Thoughts On Religion and Atheism+

[OhnoParticipant 668]

Quietlyquietly wrote:

Haha! I didn’t want to derail the topic, and it’s an entirely personal belief, not one I intend to foist on anyone, but since you asked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWMEWubrk0%5B/quote%5D

thanks.
well evidence can mean alot…It comes down to believing this guy. Im pretty sure that he doesnt even believe it himself if you know what i mean., Keep in mind hes just doing his job and needs to show results.
What about the evidence of reincarnation not existing, because over 99,99% arent reminiscent of a prior life?

[QuietlyquietlyParticipant 728]

Indeed, evidence is critical. If you read about the guy, Dr. Ian Stevenson, he didn’t believe in reincarnation, and tried to debunk it, but found that there were a number of cases that couldn’t be explained away. I think the video goes into that a bit, but I haven’t watched it in quite a while. I think he investigated something like 10,000 cases of people (often children) remembering “past lives”, and found that if he eliminated all of those that could possibly have known about, heard of, read of, or in any other way had information on the lives they were describing, it left a few over 1,000 that couldn’t be explained. Remember all of his research was conducted before the internet was developed.

Of those 1,000 there were a handful (<50) that were truly remarkable, where the person being interviewed had birth marks exactly like the wounds of the person they had described being in their past life (but couldn’t have had knowledge of).

As for your comment about over 99.99% not remembering past lives – absence of evidence does not confirm the absence of a phenomenon.

[narwhalParticipant]

@survivor You can’t honestly believe that people who chose abortion do so because they simply want to kill fetuses. That is the result, but not the reason. No one ever gets pregnant for the joy of killing fetuses. People chose abortion because they do not want to have a baby right now, for a multitude of reasons. Whether those reasons are ‘good enough’ or valid is completely subjective. Everyone agrees that murder is wrong, the disagreements are about when life begins and when killing a human is justified.

I’d also state that the thought that pro-lifer’s “just want to control women” is equally ridiculous. Abolishing abortion will have the result of ‘controlling women”, since only women can have abortions, but it is not the reason. Every law is created for the purpose of controlling behavior in 1 way or another.

The abortion debate will never end, unless society somehow reach a consensus of opinion. That can never be a possibility if neither side is truthful about their own and the other sides motivations and point of view.

Ok. Then do it.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

In docs Antihuman world, a fetus is the same as a wart.

I’m sure you didn’t bother looking up the medical definition of a fetus before making this absurd claim… but I looked it up:

Medical Definition of fetus
plural fe·tus·es or chiefly British foe·tus·es or foe·ti \ˈfēt-ˌī\
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth—compare embryo

It’s probably pointless to attempt to make nuanced distinctions in order to provide structure to an argument without having it be deliberately mischaracterized as a value judgement but I’ll try it again.

From the moment of conception until such time as the basic structure is complete, a fertilized egg is not yet a fetus. So it is possible for one to make the distinction that if the mass of cells resulting from the fertilized egg is removed from the parent body prior to that point, no fetus has been destroyed.

The point being that we have to define our terms (zygote, morula, blastocyst, fetus,, etc) based on a rational understanding of the underlying reality and then decide as individuals and as a culture where we wish to draw our lines as to what is considered “a human life” and to what degree it is protected and what is not.

[OhnoParticipant 668]

Quietlyquietly wrote:

As for your comment about over 99.99% not remembering past lives – absence of evidence does not confirm the absence of a phenomenon

the word evidence has similar but different meanings in german.

it can translated as “Beweis” = proove, proove-material, but also as “Hinweis” which means as much as hint, clue, indication etc ( full list below ).

I first thought you meant that theres real proof…
What i said is no proove either, just a hint…but both means evidence.

confirm = proove

the absence of evidence doesnt confirm/proove the absence of a phenomenon ( thats right ) but it hints, cues, suggests, refers, leads to the assumption of the absence of a phenomen.

dictionary says:

evidence –Beweis
evidence –Hinweis

Beweis (german)
evidence
proof
token [proof]
argument
demonstration

Hinweis (german)
evidence
clue
hint
advice [instruction, notification]
reference
cue
indication
suggestion
lead
tip [advice, suggestion]
allusion
pointer
consideration
guideline
link [reference]
index
item [obs.] [intimation, hint]
piece of advice
piece of information

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

The Medical Sciences are bought and paid for.

This is laughable. We can’t accept the words that doctors use to describe different stages in the development of a fertilized egg because they’re “bought and paid for”?

Did I say that doctors should decide where we draw the line at what is “a human life” and what isn’t? No I did not. I simply made the point that the are differences between developmental stages and inferred that a morula, say, could be seen to be very much like a wart in some ways.

And that line… it’s been drawn from the dawn of time. We as a society kill people either directly, indirectly or through inaction, every single day by the thousands and a lot of the time we are perfectly fine with ourselves for having done it.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Anything after conception is a living human being. This has already been specified.

By whom?

The quest for the line when fetuses become humans has been around since the dawn of time? no. I think not. People didn’t have that much time to waste, and weren’t that dedicated to baby death.

Drawing the line between who (and what) lives and dies. Or are you incapable of seeing beyond the particular point you are trying to make? I suppose I should expect no intellectual depth and rigor from a person who uses the words “zygote” and “baby” interchangeably.

Let’s go deeper for a moment, shall we? On what basis do you argue that a human live in any stage of development has any intrinsic value whatsoever? What gives a fetus the right to life beyond what its parent is willing to give it? What gives a drug addict the right to care and treatment beyond what charities are willing to offer them? What gives a worker the right to food, shelter and security beyond what they are willing to earn? What gives a patriot the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness beyond his will and ability to fight and die for for it?

I’ll answer for you… Nothing.

There are no God given rights because there is no God to give them, what life we get is what life we are willing and able to earn for ourselves. Life is not sacred… life is cheap. In the greater scheme of things, no lives matter to anyone but the individual who possesses one and is able to sustain it or, through their own sacrifice, grant sustenance to someone else.

I wouldn’t act to preserve the life of a zygote any more than I would act to preserve yours. If you claim you would do otherwise, explain to me on what grounds you would do so.

[OhnoParticipant 668]

Stargazer wrote:

Survivor wrote:
The Medical Sciences are bought and paid for.
This is laughable.

its not laughable, its the truth.

Do you people even bother to read a post before responding to it? Go back and read it. Did I say anything about whether or not doctors values and opinions are skewed by financial interests? I’ll wait for your answer.

Would you argue that we can’t use the word “blastocyst” to describe the mass of cells implanted on a woman’s uterine wall because the woman’s HMO overcharged her for her ultrasound? Yeah, come to think of it, you probably would… and your doing so would be just as irrelevant to the argument I am making… an argument of which which you have zero will or ability to understand.

You may now claim moral victory because I am done attempting to communicate with intellectual infants.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Ohno wrote:

Go back and read it

This is laughable. We can’t accept the words (that doctors use) to describe different stages in the development of a fertilized egg because they’re “bought and paid for”?

So your question, how you put it, is if we can use the words ( technical terms ) even if they´re bought and paid for.
( Also why make it a ” can we?” LOL duh of course…you can everything )

Should we accept the technical terms to describe different stages in the development of a fertilized egg because they’re “bought and paid for”? –
( you said the words that doctors use which are technical terms)
Suprising answer: NO we shouldnt, because you are aborting unborn babies and the only reason to name it differently is to lower the worries.
Words like blastocyst or fetus are suggesting that its something else or at least not the same as aborting a real child.

And why is this being done ? Because the pharmacy, food industry, science etc have use for the body parts of the dead childs.

Watch the video i put there, if you dare. And watch it to the end to see how much a leg and and arm of a dead baby is worth.

What you did say is that medical science being paid for is laughable, even though you intended to say something else (something about doctors being paid for, which wasnt even the point).
Its not my fault when you fail to make sence.
Therefore i said “its not laughable, its the truth”

You dont even got basic grammer rules down and call me an intellectual infant?

The “stuff” you wrote after that doesnt make real sence to me either…

The facts remain – life begins at conception scientifically and also very obviously in my mind, at least for an intellectual. And therefore abortion is just another word for murder of an unborn child. Aborting a fetus doesnt sound so harsh and thats the reason behind this word, because they want as many abortions as possible in order to get the DNA, body parts etc … well just watch the video i put up there.

What do you even know? You make a threat called ” A Few Words in Favor of Fiat Currency ” or stuff like “have fun germans and swedes with the refugees your welcoming and so on.
In which world are you living in?
You dont understand a f~~~ing bit.

Looks to me that you have no clue and are only arrogant.

You even state it as a fact that there is no god, even though people like Einstein, Newton, Planck and several other geniuses are convinced that there must be a god. You overestimate yourself quite a bit id say. If you could see your own intellectual level realistically, you are better of saying that you dont know exactly.

And if theres is a god, he will be very p~~~ed for killing absolutely unguilty babies. And so am I.

[OhnoParticipant 668]

Whats going on here? My comment and Docs appear in the same post. I didnt write that.

Ohno wrote:

its not laughable, its the truth.

thats my comment

but the following comment was written by Doc Fenderson, not me…

Ohno wrote:

Do you people even bother to read a post before responding to it? Go back and read it. Did I say anything about whether or not doctors values and opinions are skewed by financial interests? I’ll wait for your answer.

Would you argue that we can’t use the word “blastocyst” to describe the mass of cells implanted on a woman’s uterine wall because the woman’s HMO overcharged her for her ultrasound? Yeah, come to think of it, you probably would… and your doing so would be just as irrelevant to the argument I am making… an argument of which which you have zero will or ability to understand.

You may now claim moral victory because I am done attempting to communicate with intellectual infants.

[ModeratorParticipant 187]

My error when restoring a few moments ago. Thought I had made a mistake because this is what it looked like.

Doc Fenderson wrote:
german truther wrote:”
Survivor wrote:
The Medical Sciences are bought and paid for.

etc.

So you can see the confusion. We can switch authors. Please wait.

***EDIT*** it is now correct. Thank you for clarifying.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

I think I will take a stab at this subject:

Everyone is confused and angry because they are drawn by someone or something which they know next to nothing about.

Then they look at a world of moral iniquity (of various forms) and they see the power it has, making them wonder whether their inclinations about a diety/morality are right or the iniquity is. Some see so much “wrong-doing” to even wonder if their is even a right or wrong to begin with. Some may say that iniquity is all their is and their is no good. But then others say where did the good come from or if it is non existent then why are we talking about it?

Most people are looking for a purpose or place or even their own personal salvation through either “fulfillment” or “lack of pain” and cannot find it. And even if they do it is transitory making them wonder whether what they experience had any value at all. Some people do not even know what they are looking for at all, or quit looking altogether. Some are completely satisfied with what they have, until they lose it all either through this life or death itself.

Then the people who look at all that written above think everything is vanity and there is nothing better to do but eat drink and be merry. Then they stick with that for awhile, until for whatever reason, they are no longer able to eat drink and be merry. Some commit suicide because of this, forgetting that the reason they took up this philosophy from the beginning is because they realized the transitory nature of things. Others forge on thinking things will change again, not really knowing they ever will.

You see, the real fundamental truth about human nature cannot be spoken of in mere words but rather through a metaphor of a man in the desert walking alone not knowing where he is going, whether if he will find water/food/shelter or not, being beat down by a harsh sun and cold lonely nights. He does not know whether his strong will, or destiny, God, or a lack of God will define his course but that does not change the situation he is in.

After all he is a man in the desert and what gnaws on him the most, I think, is trying to figure out why he is in the desert to begin with. Then he begins having long conversations with himself, just like this one, with different characters in his head trying to figure out which one is right.

Or you can skip reading all the bulls~~~ I post above and understand that the fundamental truth (regardless or being religious or irreligious, moral or immoral, brilliant or retarded, rich or in complete poverty) is a very simple one everyone over looks:

People are always unsatisfied. Period.

[PhiloParticipant 84]

Organized religions are merely the brick and mortar businesses created by man in order to capitalize on the innate human desire for spiritual fulfillment. 98% of the time I am simply an atheist – the other 2% of the time I am a Deist.

Deism fulfills my desire to have a spiritual moment every now and then without having to put up with the dog and pony shows of organized religions.

This above all: to thine own self be true - William Shakespeare

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

I took Atheism+, based on what I know of it, as an attempt to turn Atheism into a religion. Rather than atheism being a negation (not a faith), which is a negative statement about things, it so much wants Atheism to be more and do something. Atheism can’t do anything by itself at all. It doesn’t promise anything. It is just a statement of belief that there isn’t a God or gods. Why others get to atheism can be based on a number of things, but it doesn’t do things.

What I have seen, with Atheism+ is you have a skeptic camp that got fed up with assumptions made by Atheism+ crowd and it never really went anywhere as a unifying factor for the atheist community. The other camp, progressives, who aren’t religious because of how religions act with different groups, wanted to have progressivism work, so they pushed the + side of things.

It is a mess. I really don’t have much use for it. I have my own life, and my own religious stuff to go through. I don’t need to add social justice to my plate or other presumptions that Atheism+ pushes.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[Author]

Posts