Infanticide

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So you've gone to the dark side. Have fun with those perverts.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It's March and I move to my own beat, as u well know.

You try, but the religious brainwashing gets in the way.

[attofishpi]

So you've gone to the dark side. Have fun with those perverts.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It's March and I move to my own beat, as u well know.

You try, but the religious brainwashing gets in the way.

Are you suggesting the holy water during baptism seeped into my brain somehow?

I honestly still have no idea what you are talking about, are you suggesting I don't have any experience of God, a sage etc..?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It's March and I move to my own beat, as u well know.

You try, but the religious brainwashing gets in the way.

Are you suggesting the holy water during baptism seeped into my brain somehow?

I honestly still have no idea what you are talking about, are you suggesting I don't have any experience of God, a sage etc..?

..

[attofishpi]

You try, but the religious brainwashing gets in the way.

Are you suggesting the holy water during baptism seeped into my brain somehow?

I honestly still have no idea what you are talking about, are you suggesting I don't have any experience of God, a sage etc..?

..

Oh dear, I really didn't want to have to do this. Looks like I'm going to have to call upstairs and let them know we have lost another one. Then I am going to have to call downstairs and make a booking.

[promethean75]

"are you suggesting I don't have any experience of God"

That is indeed what we are suggesting, sir. We say that you have not exhausted attempts to understand your experiences, as bizarre, unusual, coincidental or extraordinary as they might be, in terms of natural explanations. We feel that because if at some time you may have had experiences that you could not explain, you would therefore hastily rule out any such explanation, and instead attribute the causes of such to divine origin or intervention.

There is absolutely nothing present in immediate experience, nor in the things of experience, that would lead one to necessarily conclude that a 'god' exists.

Verily, if a fellow is predisposed to want a 'god' to exist, little can stop him from convincing himself that he has found reasons to suppose one (or a hunerd) does.

[attofishpi]

"are you suggesting I don't have any experience of God"

That is indeed what we are suggesting, sir. We say that you have not exhausted attempts to understand your experiences, as bizarre, unusual, coincidental or extraordinary as they might be, in terms of natural explanations. We feel that because if at some time you may have had experiences that you could not explain, you would therefore hastily rule out any such explanation, and instead attribute the causes of such to divine origin or intervention.

What's all this "we"?

Hastily? LMAO - er 25 years worth of experience chump, I have had to analyse.

There is absolutely nothing present in immediate experience, nor in the things of experience, that would lead one to necessarily conclude that a 'god' exists.

ya, from your shallow POV.

Verily, if a fellow is predisposed to want a 'god' to exist, little can stop him from convincing himself that he has found reasons to suppose one (or a hunerd) does.

Yeah, I wanted to be driven to suicide

[attofishpi]

..

--- .-.

[popeye1945]

"Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?
[/quote]

Nick,

The measure of any ethical behavior is or should be upon the consideration of, is my behavior going to lessen or increase the suffering in this world. Many people do not appreciate this simple equation, and regardless of the suffering involved chose for some irrational read immoral reason, to let or enforce measures/laws that would ensure the increase of the suffering of others. If your motivations are grounded in religious dogma, one should remember god performs abortions on a grand scale and has created the world in which we must live, where life lives upon life, big fish eats little fish, it is a harsh world. It is the compassion of humanity that tries to moderate god's harsh world. Circumstances should determine ethical judgment, even the circumstance of the yet unborn, what situtation is this innocence going to be brought into. Will it's life be a life of suffering, if so, it is incumbent upon us to intervene as compassionate human beings.

[attofishpi]

DOGMA = AM_GOD

www.androcies.com

[Ansiktsburk]

Whatever rock people’s boats

[Immanuel Can]

Well, you're just a big poopy head.

A few facts certainly do "poop the party."

And of course you totally ignored the facts.

Which "facts"? You didn't list even one.

There was nothing to deny, except a gratuitous prejudice.

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=564734 time=1647698544 user_id=16237]
ALL religions are 'complimentary' WITH 'science'.
[/quote]

That's called absurdism. Science is entirely dependent on knowledge - justified belief, while religions are all dependent on faith - unjustified belief. They are not complementary, they are not compatible, they are in direct opposition.

[Nick_A]

ALL religions are 'complimentary' WITH 'science'.

That's called absurdism. Science is entirely dependent on knowledge - justified belief, while religions are all dependent on faith - unjustified belief. They are not complementary, they are not compatible, they are in direct opposition.

Intellectual intelligence and emotional intelligence are complimentary. Humanity lacks this quality of intelligence which is why it doesn't know what respect for life means. Einstein describes this relationship:

1940
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

-- Einstein, Science and Religion, 1940.

[RCSaunders]

Do you wonder why Christians are universally war mongers and racists? They learned it from their God.

Fact: they aren't.

The total of history's war dead caused by conflicts even possible to construe as "religious" is about 7%. Half of those were accounted for by one religion, Islam, with its bloody crusades and repressions spanning from the 6th century to the present day. That means they've had about 14 centuries to amass those figures...and they're still only 3.5% of the world's war dead.

The other 3.5% of war dead comprises all other religions combined: Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism, polytheism, etc., etc. etc.

So if you find a war Christians actually caused, it will account for some tiny fraction of the war dead in history; and I doubt you can find that. In any case, it's by no possible reckoning, "war mongering."

In contrast, the most homicidal creed in history, statistically, and by orders of magnitude, is Atheism...and particularly, Socialism in its various forms. Historically, there is a better than 50% chance that the leader of any Atheist regime will kill at least 200,000 of his own people. The rest, perhaps a few fewer, and some more.

Those are the facts. You can deal with them or not.

There isn't, but even if there were such a thing as a, "creed of Atheism," and it were what you described, it would be irrelevant to the fact that Christianity fosters and promotes war and racism. I didn't say it was the biggest promoter of war and hatred, only that it does so universally (with tiny exceptions, like, "Friends," (Quakers), Mennonites, and Amish, for example. All major denominations love and glorify war and judge others based on their ethnic (cultural and hereditary) backgrounds.

As for atheism being a, "creed," do you call everything someone doesn't believe a creed? Is not believing in astrology, "the creed of a-atrologism," or not believing in metamorphosis, "the creed of ametamorphism?" Absurd? Yes, just like calling the fact someone doesn't believe the nonsense you believe a creed. Good grief!

Most people who do not believe what you believe would never think for moment about what you believe one way or the other if you didn't bring it up, just as they never think about spiritualism, ghosts, demons, magic, or fairies (except as fictions and fantasy). They don't waste their time on such obvious nonsense.

[Nick_A]

"Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

Nick,

The measure of any ethical behavior is or should be upon the consideration of, is my behavior going to lessen or increase the suffering in this world. Many people do not appreciate this simple equation, and regardless of the suffering involved chose for some irrational read immoral reason, to let or enforce measures/laws that would ensure the increase of the suffering of others. If your motivations are grounded in religious dogma, one should remember god performs abortions on a grand scale and has created the world in which we must live, where life lives upon life, big fish eats little fish, it is a harsh world. It is the compassion of humanity that tries to moderate god's harsh world. Circumstances should determine ethical judgment, even the circumstance of the yet unborn, what situtation is this innocence going to be brought into. Will it's life be a life of suffering, if so, it is incumbent upon us to intervene as compassionate human beings.


Hello Popeye

I do appreciate that you are the first to contemplate the question even if we disagree. As has been shown society uses man made decisions to determine who lives and dies. What makes a week old baby more valuable than a fetus an hour before birth so as to be worthy of life? We don't know but is the way it is. However some may question further.

It seems we must begin with a premise. Does life in our universe have an objective purpose or just one incredible accident? If life has no purpose and this enormous living machine is just an accident then what greater standard for valuing life is "might makes right?" Humanity makes its own rules. This is how secular society functions.

The second option is that there is a personal God that for one reason or another decides how man should act for either reward or punishment. Clearly there are objections to this and the seeker of truth needs something more reasonable to contemplate.

The third option is for an ineffable source like Plato's GOOD or Plotinus "ONE that is the source of our universe. The universe is actually the body of God within the ONE and serves the same purpose as our bodies do for our minds. If the universe is a necessity respect for life within it is also a necessity to support its function.

Many believe that the universe exists to serve Man but I suggest that Man exists to serve the needs of this living machine we call universe. Since we have forgotten the purpose of life we cannot respect it objectively but our limited to man made interpretations of what respect means. So rather then arguing over what a personal God wants the seeker of truth contemplates the purpose of our universe and Man within it. Why don't we know? If we did know, if Man could awaken to it, then the cycle of life as a continuum would be emotionally obvious and felt in our objective conscience. Humanity as a whole could become normal.

Is there something here you object to as a logical premise?