You are introducing some very loaded langauge into your overview.
The other group says if an individual hasn't been seen yet, it doesn't exist, and thus executing said individual is fine and not murder.
But, ignoring that, let's back up.
Basically one group sees the woman as a caregiver who has by her actions taken over care of another individual currently
The current context is rape, so this doesn't even apply.
But let's clarify it in basic terms. The pro-choice side simply holds that a woman(and a man, for that matter) has absolute autonomy when it comes to the use of her(or his) body. The pro-life side simply holds that society can abrogate that right in the case of pregnancy. I stand firmly on the side of autonomy. That covers all of the possibilites. If a woman wants to remain pregnant, I should have no say in the matter. If a woman wants to have an abortion, I should have no say in the matter.
And far as being arbitrary, any developing system like an embryo/fetus/baby(use whatever parlance you wish) will by nature be somewhat arbitrary. The normal cutoff is, again, referencing the woman. The moment the baby is born, the issue shifts from her autonomy to that of the baby. The baby may or may not be ready for autonomous life(see premature birth), but now the issue of its autonomy is no longer tied to that of the mother.
We (as in we, the people) have a say in other peoples medical procedures all the time. We tell people that they are not allowed to take certain substances for medical reasons.
And, in cases where it does not form a public hazard(I'm looking at antibiotic abuse here), I would entirely side with consenting adults putting whatever they want into their bodies. If it compromises their abilities in some way(work, parenting, etc), deal with it on that level.
We have a say in what other people are allowed to do all the time. We tell them they must wear a seat-belt or a helmet.
So why not here?
You make the assumption that I am for such restrictions. You can make the argument for such rules for minors, who are not trusted to make decisions themselves, but I think adults should be allowed to make such decisions themselves.
Therefore, the child doesn't deserve to be punished with death for a crime he or she didn't commit.
It's not punishment. It is a medical procedure. Furthermore, it is a medical procedure being performed on someone who is not you, therefore you have no say in the matter. If and when it is your uterus which has been forcibly impregnated, then by all means, you will get to make that call.
As you said, it's possible to change the law and the constitution. And, laws can be interpreted differently. While it may seem unlikely, it's quite possible for the SCOTUS to be stacked with justices (over time) who decide to overturn the previous rulings on the matter.
Another good reason to keep fighting right there. The balance is already pretty close to tipping.
And yes, the secularists are fighting against the theists. However, all this infighting isn't exactly productive. In other countries where they don't have all this infighting, they can concentrate on much more productive endeavors.
Except that they do also have this infighting. We see this same tension all over the West, especially as it relates to Islamic influx. In the Russian states, you have a resurgent Eastern Orthodoxy which is trying to squash both the secular forces and rival religious forces. In the East, you have some officially atheistic states contending with both native religions and incoming evangelistic religions, along with large groups of Islamic states. In India, you have skeptics being persecuted by the officially recognized religions(such as the recent case of Sanal Edamaruku). In South America, there is a constant struggle between secular, often left-wing governments and the dominant religions of the area, primarily Catholicism(read up on the whole Catholic "liberation theology" kerfluffle).
The only places where this is not a concern are places where religion is completely in control, and those places are emphatically not places that are free(in the US sense of the word) and certainly do not accentuate open scientific research.None of this is productive, unles you consider the violation of human rights, constant social unrest and open warfare to be productive.
As others have pointed out, this is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. You are correct that theoretically a new amendment could be passed to nullify the 1st, but until then, your assertion that is false. A state run school cannot teach Creationism. This is a matter of Constitutional law, and has been reiterated by the courts many times over.
If you don't like it, either fight to change society, or move out and go find a society you agree with.
This is precisely what is happening, in case you haven't noticed. The secularists are fighting to maintain the Constitutional role of the government, and the theists are fighting to change it.
The difference is that the anti-religion people never seem to have a clear answer on WHO should be deciding what will be taught, they just make vague statements like "education should be taught this way, should teach these principles, etc."
And this is different from the pro-religious in what way? Do you think the Roman Catholics want the same standards as the Baptists? Or the Mormons? Or the Wiccans? Or the Satanists? Or the Muslims? Or the Amish? Shall I continue?
As others have pointed out, this is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. You are correct that theoretically a new amendment could be passed to nullify the 1st, but until then, your assertion that is false. A state run school cannot teach Creationism. This is a matter of Constitutional law, and has been reiterated by the courts many times over.
[quote]
If you don't like it, either fight to change society, or move out and go find a society you agree with.[/quote]
This is precisely what is happening, in case you haven't noticed. The secularists are fighting to maintain the Constitutional role of the government, and the theists are fighting to change it.
[quote]
The difference is that the anti-religion people never seem to have a clear answer on WHO should be deciding what will be taught, they just make vague statements like "education should be taught this way, should teach these principles, etc."[/quote]
And this is different from the pro-religious in what way? Do you think the Roman Catholics want the same standards as the Baptists? Or the Mormons? Or the Wiccans? Or the Satanists? Or the Muslims? Or the Amish? Shall I continue?
No. Marxism is larger than you think. Marxism is a philosophy of _everything_. It contains an economic theory (based on the labor theory of value), a philosophy of history, human nature and society (based on the "materialist conception of history") and even a philosophy of knowledge itself (based on the idea that truth is not absolute, but relative to class interests). The fact that the Chinese government has partially liberalized the economy (banking is still state-controlled, for example) does not mean it has displaced Marxism. Even Lenin opened the economy for a time.
No, there is no one coherent "Marxism." Even the authors you mentioned are all over the map in terms of their philosophy. Hell, even your favorite Catholic church has strong Marxist claims, or have you already forgotten the social justice encyclicals of JPII?
"Latest" in relation to the entire lifespan of Marxism.
What makes these men dangerous to freedom is the cultural Marxism they have developed. See, for example, England sending people to jail for criticizing homosexualism.
That's false. You are referring to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The Waddington Amendment specifically protects the right to do so. And what does that have to do with Marxism? You could just as easily chalk that up to overzealous Humanism.
Your professors never mentioned Karl Marx, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse or Theodor Adorno?
That is an extremely atypical university.
No, it's not. It is extremely atypical of your mental caricature of a university.
The US is not even remotely close of defaulting; Europe has many countries close to defaulting.
And many countries which are growing quickly(like Germany).
The US has grown an average 0.3% per year in 2009-2011; Europe has shrunk 0.3% per year.
Citation please. Not sure of the context.
The European population is aging, because each European woman has only 1.6 children.
Yet their strong Marxist unions will not allow increasing the retirement age. The situation is unsustainable; expect the current troubles to get worse.
Do you just ignore countries like Germany when it suits your narrative? Do you not know that they have in fact raised their retirement age to 67 and are in discussions about raising it to 69?
And, the excess government spending is of course caused by socialism.
Ah, yes, those darned socialists, their concern for their fellow citizens and their unwillingness to be worked to death. How dispicable.
And the lack of fertility is caused by atheism. Religion has a well-known effect on fertility. It is no coincidence that Israel and the US have far greater fertility than other countries with similar income levels.
Ah, if only we atheists really could take the credit. Alas, it is mostly due to the availability of contraception, the educational level of females in a society and financial mobility. Religion does seem to cause spikes, but then, that argues that your little churches will be outbred by Muslims in short order, so I suppose you are screwed either way.
You mentioned Christianity as an authoritarian dictatorship, and that is from the Middle Ages.
Certainly, it wielded that power then. It attempts to do so now, and would certainly do so again if ever given the required political power. Something which I am very much opposed to.
They were (partially) due to ISLAM, NOT CHRISTIANITY. I am precisely protesting against this ridiculous, intellectually dishonest practice of mixing Christianity and Islam in the same bag.
And Fred Phelps is driven by Christianity. And Scott Roeder was d
Apparently you have not heard of China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Equador and Bolivia.
China embraced capitalism. Viet Nam is mixing Capitalism with Marxism. Cuba is embracing capitalism. Venezuela is failing at constructing a Communist economy. Brazil has prospered by not governing from hard left principals.
That leaves you with Ecuador(a mix of capitalism and communism) and North Korea(a completely failed state). That doesn't seem to match up with your paranoid narrative, though, does it?
And you have not heard of the latest developments in Marxism, created by Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno.
The latest deveopments? From a series of authors who have been dead for decades? Care to elucidate what makes these particular dead men so dangerous to your worldview?
Cultural Marxism is alive and kicking in the West. Just go to an average university and see what books the philosophy/geography
students read.
That's funny. I had enough philosophy for a minor, and I never once had a philosophy professor mention Marxism more than in passing. And geography? Care to list out the horrible things students are learning?
Check out what "moderate socialism" did to the economy of Europe.
Oh, you mean the debt based economic problems? How is that different from the US? How is it the fault of socialism?
The Bible says "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
What happened in the Middle Ages was a perversion of Christianity. AND IT HAPPENED 400 YEARS AGO.
WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about the Dark Ages.
Saying that "bin Laden is religious" is as relevant as saying "bin Laden has a long beard".
If you think that bin Laden's actions were due to something other than his religion, then you are so wildly misinformed that I'm not sure where to start.
The probability of a Christian commiting terrorism is the same as a long-bearded man commiting terrorism.
Being "similar" to bin Laden in one aspect does mean one is a terrorist.
Holding an irrational belief as your core philosophy is always dangerous.
Pat Robertson is more a politician then a pastor; and he is a televangelist.
No True Scotsman fallacy.
You don't find this kind of rhetoric in Catholic churches.
The crimes primarily happened 30 YEARS AGO, during the ecclesial chaos that followed the revolution of 1968.
The crimes were horrific. The cover up by the entire Vatican heirarchy was arguably worse. And that cover up and and denial persists to this day. The Catholic church still wants to brush this under the rug.
On average, a Catholic priest less likely to comit such a crime then a publich school teacher, and a Catholic
bishop is less likely to cover it up than a public school principal. But you conveniently focus on priests.
And those priests and bishops claim to speak with t
For being false, first of all. "Atheistic Marxism" has been in decline for decades, and it's not because Christianity defeated it. It is because it is an unworkable social construct which failed in competition with moderate Socialism and Capitalism, especially when bolstered by a bedrock of humanism. Furthermore, defending against authoritarian dictatorship by embracing authoritarian dictatorship is stupid. Embracing the tinpot tyrants of Christianity to avoid Marxist dictators is a fool's game. What does the underlying dogma matter when they both would strip me of my rights and freedoms? And finally, your argument works just as well if you were arguing for Islam as a bulwark against "Atheistic Marxism."
That is not the point. The point is that anti-theists try very hard to mix Christianity and Islam (for example) in the same bag.
Whenever some theocratic Islamist terrorist blows a bomb in a crowded square, anti-theists say "this is what religion does".
As it most certainly was.
They know that Christian people, even if they have occasional faults, are nice and friendly people; so the only way to condemn religion per se is to say that Christianity is the same as Islam - which is a very ridiculous idea.
Shall I continue, or do you get the point yet? An individual Christian is most likely a perfectly fine and upstanding citizen. The same is true for the average Muslim, the average Jew, the average Hindu, etc. The institutions of Christianity, however, are just as filled with dogmatic ideologies as those of Islam and such. You mistake the fact that they have been largely neutered in the west for the idea that they are benign.
What people don't understand, is that the Bible was meant for an earlier time, not today! It's like reading the hieroglyphics in the Egyptian Pyramid and thinking its today's news. Humans evolve, ancient text doesn't.
I have no problem with viewing the bible as a historical document. But we aren't talking about that. The person I replied asked why the last 6 commandments were bad as public policy(teaching "good stewardship"). The answer is that they are a mixed bag, a couple of laudable bits with a bunch of horrible bits mixed in. As a general guideline for a modern pluralistic society, they don't cut it.
Most of your "Marxism" comments are just stupid, but I just had to comment on one thing. Are you blind to the fact that atheists condemn Catholicism and the Southern Baptists on a regular basis? Look up Crackergate, or what atheists say about the SBC when it spouts off its regular round of crap about evolution or LGBT rights. Really, if you aren't aware of the criticism of those mainline Christian groups coming from atheists, then you aren't paying any attention anyway.
The truth is, we have no understanding of what makes up the mind/spirit/soul/consciousness/free-choice-widget. Maybe you choose to believe there's no such thing, but I doubt it. I've yet to meet someone who honestly believed that they had no free will, and lived their life that way.
First off, if you think we have no understanding of what makes up the mind, I must assume that you are deliberately remaining ignorant of basically all neuro-biology for a reason. Because that's the only reason you can't be familiar with the general view of consciousness.
And your "free will" idea is just silly. How exactly would someone live if they didn't believe in free will? I believe that free will is an illusion. How am I supposed to behave differently than if I didn't believe that?
I don't know which version you happen to believe in, so I'll pick one arbitrarily.
Thou shalt not kill.
Good one. Can't argue there.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Depends on the context. This is Old Testament, of course, which means that you can be nailing multiple wives, slave girls and/or concubines without technically committing adultery. Pretty much any woman who is your property. Or, you can take the Christian extreme, and make even private fantasy a sin to be burned forever for. Sounds shitty either way. How's about you allow the participants in a relationship dictate the terms of that relationship freely amongst themselves.
Thou shalt not steal.
Not bad. Can't argue with it.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Again, not bad.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,
What a stupid rule. If you are abiding by #7, this is superfluous. And, like adultery, it's another attempt to legislate thought crime.
thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Stupid for the same reason as #9, but more insidious than that. Do you notice something about that list? It explicitly says that a wife is OWNED by her husband, along with the slaves that he owns(quick quiz: How many times is slavery condemned in the bible? Zero!). Moreover, they are listed in the same block of property as animals.
I want you to mull over that for a while. I want you to chew on the level of barbarism that that mindset entails. The best summation of morality you can put forward for your religion is a couple of obvious ethical standpoints, some nasty thought crimes and some atrocious violations of human rights. Congratulations on that.
Moderate Christians like myself, who see no conflict between Christianity and science, and moderate atheists I know, who have nothing against religion and are simply unconvinced by the evidence for theism, get lumped in with the fundamentalists and their arguments and questions summarily dismissed by both sides.
Hmm, let's look at what you believe, shall we?
Christian fundamentalists, stop going full retard and cherry picking what science you like. Scripture deals with the things we could not figure out by ourselves, like the Trinity. Science rests its presupositions on Christian philosophy, that the universe is orderly, understandable, and can be understood mathematically. Remember the words of Robert Boyle, “From a knowledge of God's work we shall know Him.”
No, that is not a "Christian" philosophy. You can trace the direct roots back the pre-Socratic philosophers like Thales. Try again.You are correct about the Trinity, though. Without the vague account of the Trinity in Scripture(and the church councils which actually defined the belief, and the murder of "heretics" who disagreed with the definition, and the schisms that last until today which rest on this definition[filique]), the world might have been spared that particular piece of nonsensical gibberish.
Atheists fundamentalists, deal with the fact that the last 50 years of Biology and Paleontology has raised legitimate objections to Darwinian theory that need to be dealt with. The "Monkeys typing Shakespeare Theorem" doesn't cut it and everyone knows it.
I'm afraid not. If you are referring to some strawman "theory of evolution," as evidenced by the fact that you are calling it "Darwinian," then sure. Darwin is not the end all and be all of the theory of evolution. And I can guarantee you that there is no need for any modern biologist to shoehorn your deity into their theoretical framework to provide any sort of explanation(not that some theists don't try to do just that anyway).
It does illustrate nicely how "Moderate Christians" can reconcile their religion and science: just find reasons to denigrate or ignore the parts that you don't like. The difference between that and the Fundamentalists is only a matter of degree.
Hand-waving and just-so stories don't convince either side and, if either side was so sure about their position, would not use them. My time is better spent discussing these things in person where both sides are far more sensible and civil.
Your time would be better spent studying biology before making unfounded statements.
Look at the curriculum at any parochial school, any religion, and you'll see courses and textbooks that are unscientific. Nothing special about this one, except it's that this is an election year so it gets called out by the Slashdot editors.
And there is the difference you are missing. These books are used by religious schools which are now going to be supported by Louisiana tax money. It's one thing to fuck up your kid's mind on your own dime. It's quite another to expect society to help fund this travesty.
Oh, we've found sea monsters before: giant squid were just mythology until recently. Who knows what else is down there?
Not so much. We had indirect evidence(largely from the wounds and stomach contents of sperm whales) that there were bigger squids down there. It's just that the location makes it highly unlikely that such a corpse would make it into human possession. Eventually it happened, and our previous theory about the size of the squid the sperm whales were eating was verified. And while I am sure that there plenty of undiscovered benthic critters remaining, I doubt we're going to find many more analogs to mythological creatures.
No, it means we don't fucking know what the answer is. Which apparently is something that plenty of people have trouble accepting.
I haven't yet met a self-described agnostic who was not a actually a theist or atheist in practice. This makes sense, if you consider agnosticism to be a different axis rather than a position in the middle of atheism and theism.
Science is not a threat to Christianity, friend. Ignorance, on the other hand, almost certainly is.
Science is a threat to any worldview which rejects empiricism.
If you want to cast your lot with those that say "Science can't be right because it disagrees with Genesis" then you prove ignorance of both Science and Christianity.
What is one more bit of irrationality being mixed in when their worldview is based on irrational foundations?
Remember, Jesuits played a big part in establishing the geological record that is used to prove the account in Genesis is meant as creation myth, not as historical record.
And Mormon's have played a big part in genealogical work. It has no bearing on the their claims. Neither does the the fact that Jesuits helped with geology make their claims any more valid.
It's only recently in the past century that there is a movement in pop-christianity to categorically deny science, because for pop-christians, all of reality is a threat to their desire to get people to believe anything they say.
It's been a reoccurring theme in most societies. Progress is welcomed until it becomes a threat.
No, he is simply noting that if you are incapable of researching this question, you aren't interested in an actual answer, you are just being a prat. Can you not even bother to do a google search to find this? Are you incapable of taking that overview and examining the issue? Naming off a couple of examples is useless if you aren't going to be bothered to investigate the issue anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
The other group says if an individual hasn't been seen yet, it doesn't exist, and thus executing said individual is fine and not murder.
But, ignoring that, let's back up.
Basically one group sees the woman as a caregiver who has by her actions taken over care of another individual currently
The current context is rape, so this doesn't even apply.
But let's clarify it in basic terms. The pro-choice side simply holds that a woman(and a man, for that matter) has absolute autonomy when it comes to the use of her(or his) body. The pro-life side simply holds that society can abrogate that right in the case of pregnancy. I stand firmly on the side of autonomy. That covers all of the possibilites. If a woman wants to remain pregnant, I should have no say in the matter. If a woman wants to have an abortion, I should have no say in the matter.
And far as being arbitrary, any developing system like an embryo/fetus/baby(use whatever parlance you wish) will by nature be somewhat arbitrary. The normal cutoff is, again, referencing the woman. The moment the baby is born, the issue shifts from her autonomy to that of the baby. The baby may or may not be ready for autonomous life(see premature birth), but now the issue of its autonomy is no longer tied to that of the mother.
We (as in we, the people) have a say in other peoples medical procedures all the time. We tell people that they are not allowed to take certain substances for medical reasons.
And, in cases where it does not form a public hazard(I'm looking at antibiotic abuse here), I would entirely side with consenting adults putting whatever they want into their bodies. If it compromises their abilities in some way(work, parenting, etc), deal with it on that level.
We have a say in what other people are allowed to do all the time. We tell them they must wear a seat-belt or a helmet. So why not here?
You make the assumption that I am for such restrictions. You can make the argument for such rules for minors, who are not trusted to make decisions themselves, but I think adults should be allowed to make such decisions themselves.
Therefore, the child doesn't deserve to be punished with death for a crime he or she didn't commit.
It's not punishment. It is a medical procedure. Furthermore, it is a medical procedure being performed on someone who is not you, therefore you have no say in the matter. If and when it is your uterus which has been forcibly impregnated, then by all means, you will get to make that call.
As you said, it's possible to change the law and the constitution. And, laws can be interpreted differently. While it may seem unlikely, it's quite possible for the SCOTUS to be stacked with justices (over time) who decide to overturn the previous rulings on the matter.
Another good reason to keep fighting right there. The balance is already pretty close to tipping.
And yes, the secularists are fighting against the theists. However, all this infighting isn't exactly productive. In other countries where they don't have all this infighting, they can concentrate on much more productive endeavors.
Except that they do also have this infighting. We see this same tension all over the West, especially as it relates to Islamic influx. In the Russian states, you have a resurgent Eastern Orthodoxy which is trying to squash both the secular forces and rival religious forces. In the East, you have some officially atheistic states contending with both native religions and incoming evangelistic religions, along with large groups of Islamic states. In India, you have skeptics being persecuted by the officially recognized religions(such as the recent case of Sanal Edamaruku). In South America, there is a constant struggle between secular, often left-wing governments and the dominant religions of the area, primarily Catholicism(read up on the whole Catholic "liberation theology" kerfluffle).
The only places where this is not a concern are places where religion is completely in control, and those places are emphatically not places that are free(in the US sense of the word) and certainly do not accentuate open scientific research.None of this is productive, unles you consider the violation of human rights, constant social unrest and open warfare to be productive.
As others have pointed out, this is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. You are correct that theoretically a new amendment could be passed to nullify the 1st, but until then, your assertion that is false. A state run school cannot teach Creationism. This is a matter of Constitutional law, and has been reiterated by the courts many times over.
If you don't like it, either fight to change society, or move out and go find a society you agree with.
This is precisely what is happening, in case you haven't noticed. The secularists are fighting to maintain the Constitutional role of the government, and the theists are fighting to change it.
The difference is that the anti-religion people never seem to have a clear answer on WHO should be deciding what will be taught, they just make vague statements like "education should be taught this way, should teach these principles, etc."
And this is different from the pro-religious in what way? Do you think the Roman Catholics want the same standards as the Baptists? Or the Mormons? Or the Wiccans? Or the Satanists? Or the Muslims? Or the Amish? Shall I continue?
As others have pointed out, this is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. You are correct that theoretically a new amendment could be passed to nullify the 1st, but until then, your assertion that is false. A state run school cannot teach Creationism. This is a matter of Constitutional law, and has been reiterated by the courts many times over. [quote] If you don't like it, either fight to change society, or move out and go find a society you agree with.[/quote] This is precisely what is happening, in case you haven't noticed. The secularists are fighting to maintain the Constitutional role of the government, and the theists are fighting to change it. [quote] The difference is that the anti-religion people never seem to have a clear answer on WHO should be deciding what will be taught, they just make vague statements like "education should be taught this way, should teach these principles, etc."[/quote] And this is different from the pro-religious in what way? Do you think the Roman Catholics want the same standards as the Baptists? Or the Mormons? Or the Wiccans? Or the Satanists? Or the Muslims? Or the Amish? Shall I continue?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7NL48kRH3A
which allows the government to ball toys.
Yes, I know what you were trying to say, but, dammit, that just sounds funny.
No. Marxism is larger than you think. Marxism is a philosophy of _everything_. It contains an economic theory (based on the labor theory of value), a philosophy of history, human nature and society (based on the "materialist conception of history") and even a philosophy of knowledge itself (based on the idea that truth is not absolute, but relative to class interests). The fact that the Chinese government has partially liberalized the economy (banking is still state-controlled, for example) does not mean it has displaced Marxism. Even Lenin opened the economy for a time.
No, there is no one coherent "Marxism." Even the authors you mentioned are all over the map in terms of their philosophy. Hell, even your favorite Catholic church has strong Marxist claims, or have you already forgotten the social justice encyclicals of JPII?
"Latest" in relation to the entire lifespan of Marxism.
What makes these men dangerous to freedom is the cultural Marxism they have developed. See, for example, England sending people to jail for criticizing homosexualism.
That's false. You are referring to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The Waddington Amendment specifically protects the right to do so. And what does that have to do with Marxism? You could just as easily chalk that up to overzealous Humanism.
Your professors never mentioned Karl Marx, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse or Theodor Adorno? That is an extremely atypical university.
No, it's not. It is extremely atypical of your mental caricature of a university.
The US is not even remotely close of defaulting; Europe has many countries close to defaulting.
And many countries which are growing quickly(like Germany).
The US has grown an average 0.3% per year in 2009-2011; Europe has shrunk 0.3% per year.
Citation please. Not sure of the context.
The European population is aging, because each European woman has only 1.6 children. Yet their strong Marxist unions will not allow increasing the retirement age. The situation is unsustainable; expect the current troubles to get worse.
Do you just ignore countries like Germany when it suits your narrative? Do you not know that they have in fact raised their retirement age to 67 and are in discussions about raising it to 69?
And, the excess government spending is of course caused by socialism.
Ah, yes, those darned socialists, their concern for their fellow citizens and their unwillingness to be worked to death. How dispicable.
And the lack of fertility is caused by atheism. Religion has a well-known effect on fertility. It is no coincidence that Israel and the US have far greater fertility than other countries with similar income levels.
Ah, if only we atheists really could take the credit. Alas, it is mostly due to the availability of contraception, the educational level of females in a society and financial mobility. Religion does seem to cause spikes, but then, that argues that your little churches will be outbred by Muslims in short order, so I suppose you are screwed either way.
You mentioned Christianity as an authoritarian dictatorship, and that is from the Middle Ages.
Certainly, it wielded that power then. It attempts to do so now, and would certainly do so again if ever given the required political power. Something which I am very much opposed to.
They were (partially) due to ISLAM, NOT CHRISTIANITY. I am precisely protesting against this ridiculous, intellectually dishonest practice of mixing Christianity and Islam in the same bag.
And Fred Phelps is driven by Christianity. And Scott Roeder was d
Apparently you have not heard of China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Equador and Bolivia.
China embraced capitalism.
Viet Nam is mixing Capitalism with Marxism.
Cuba is embracing capitalism.
Venezuela is failing at constructing a Communist economy.
Brazil has prospered by not governing from hard left principals.
That leaves you with Ecuador(a mix of capitalism and communism) and North Korea(a completely failed state). That doesn't seem to match up with your paranoid narrative, though, does it?
And you have not heard of the latest developments in Marxism, created by Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno.
The latest deveopments? From a series of authors who have been dead for decades? Care to elucidate what makes these particular dead men so dangerous to your worldview?
Cultural Marxism is alive and kicking in the West. Just go to an average university and see what books the philosophy/geography students read.
That's funny. I had enough philosophy for a minor, and I never once had a philosophy professor mention Marxism more than in passing. And geography? Care to list out the horrible things students are learning?
Check out what "moderate socialism" did to the economy of Europe.
Oh, you mean the debt based economic problems? How is that different from the US? How is it the fault of socialism?
The Bible says "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" What happened in the Middle Ages was a perversion of Christianity. AND IT HAPPENED 400 YEARS AGO.
WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about the Dark Ages.
Saying that "bin Laden is religious" is as relevant as saying "bin Laden has a long beard".
If you think that bin Laden's actions were due to something other than his religion, then you are so wildly misinformed that I'm not sure where to start.
The probability of a Christian commiting terrorism is the same as a long-bearded man commiting terrorism. Being "similar" to bin Laden in one aspect does mean one is a terrorist.
Holding an irrational belief as your core philosophy is always dangerous.
Pat Robertson is more a politician then a pastor; and he is a televangelist.
No True Scotsman fallacy.
You don't find this kind of rhetoric in Catholic churches.
You are wrong. Moreover, the Catholic church is quite comfortable in claiming that homosexual marriage will result in the destruction of the fabric of society.
The crimes primarily happened 30 YEARS AGO, during the ecclesial chaos that followed the revolution of 1968.
The crimes were horrific. The cover up by the entire Vatican heirarchy was arguably worse. And that cover up and and denial persists to this day. The Catholic church still wants to brush this under the rug.
On average, a Catholic priest less likely to comit such a crime then a publich school teacher, and a Catholic bishop is less likely to cover it up than a public school principal. But you conveniently focus on priests.
And those priests and bishops claim to speak with t
For what reason?
For being false, first of all. "Atheistic Marxism" has been in decline for decades, and it's not because Christianity defeated it. It is because it is an unworkable social construct which failed in competition with moderate Socialism and Capitalism, especially when bolstered by a bedrock of humanism. Furthermore, defending against authoritarian dictatorship by embracing authoritarian dictatorship is stupid. Embracing the tinpot tyrants of Christianity to avoid Marxist dictators is a fool's game. What does the underlying dogma matter when they both would strip me of my rights and freedoms? And finally, your argument works just as well if you were arguing for Islam as a bulwark against "Atheistic Marxism."
That is not the point. The point is that anti-theists try very hard to mix Christianity and Islam (for example) in the same bag.
Whenever some theocratic Islamist terrorist blows a bomb in a crowded square, anti-theists say "this is what religion does".
As it most certainly was.
They know that Christian people, even if they have occasional faults, are nice and friendly people; so the only way to condemn religion per se is to say that Christianity is the same as Islam - which is a very ridiculous idea.
Really? So Christians aren't calling gays demonically possessed? They aren't push lies to children in violation of the Constitution? They aren't involved in the cover up of horrific crimes against children? They aren't involved in killing children for witchcraft? They don't file charges to have skeptics arrested for debunking their lying claims? They aren't fighting against laws like the Violence against Women Act? Those are just a smattering of current problems that Christians are causing or exacerbating. That's not even counting the numerous acts of evil that Christians are historically guilty of.
Shall I continue, or do you get the point yet? An individual Christian is most likely a perfectly fine and upstanding citizen. The same is true for the average Muslim, the average Jew, the average Hindu, etc. The institutions of Christianity, however, are just as filled with dogmatic ideologies as those of Islam and such. You mistake the fact that they have been largely neutered in the west for the idea that they are benign.
What people don't understand, is that the Bible was meant for an earlier time, not today! It's like reading the hieroglyphics in the Egyptian Pyramid and thinking its today's news. Humans evolve, ancient text doesn't.
I have no problem with viewing the bible as a historical document. But we aren't talking about that. The person I replied asked why the last 6 commandments were bad as public policy(teaching "good stewardship"). The answer is that they are a mixed bag, a couple of laudable bits with a bunch of horrible bits mixed in. As a general guideline for a modern pluralistic society, they don't cut it.
Most of your "Marxism" comments are just stupid, but I just had to comment on one thing. Are you blind to the fact that atheists condemn Catholicism and the Southern Baptists on a regular basis? Look up Crackergate, or what atheists say about the SBC when it spouts off its regular round of crap about evolution or LGBT rights. Really, if you aren't aware of the criticism of those mainline Christian groups coming from atheists, then you aren't paying any attention anyway.
I can't decide if you are trolling or not. If so, bravo! If not, I pity your foolish gullability.
The truth is, we have no understanding of what makes up the mind/spirit/soul/consciousness/free-choice-widget. Maybe you choose to believe there's no such thing, but I doubt it. I've yet to meet someone who honestly believed that they had no free will, and lived their life that way.
First off, if you think we have no understanding of what makes up the mind, I must assume that you are deliberately remaining ignorant of basically all neuro-biology for a reason. Because that's the only reason you can't be familiar with the general view of consciousness.
And your "free will" idea is just silly. How exactly would someone live if they didn't believe in free will? I believe that free will is an illusion. How am I supposed to behave differently than if I didn't believe that?
Thou shalt not kill.
Good one. Can't argue there.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Depends on the context. This is Old Testament, of course, which means that you can be nailing multiple wives, slave girls and/or concubines without technically committing adultery. Pretty much any woman who is your property. Or, you can take the Christian extreme, and make even private fantasy a sin to be burned forever for. Sounds shitty either way. How's about you allow the participants in a relationship dictate the terms of that relationship freely amongst themselves.
Thou shalt not steal.
Not bad. Can't argue with it.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Again, not bad.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,
What a stupid rule. If you are abiding by #7, this is superfluous. And, like adultery, it's another attempt to legislate thought crime.
thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Stupid for the same reason as #9, but more insidious than that. Do you notice something about that list? It explicitly says that a wife is OWNED by her husband, along with the slaves that he owns(quick quiz: How many times is slavery condemned in the bible? Zero!). Moreover, they are listed in the same block of property as animals.
I want you to mull over that for a while. I want you to chew on the level of barbarism that that mindset entails. The best summation of morality you can put forward for your religion is a couple of obvious ethical standpoints, some nasty thought crimes and some atrocious violations of human rights. Congratulations on that.
There was a time when some atheists blamed everything bad on Jews, for example.
How cute. I hope this is an attempt at a joke rather than another ignorant post about Nazis and atheists.
Moderate Christians like myself, who see no conflict between Christianity and science, and moderate atheists I know, who have nothing against religion and are simply unconvinced by the evidence for theism, get lumped in with the fundamentalists and their arguments and questions summarily dismissed by both sides.
Hmm, let's look at what you believe, shall we?
Christian fundamentalists, stop going full retard and cherry picking what science you like. Scripture deals with the things we could not figure out by ourselves, like the Trinity. Science rests its presupositions on Christian philosophy, that the universe is orderly, understandable, and can be understood mathematically. Remember the words of Robert Boyle, “From a knowledge of God's work we shall know Him.”
No, that is not a "Christian" philosophy. You can trace the direct roots back the pre-Socratic philosophers like Thales. Try again.You are correct about the Trinity, though. Without the vague account of the Trinity in Scripture(and the church councils which actually defined the belief, and the murder of "heretics" who disagreed with the definition, and the schisms that last until today which rest on this definition[filique]), the world might have been spared that particular piece of nonsensical gibberish.
Atheists fundamentalists, deal with the fact that the last 50 years of Biology and Paleontology has raised legitimate objections to Darwinian theory that need to be dealt with. The "Monkeys typing Shakespeare Theorem" doesn't cut it and everyone knows it.
I'm afraid not. If you are referring to some strawman "theory of evolution," as evidenced by the fact that you are calling it "Darwinian," then sure. Darwin is not the end all and be all of the theory of evolution. And I can guarantee you that there is no need for any modern biologist to shoehorn your deity into their theoretical framework to provide any sort of explanation(not that some theists don't try to do just that anyway).
It does illustrate nicely how "Moderate Christians" can reconcile their religion and science: just find reasons to denigrate or ignore the parts that you don't like. The difference between that and the Fundamentalists is only a matter of degree.
Hand-waving and just-so stories don't convince either side and, if either side was so sure about their position, would not use them. My time is better spent discussing these things in person where both sides are far more sensible and civil.
Your time would be better spent studying biology before making unfounded statements.
Look at the curriculum at any parochial school, any religion, and you'll see courses and textbooks that are unscientific. Nothing special about this one, except it's that this is an election year so it gets called out by the Slashdot editors.
And there is the difference you are missing. These books are used by religious schools which are now going to be supported by Louisiana tax money. It's one thing to fuck up your kid's mind on your own dime. It's quite another to expect society to help fund this travesty.
Oh, we've found sea monsters before: giant squid were just mythology until recently. Who knows what else is down there?
Not so much. We had indirect evidence(largely from the wounds and stomach contents of sperm whales) that there were bigger squids down there. It's just that the location makes it highly unlikely that such a corpse would make it into human possession. Eventually it happened, and our previous theory about the size of the squid the sperm whales were eating was verified. And while I am sure that there plenty of undiscovered benthic critters remaining, I doubt we're going to find many more analogs to mythological creatures.
But it sure looks like nonsense.
If it's based on anything, it's based on some fringe crackpot books for homeschooled kids.
No, it's based on the fact that Louisiana is now giving state money to idiots running these kinds of schools to buy idiotic books to brainwash kids.
How is the view from your pedestal?
Sounds like it is pretty fucking funny to me. How is the view from your trench?
No, it means we don't fucking know what the answer is. Which apparently is something that plenty of people have trouble accepting.
I haven't yet met a self-described agnostic who was not a actually a theist or atheist in practice. This makes sense, if you consider agnosticism to be a different axis rather than a position in the middle of atheism and theism.
Science is not a threat to Christianity, friend. Ignorance, on the other hand, almost certainly is.
Science is a threat to any worldview which rejects empiricism.
If you want to cast your lot with those that say "Science can't be right because it disagrees with Genesis" then you prove ignorance of both Science and Christianity.
What is one more bit of irrationality being mixed in when their worldview is based on irrational foundations?
Remember, Jesuits played a big part in establishing the geological record that is used to prove the account in Genesis is meant as creation myth, not as historical record.
And Mormon's have played a big part in genealogical work. It has no bearing on the their claims. Neither does the the fact that Jesuits helped with geology make their claims any more valid.
It's only recently in the past century that there is a movement in pop-christianity to categorically deny science, because for pop-christians, all of reality is a threat to their desire to get people to believe anything they say.
It's been a reoccurring theme in most societies. Progress is welcomed until it becomes a threat.
So you dont know either?
No, he is simply noting that if you are incapable of researching this question, you aren't interested in an actual answer, you are just being a prat. Can you not even bother to do a google search to find this? Are you incapable of taking that overview and examining the issue? Naming off a couple of examples is useless if you aren't going to be bothered to investigate the issue anyway.