Abortion: comments continued as a post

The comment chain with Reynold has grown far too long to fit into a reasonable set of comment boxes, so I will post my reply here. The comments here are continued from the post here regarding abortion.

”In other words, god can do whatever he wants, and it'll always be called "good" by us xians, even though if a human did it, we'd call it evil. Example: having babies and pregnant women killed. Why? Because biblegod has "moral authority".

Oh yeah, and him doing things that he says are "sins" when people do them, such as killing babies is perfectly "internally consistent".”

Killing babies is perfectly consistent with the Atheist penchant for abortion, which is the actual subject of this thread. Your hatred of a fictional deity and your attempt to disqualify that fictional being by asserting your own morals is quixotic. You don’t care one whit about killing babies. You are trying to derail the conversation by placing your personal judgment on what is to you, a fictional being: a Red Herring on the one hand, and an absurdity on the other hand. If there actually is a deity, then your personal judgment on it is even more absurd.

”Yet there's supposed to be a reason why biblegod has those rules, isn't there? Isn't it because in places like Proverbs and such that biblegod actively hates things like lying, etc?

What IS "moral authority" then? Might makes right? A god who doesn't have to obey any rules?

How can you tell if such a being is "good" or "morally perfect" then?”

A being which defines “good” is good according to Atheist logic: that is the Atheist moral position: if the Atheist defines “good” to coincide with his own proclivities for behavior, then the Atheist is tautologically good since his behaviors match his personal requirements.

But Atheists have no moral authority and certainly cannot assign consequences for bad behavior, so they have no say in the morality of the behavior of others, much less the morality of an existing deity, over which they have zero influence or control. For an Atheist to condemn a non-existing, fictional deity is merely literary criticism by a non-literary critic. For an Atheist to condemn an actual existing deity which created them is the ultimate absurdity. Either way, the Atheist has nothing of value to say.

”The acceptance of Theism is voluntary, and adherence is not based on fear or stupidity as you assert.
Bull.

Read your bible. You know, all those verses where jesus threatened hell for unbelievers?

What is that if not fear?”

First off, if there is no deity as the Atheist insists, then there is no possible fear to be had from a fictional hell. Atheists cannot fear that which does not exist.

Second, hell cannot be acknowledged as a threat by anyone who is not already a believer. So hell cannot make a believer by use of threat out of someone who thinks it is a fiction.

Third, a person who is already a believer has nothing to fear from hell.

Atheists who condemn hell as forcing belief onto cowardly idiots have a superficial understanding of theism and have not thought it through: a fictitious hell cannot threaten Atheists; a real hell cannot threaten Theists. Your argument is without any actual meaning.

”It is based on respect and love.
Right...the kind of love a psychotic abusive parent gives to their kid: Love me or I'll beat the hell out of you! He respects people so much that he has to threaten them with eternal torture in order to secure their love.”

You are absolutely blinded to the logical aspects presented above, presumably blinded by your hatred of a fictional creature that you partially believe in.

” 'The documented paucity of actual generosity and empathetic action on the part of Atheists demonstrates that their functioning as adults is quite low on average, and frequently absent.'

Sources? There are atheist and secular charities you know. Not that you, in your characteristic xian self-righteousness will give a damn...”

The actual truth is in the data, not in your hate filled invective. Atheists are empathetic to the tune of $16.67 per month, and are less likely to be motivated to help actual needy people.

” 'So Atheists have no basis for criticizing the generosity of Christians.'

You are not looking at the fact that the bible gives incentives to be "charitiable", or that your god has to tell you people that giving is good. In other words, you are ignoring the motives for xian "charity". The xian is promised rewards in heaven for acting good. The atheist is not.”

You presume to know the motives of non-Atheists; you do not. In your hatred you assign evil to everything Christian; you take every opportunity to call names and assume that anything contrary to your hate-filled belief system is a lie, without actual facts to back it up. The fact is:

Atheists have no basis, factual or otherwise, for criticizing the generosity of Christians. Period.

”Try thinking: Who is more moral? One who gets rewarded for it, or one who is not? While you're at it, at least secular and atheist charities don't have any strings attached.”

Neither do Christian charities, contrary to what you are suggesting. There is no embedded excuse here for the absolute stinginess of Atheists. You have no idea what motivates Christians; you merely hate them. And you have no defense for the non-empathy of Atheists.

” 'Like how xians and the bible treat women and gays when it comes to civil rights?'

'Tu Quoque fallacy...'

I'm pointing out how xians treat those they don't like by denying them civil rights. And NO, it's not "tu quoque" for this simple reason: Secularists are at least working for civil rights for women and gays, while misogyny and gay-bashing is enshrined in your bible.”

If by aborting females you are describing fighting for women’s rights, then you are doing so. And if there actually were a “gay gene”, who do you think would get aborted first? And what about pederasty? And post natal abortion, say up to the age of 35? Or 50? Don't these antithesis/synthesis moves deserve civil rights status? The lack of any moral stance obviates any and all moral statements you (or any Atheist) make.

” 'Under which of these highly variable “moral” systems do you condemn god? What is your source of moral authority to condemn god? Why should anyone take your opinion as the true moral conclusion?'

All of them...all of those codes at least acknowledge the right to life, and human dignity. Your god, when he has babies and pregnant women killed, does not.”

You don’t believe in right to life or in human dignity, you believe in ripping the brains out of embryos for female parental convenience and you believe that you have the right to do that, so making the claim that you do believe in right to life and human dignity is completely absurd and outrageous. You believe that you have the exact right which you want to deny to a deity due to its immorality, a deity which you don’t believe in. Can you really not see the absurdity of that?

”Seriously: Are you daft enough to say that until we come up with ONE unchanging moral code that we have no right to criticize the actions of a mass-murdering (alleged) deity?”

Kindly re-read your comment. You have no moral basis, and no moral authority. You are criticizing a being which is fictional in your mind. You support the mass murder of humans. You likely think that humans are just evolutionary animals. But you weep over a deity which culled its own herd.

Let’s repeat: you have no moral basis. You have no moral authority. Your moral pronouncements are therefore absurd.

And let’s conclude: what you think about it is just your personal opinion, to which you are entitled. You may even rail at the fictional god which you hate. But your opinion and your railing is not accompanied by actual moral principles or moral authority, and therefore has no meaning to anyone except you.

” 'EvoDevo and evolutionary anthropology are based on fabricated Just So Stories with no basis in scientific fact or data.'

Oh really?”

Let’s define EvoDevo, then, with regard to evolutionary anthropology, sociology and psychology:

EvoDevo is the creation of theories regarding the evolution of the psychological, rational, and sociological functions of humans, theories which have no actual empirical basis and cannot be falsified, thereby relegating them to the status of metaphysical conjecture without any possibility of empirical verification in order to achieve the status of actual knowledge under the requirements of Philosophical Materialism.

” 'I am not a creationist;...'

Oh? Then how do you propose that we all got here then? If you reject biological evolution then what is the alternative you believe in? By the way, how could you be an atheist for 40 years and be so ignorant of evolution, or science in general as you've shown yourself to be??”

I do not reject evolution; I reject its use as a Truth statement when actual science produces only contingent factoids which are subject to change. Evolution specifically avoids discussion of abiogenesis because the mere idea of life jumping from atoms to living is so preposterous that biologists and Atheists won’t discuss it. Yet evolving from elemental existence is part of evolution, unless ideology takes it over. Evolution, taken as Atheist cant, is dishonest.

Your charge of ignorance as related to Atheism is humorous, because those who worship science most religiously are those who have never done a shred of science, but who think it has magical qualities and no limitations: Atheists are the most susceptible to this.

Now perhaps you could stop making unsubstantiated charges in the form of cheap and sleazy insults and point out exactly where my ignorance of science comes into play. I'm happy to discuss actual science and the philosophy of science; bring it on.

” '...but I do insist upon actual objective verifiable and falsifiable science, not the swill you apparently believe in without evidence.'

Verfiable and falsifiable evidence? Here do at least a little reading. This might help a bit too.”

You take talkorigins as your source of science? How about you read some actual science and philosophy of science, such as Karl Popper. There is far more to science than empirically unsubstantiated forensic biology, which produces a theory that predicts everything and nothing, and which contributes nothing to the actual disciplined practice of real, disciplined biology.

You do not think that an hypothesis must be verifiable and falsifiable? Give an actual reason why not. And forget evolution as your excuse, use real science, actual science which produces theories which can actually predict outcomes.

” 'After all, look at verse 46 where biblegod is commanding people to love even those who hate one...just how is his killing of babies and pregnant women of those people who allegedly hated him then an example of this "perfect" love?'

'Can you show (prove) that it was not done out of love?'

Uh, how can baby-killing possibly be an act of love? Would you accept any woman's argument for abortion if she claimed that it was done out of "love" for her baby (to prevent a life of poverty and disease or to send it right to heaven perhaps?)”

You appear to admit that abortion is an act of hate, using your analogy above. But none of your argument makes sense. I would not accept any excuse for an abortion short of triage; you are the one who accepts any reason whatsoever under the guise of “women’s rights”.

How do you know the motives of your fictional deity? Why are you not answering the question? How do you know the motives of the deity which you consider to be fictional? How?

” 'Or do you just presume that because to you it resembles human hate, it is therefore nessarily hate in the deity also?'

How in hell could it not?”

Good. So that presupposition is covered. It is Guilt By Association.

” 'What would biblegod have to do before you'd say that it is not "good"? Or would you say that anything your god does is good by definition?'

'Does non-comprehension of the motives of a deity prove that the deity does not exist?'

What makes you think that he has good motives?”

Part 1:
First, if the biblegod is a fiction, then it makes no difference. Judging a fiction is meaningless.

Second if the biblegod is not a fiction, then the biblegod just IS. If the biblegod just is, then judging it good or bad is absurd. You may certainly adjudge it to be bad according to your non-moral, non-principles, and that has exactly no bearing on what is. If you don’t like what IS, then you are railing against reality, and that is the mark of insanity.

” 'Does non-comprehension of the motives of a deity prove that the deity does not exist?'

What makes you think that he has good motives?”

Part 2:
I didn’t say that; you are avoiding answering the question.

” 'Non-existence is what Atheism asserts, and needs to be proved.'

You've shifted the burden of proof. It's those who assert the positive who have to "prove" their case...otherwise, you'd have to disprove zeus, allah, etc. before you could assert your god.”

You are behind the times here.

When an assertion is rejected, the rejection must be accompanied with reasons for the rejection, otherwise there is absolutely no reason to think that the rejection has any value. Atheism has no actual reasons other than emotional rejectionism, and uses illogic to claim that they need not produce either logic or physical evidence to support their rejection.

Theism claims that there is one supreme deity, not that other deities do not exist. You do not understand either Theism or Burden of Proof and Burden of Rebuttal.

The Atheist determination to avoid giving any reasons for their rejectionism is rejected.

”But: As for evidence of no god:
biblical mistakes, bible archeology problems for a start...”

No, what is needed is actual physical evidence for the claim (non-existence), the same as Atheists require of Theists. Evidence consists of empirical, experimental, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, peer reviewed, public data that shows that all possibilities have been investigated and have been positively empirically determined to show that no deity can possibly exist non-physically in a non-physical space.

That is what actual Materialist scientific evidence consists of.

” 'And can you actually demonstrate how this is evidence for the non-existence of a non-physical agent capable of creating a universe?'

All such a thing (showing his moral failure to live up to any kind of a standard of "good") would do is refute one trait of this being. It would just mean that it'd be more unlikely that he existed.

By itself, it would not refute his or her existence. Hence, the links I gave.”

Which trait does it refute, and how is it conclusively refuted other than by your opinion?

And the links do not provide the empirical data for the refutation which is required. Even refuting the bible, were that actually possible empirically, would not refute Theism in the form of a non-physical agent with the ability to create a universe and to interfere and interface with its creation.

It's interesting that you read the claims against but not the refutations of those claims; it's as if you want to know only the charges against and not any facts that refute the charges.

” 'No one here has claimed that literal translations of the Bible are essential, necessary and sufficient to understanding the possibility of a creating agent. So picking at the Bible has no bearing on Atheism or the arguments against it.'

Sorry, but what use is the bible then, if it's god's word as you people claim then why can't it be tested?

If the bible can't be tested, then what can?”

If by "you people" you mean those of us who have done actual science, then here is the answer: Currently existing physical objects are all that are subject to actual empirical experimentation (objective science). Surely your superior scientific knowledge can attest to that. Given that, nothing in the bible fits the requirements for being amenable to scientific investigation.

However, there are some things which can be tested, such as the residual physical evidence from the claims of the miracle at Lourdes. Feel free to use your scientific prowess to produce the data required to refute those claims.

” We care because theists attack others civil liberties, abuse women in the name of religon, declare jihads, divert funding from actual education to faith-based bullshit, religious groups pay no taxes so the burden is shifted more onto the rest of us, taxpayer dollars go to faith-based institutions which are allowed to discriminate in who they hire, etc.

It's the consequences of the believers actions that we all have to deal with.”

Sounds like the Victimology machine is working overtime.

It is quite interesting that you fail to mention the $500,000,000 of taxpayer money that is diverted to the killing of in utero humans purely at the whim of the female parent and without any semblance of oversight or ethical principle. You fail to mention the environmentalist obstruction of food sources for starving peoples, and the environmentalist removal of pesticides which would save third world crops and eliminate much starvation. You are uninterested in actual human travesties in favor of your fear and loathing of tax exemptions for free religions. The Atheist religious devotion to the religions of environmentalism over human concerns and the right to kill humans are of no concern to you. Your degree of empathy is duly noted.

Civil liberties don’t exist under Atheism; we are all just animals, striving for survival first, power second, and nothing more under Atheism. Atheism is by default Consequentialist, and you appear not to have moved on to any other “ethic”. Your concerns are purely directed at gaining the power to install your own opinions into the law of the land. And again, they are only your personal opinions. But you are so sure of your own personal opinion that you want it installed as the “moral” law.

But coming back to the point of this blog, and this post: Your complaints and fears and hatreds have nothing to do with producing actual physical evidence to support your basic claim that there is no non-physical agent. You have no evidence, because no physical evidence is possible for a non-physical being. Because you have neither evidence nor logic to support your rejectionism, your belief system is blind belief, a religious adherence to an emotional rejection which you cannot support rationally.

This places the Atheist lack of moral theory even deeper into emotional irrationality.

Your stated viewpoint of Christianity, which you spell in a purposefully derogatory fashion, is filled with distortions created by obvious hatred. Your complaints are by and large false. The Christian western nations have created more freedoms for women than any Atheist nation ever did, because Atheist nations murdered millions of their own women. The right to murder your fetus is your concept of women’s rights. You purposefully equate jihad with tax laws, and you think that the government should regulate who religions can hire, but presumably not Atheist organizations.

” 'So much for moral consistency then, eh? All we're doing is pointing out how you god fails to even try to live up to his own so-called moral code.'

'You have not shown why such an entity should do so. Consistency is not an argument; it is a complaint, only.'

'To consistency then: if humans can't judge god's actions as evil even when the same actions if done by people ARE evil, (ex. the baby-killing example earlier) then how can you tell if your god is "good" or not by his or her actions? How can you call your god "good" if he is not bound by some code of morality that we can measure? '”

This is a continuing absurdity: if a parent doesn’t allow a child to drive the car, then you think that the parent should not be allowed to drive the car either. Completely absurd. Your demand to measure the “goodness” of a deity which does not exist is absurd. Your demand to measure the “goodness” of a deity which does actually exist is equally absurd.

”So, deities are not people?
Anyway, thanks for acknowledging the double standard.”

Apply the simplest logic test: If deities are tautological with humans, then humans are tautological with deities. This is obviously not the case, or else you would be the furious deity in charge. Obviously, you are not in charge.

” 'Only most children aren't so stupid and arrogant to go around asserting that they have the only real standard of "morality"'

'Not an argument; continued Ad Hom Abusive.'

'It's not meant to be an argument...are you that dense to think that I though it was? It was an observation of the xian "moral" mindset.”'

If your assertions are not meant as arguments, then your comment above was merely an attack on me, calling me stupid and arrogant. Your ability to present your case is juvenile, at best. Your rudeness and anger reveal your emotional state, which is not a rational state. This final statement is a confirmation of that:

”The xian only is moral because god tells them to, which you've confirmed.”

Blatant falsehood, on both counts. You are now lying.

You have also said that since atheists don't have a moral code handed down from on high but instead have to hash one out ourselves as circumstances dictate, that we don't really have any true moral code as is evidence by your little screed here:

'You were asked to reveal your morals, since, if you have any, they are not produced by Atheism. As an Atheist, you have no morals revealed until you do so explicitly. You have not done so. So what are we to assume?'

What I've been saying all along: We have to hash out our own moral code...according to circumstances.

At least it's not based on the arbitrary whim of some "deity" but rather with the person affected in mind.”

So your moral code is arbitrary and relativist (i.e. no code containing actual principles at all), depending upon your opinion of what is best for yourself vs. the other person. Fine. You have established exactly the point being made. With your anger and hatred of me I do not want any of your faux morals applied to me, and I will fight to the death to prevent it. FYI, this hatred of yours is the reason that Christians are well armed; self-protection from those with no principles of morality but the arrogance of their delusion of superiority is essential. The Atheists of the 20th century proved that conclusively. Some of us learn from history.

”Maybe this would help?”

Maybe reading some actual history of the Atheist nations of the 20th century would be a good addition to your reading of only twisted Atheist propaganda. Atheist societies are deadly societies. Denying and / or ignoring the murders of 250,000,000 people by Atheist societies is a rational failure of the coddled and protected Atheists in our western nations.