists, Clegg & Miliband are viewed more positively". This false claim is based on this recent piece of research:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...r1cpg/TimesResults_150209_atheism_Website.pdf

They claim "Both Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have stated they are atheists. Perhaps surprisingly, these statements make voters view them more positively (10-11%) rather than more negatively (6%)."

Is this claim correct though - or totally misleading? Well look at the research.

11% viewed Clegg more positively because of his atheism, BUT
6% viewed him more negatively
72% said NO DIFFERENCE (view still +ve/ -ve)
11% said "don't know"

Isn't the major find here that actually Clegg's atheism (and Milibands) makes fundamentally absolutely no difference to people? It's completely irrelevant?

Why doesn't atheism UK report the facts and evidence correctly?
Remember - atheism is about dealing with the evidence in a rational and reasoned way. It should also be about dealing with it honestly.

It's tricks like this that completely undermine any possibility of taking what this organisation stands for remotely seriously.

I appreciate peoples right and choice to lack a belief in God, but there has to be a more credible and fundamentally authentic and believable way of arguing the case of "no god" than any of the current organisations out there....

The fundamental flaw in your argument is disclosure, many atheists do not feel the compulsion to declare their belief, indeed non-belief status to...who or whatever.

Religion, indeed Christianity, has had its day, we stand on the dawn of a new cusp of inspiration. Many are turning to the old ways, indeed many are rejecting any form of religion, simply living their lives as they see fit from an integral moral compass which is housed within us all. We /they do not need a rule-book to guide us in what is wrong and what is right, in-fact that is exactly why Christianity, in the UK is declining so dramatically.

 

[King Mob]

Google quickly reveals the likely source of this claim. So assemblies are apparently happening in 35 towns. Hard to call them 'churches' (in either the organised-sect-of-a-religion sense or in the architectural sense).

Personally I find these things quite weird. I certainly would not want to attend one. But then, I've probably got very little in common with these people. Who knows, I may well disagree with many of them about almost everything· That's why atheism is not a religion.

This kinda sums up the irony of religion.

 

[ianb321red]

I don't understand the point, then. What is "it?" Murder? Saying that they have deemed murder to be unlawful is a bit convoluted. The word refers to instances of killing which go against the law. The act of deeming a certain type of killing unlawful is what makes it murder. Which type would you like to discuss?

Hi - I'm trying to find out why you "they" (Governments) have a law in place that declares murder as being unlawful.
We both know that he vast majority - if not all - countries have such laws in place.
WE both know that the act of murder / killing violates such laws.
But rather than simply pointing out what we both actually know pretty well, my question to you to try and understand why you think such as law exists in the first place.
I know what needs to take place for a such a law to be broken, but i'm trying to find out why this law actually exists at all?

 

[ianb321red]

The fundamental flaw in your argument is disclosure, many atheists do not feel the compulsion to declare their belief, indeed non-belief status to...who or whatever.

Religion, indeed Christianity, has had its day, we stand on the dawn of a new cusp of inspiration. Many are turning to the old ways, indeed many are rejecting any form of religion, simply living their lives as they see fit from an integral moral compass which is housed within us all. We /they do not need a rule-book to guide us in what is wrong and what is right, in-fact that is exactly why Christianity, in the UK is declining so dramatically.

I'm not really aware of any point in time when Christianity has ever particularly been flavour of the month. Saying that it's "had it's day" implies that it was fashionable previously??

I don't see many people rejecting religion particularly - if you take a look a global trends then many forms of religion continue to grow, even if in a lot of cases it is through population increases.

In this country, Christianity is a stagnant as Atheism - both are faces of religion; Atheism is a form of state religion (read Noam Chomsky's attacks on Sam Harris, Hitchens etc as to why he seems these individuals as religious extremists")

The main flavour in the UK is one of disinterest. People aren't religious anymore, true - the vast majority of people I would suggest apply a form of hedonism to their lives in modern life today.

 

[Cearbhall]

Hi - I'm trying to find out why you "they" (Governments) have a law in place that declares murder as being unlawful.
[...]
But rather than simply pointing out what we both actually know pretty well, my question to you to try and understand why you think such as law exists in the first place.

Oh, I've thought about that a lot. I'm personally a fan of social contract theory, but there's no single definitive answer to this question.

 

[ianb321red]

Oh, I've thought about that a lot. I'm personally a fan of social contract theory, but there's no single definitive answer to this question.

Surely that would only deal with the relationship and order between society and individuals within societies? It doesn't address why society at a macro level - or a state - hold and imposes certain laws.

Do we accept laws and just obey them because they are laws, without any real understanding why these laws exist, and what benefit they are meant to provide?

 

[Cearbhall]

Surely that would only deal with the relationship and order between society and individuals within societies?

No. Prohibitions against unchecked killing are one of the main requirements for a functioning society.

It doesn't address why society at a macro level - or a state - hold and imposes certain laws.

That's actually exactly what social contract theory deals with...state authority. Leviathan, and all that. Do you feel that social contract theory has not adequately explained this?

 

[ianb321red]

No. Prohibitions against unchecked killing are one of the main requirements for a functioning society.

That's actually exactly what social contract theory deals with...state authority. Leviathan, and all that. Do you feel that social contract theory has not adequately explained this?

No - because it observes that state authority does impose laws, not why state authority imposes specific laws. There is a difference.
It looks at a range of possible interactions between individuals, and is essentially looking for form peace, respect and harmony amongst individuals with that society.

So this theory is in really quite general, but to your point on unchecked killing - you say this prohibiting this is a main requirement for a functioning society - but why it this, and why is this wrong - if it is wrong???