Jerry Springer The Opera and religious zealots.

I cannot accept that the child becomes a valid person or soul at birth, because it could be born by caesarean or naturally and the specific time is meaningless. Also, it being “in there” or “out here” is no difference at all in my opinion – in the latter stages it is just a slim covering of flesh. Just because your new telly is still in its box doesn’t mean it isn’t a telly yet. . Therefore it stands to reason that at some previous point it becomes a soul (the baby not the telly). As the growth of the foetus is a progressive development, it is impossible to define the exact moment of a change or of “being”, like, to the millisecond. I can only imagine that at conception, the potential for a soul is created and spiritually a place is made for a new life on earth, but therefore (in my head anyway) this spirit must have existed previously and be waiting there (but ignore the now accepted spiritual realm in my argument for now). In that case, if the foetus is terminated before birth, then either the child is killed, or the spirit goes elsewhere (catch the next foetus maybe), but as I believe that there is no definite point of the spirit entering the child, then I must conclude that the potential for souls should be respected at all stages, and that ultimately leads to disapproving of contraception. Now…I am not someone that would not use contraception, so I have given myself a problem here. What I can accept to myself is that I practice contraception, but would never consider abortion at any stage.
I don’t believe my reasoning would stand close scrutiny, but it’s good enough for me at the moment. Also, somewhere along the line I have acknowledged a greater unseen world of which we are only a small part, and that is what I would call a spiritual world. That is as close as I can get to believing in “God”, but have no use personally for a definition of what God is. I am happy to accept that I wouldn’t understand it even if I was told.
I don’t know what you would label that as, and I don’t really care anyway to be honest.
I don't think it is a religious viewpoint, it just seems logical to me.

Well, now we've got you on your knees...

More food for thought:

The basic idea of religion is communication with god via prayer. Even though the churches have invented more get-out clauses than a car insurance policy to cover their arses.

6 million Jews were no doubt praying like hell before they were sent prematurely to the "Big Guy".

The same is true of millions of deeply spiritual people worldwide being knocked sideways by endless natural disasters. (and man-made ones)

Don't quote me the "mysterious ways" clause, thanks very much.

One's religion is 99.998% chance of birth and 99.9998% based on parent's religion.

The endless "my god is better than your god" bollocks drives me crackers! We are discussing a complete figment of the imagination here people!!
And stone-age figment at that.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, can prove the existence of a higher being. (by any name you care to conjure out of the air)

To use of religion as an excuse for the obscene excesses taking place this small, dirty mudball smacks of complete insanity to me.

I have devoted (as in christian) friends who's religious conversations in any other context would get them straight into the loony bin!

Let me put it this way. If there was a "second coming" (fat chance, but I'll indulge your fantasies for the sake of argument) I would still not follow the new Jesus any more than I would follow the last. It has no relevance to my world based on simple (and complex) reality.

Get a life!

Nime

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
...but as I believe that there is no definite point of the spirit entering the child, then I must conclude that the _potential _ for souls should be respected at all stages, and that ultimately leads to disapproving of contraception.

---

But surely it's not 'Game On' until the sperm fertilizes the egg. Otherwise we're getting into the question of whether sex itself is 'sinful' (in a Catholic sense) and that's a different debate.

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
...but as I believe that there is no definite point of the spirit entering the child, then I must conclude that the _potential _ for souls should be respected at all stages, and that ultimately leads to disapproving of contraception.

---

Rasher,

Substitute 'contraception' with 'abortion' and I think that then your argument would be perfectly sound. ISTM that logically if one disapproves of abortion then it is indeed reasonable to conclude that one respects "the potential for souls' [to exist].

Using contraception, IMHO, seems entirely consistent with the above. By preventing fertilisation and thus the formation of a foetus with the potential for 'life', the question of whether that potential is ultimately fulfilled becomes academic.

JR

No guys. It has to be that if the potential is there for a baby during sex, by taking the argument to its ultimate conclusion contraception cannot be right. If the spirit is looking for a place to go, we shouldn't have the right to interfere at all.
I'm not suggesting that this is workable, but just seeing where the idea went. I couldn't live myself in the fear that I may have loads and loads of kids, so confess that I couldn't possibly live by those rules myself.

[This message was edited by Rasher on Wed 12 January 2005 at 15:21.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
No guys. It has to be that if the _potential _ is there for a baby during sex, by taking the argument to its _ultimate _ conclusion contraception cannot be right. If the spirit is looking for a place to go, we shouldn't have the right to interfere at all.

---

You're moving into Monty Python territory now: "You're a Catholic the Moment Dad Came"

Personally, I think that if there's a spirit looking for a place to go it will be checking out the fertilized eggs but ...

I'm interested to hear the atheist view on abortion - no question of spirit there.

Steve Margolis
defy convention - make music

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
You're moving into Monty Python territory now

---

Yeah..probably right.
Am I not an atheist? I suppose I'm agnostic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
I'm interested to hear the atheist view on abortion - no question of spirit there.

Steve Margolis
_defy convention - make music_

---

I do have my own personal views on abortion; however, I'd rather leave the choice up to the people who are involved. The agonizing decisions that most have go through when considering abortion must be so awful, I don't feel I have any right to stick my oar in.

What is the believer’s view of naturally occuring abortions and miscarrages?

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Earwicker:
Anyway, the fact remains that, at least from a factual point of view, God doesn't exist, so we need to find ways to form a viable secular society even if religious ones really were better! And I don't think they are.

---

You seem to have difficulties with people believing in God. Do you?

Steve M

---

Yes, I find it quite disturbing, to be honest. Blatantly irrational thought and behaviour has always made me feel queasy.

Earwicker

You cannot prove that God does not exist anymore than I can prove he does exist.

It is a question of personal faith and everyone has the right to that faith without being criticised for it.

Regards

Mick

Mick,

I see what you mean and sympathise to some extent. I would counter that faith itself is a pretty poor thing to have: let's face it, it means believing something without good reason for doing so and I'd take some persuading that that was healthy!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

You cannot prove that God does not exist anymore than I can prove he does exist.

It is a question of personal faith and everyone has the right to that faith without being criticised for it.

Regards

Mick

---

Okay then. I believe in witches, warlocks, wizards, fairies, leprechauns, goblins, pixies, dwarves and unicorns.

Dispute my absolute faith in their existence or my logic if you must. But please show due respect for my beliefs.

Regards
Nime

quote:

---

Originally posted by Earwicker:
I would counter that faith itself is a pretty poor thing to have: let's face it, it means believing something without good reason for doing so and I'd take some persuading that that was healthy!!

---

Isn't lack of faith pretty poor too?

...And isn't it equally irrational to 'believe' in the Big Bang theory? Let's see now ...


There was nothing - not even time.

Then, suddenly, at an instant in the time that didn't exist ...

!BANG!

And here we are.


Rationally speaking, how does that work?

Steve M

Interesting thread this with many issues being raised. A few random thoughts:

Jerry Springer and the BBC - I do not have a problem with what was shown. I had no interest in it and therefore did not watch it. Each to their own. It does strike me that should the content of the Jerry Springer programme have been directed at Allah there would have been somewhat more vociferous protests. But then such a progamme never would have been aired would it??? Shit loads of hypocriscy all round.

Abortion - I have no belief in God or any other god for that matter. Abortion sits very uncomfortably with me. We are talking about a life - a life that is developing, a life that is developing senses - a life that is developing awareness - who can say when life becomes aware? - life is precious. End of story.

Religion - I have no problem with anyone's religous beliefs. Why should I be in a position to critcise or ridicule a person's beliefs? Likewise why should I criticise or ridicule a person's musical tastes?

Religion - religion has been responsible for many troubles over time and no doubt will continue to do so. That is not the fault of the religion but the fault of those with extremist views, read other agendas.

Regards

Mike

I think that to call myself an atheist would be arrogant. So I prefer to think of myself as agnostic, ie. not sure whether a god exists or not. As Mick said earlier, no-one can produce any conclusive evidence of the existence, or not, of a god or any such other deity.

In the meantime, a religion is otherwise known as a faith. Faith, by definition, implies a belief in god. That does not in my opinion necessarily imply that followers of that faith are all certain that the god they follow exists.

Just a few random thoughts of my own.

Cheers,

JR

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC:
Religion - religion has been responsible for many troubles over time and no doubt will continue to do so. That is not the fault of the religion but the fault of those with extremist views, read other agendas.

---

Good post Michael - which means of course that I agree.

It's absolutely true that many terrible things have been done in the name of religion. However, I'd like to quote something that Kevin-W posted because I thought it was insightful and deserves repetition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
These states failed and caused such misery not because they were atheistic or irreligious but because they were utopian. I have said elsewhere on this forum that utopianism is one of the most anti-human constructs that human beings have come up with to torture themselves.

What links the regimes/experiments of Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Jim Jones (of Jonestown Guyana infamy), Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and his Taliban, David Koresh of Waco infamy, Ayatollah Khomeni, Savonarola, those US survivalists and militias, the Terror after the French Revolution, etc etc?

They are/were all utopians. Nothing to do with their lack of religion.

---

And usually nothing to do with religion either, even if they act under its banner.

Kevin, one question:

Is Democracy a Utopian concept too and are all Utopias necessarily bad?

Steve M

(well alright, that's two questions)

[This message was edited by 7V on Thu 13 January 2005 at 1:15.]

7V

Damn you hold up well under pressure!

Sincerely
Jim

Plot to murder Dutch deputy


The Hague - A plot to murder Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch lawmaker of Somali origin who is a leading critic of radical Islam, has been uncovered in the course of the investigation into the assassination of film-maker Theo van Gogh, the daily De Telegraaf said on Wednesday.

Hirsi Ali co-wrote the script for van Gogh's movie Submission, dealing with the oppression and abuse of women under Islam, that led to his murder on November 2 by a suspected Islamic radical. Under tight police protection, she was reported to be planning a sequel to the movie and writing a book targeted at Muslims.

De Telegraaf said a document was found during a police raid on an apartment in Amersfoort that was searched as part of an anti-terrorism swoop.

It added that the plan was to assassinate Hirsi Ali on New Year's Eve when the sound of shots would have been masked by the noise of fireworks.

Although she herself and her party have said she will soon return to parliament, her whereabouts were not known. Some reports said the Dutch army took her to the United States for her own protection following van Gogh's murder.

The alleged killer, Mohammed Bouyeri, is a Dutch citizen of Moroccan origin.

Hirsi Ali, 34, who is herself a Muslim, fled to Holland in 1992 to escape a forced marriage arranged by her father. - AFP

At what point does a child become conscious of the simple (and yet very complex-to-understand) fact that it exists?

Beyond this point abortion becomes murder. The so-called potential is what takes place before this point.

The point itself is moot.

Regards,

Steve.

PS: I'm highly impressed that the Moderators here have permitted this religious discussion to take place

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
PS: I'm highly impressed that the Moderators here have permitted this religious discussion to take place

Regards,

Steve.

---

Nah. like I told you before. Adam is moonlighting. Probably cabbing?

Nime

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
At what point does a child become conscious of the simple (and yet very complex-to-understand) fact that it exists?
Beyond this point abortion becomes murder. The so-called _ potential _ is what takes place before this point.
The point itself is moot.
Regards,
Steve.

---

Yeah, of course, but we are discussing it because the law struggles to define it, as does the church. It needs to be thrashed out. It isn't a moot point in the eyes of the Catholic church currently.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonR:
I think that to call myself an atheist would be arrogant. So I prefer to think of myself as agnostic,

---

Ponder that for a moment and look for the irony. (Maybe I am reading too much into it?)

quote:

---

In the meantime, a religion is otherwise known as a faith. Faith, by definition, implies a _belief_ in god. That does not in my opinion necessarily imply that followers of that faith are all _certain_ that the god they follow exists.

---

Nah..One either has Faith, or one doesn't. But my understanding (and I'm usually wrong anyway), is that a Faith is Christianity for instance, and a religion would be a sub-culture of that ie; Roman Catholic, Baptist, Mormon etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
At what point does a child become conscious of the simple (and yet very complex-to-understand) fact that it exists?

---

I believe that for some time after birth a human child just IS. He or she isn't conscious of the fact of his or her existence.

It takes many months before a child will recognize his own reflection in a mirror as being himself and not someone other.

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonR:
I think that to call myself an atheist would be arrogant. So I prefer to think of myself as agnostic,

---

Ponder that for a moment and look for the irony.

quote:

---

In the meantime, a religion is otherwise known as a faith. Faith, by definition, implies a _belief_ in god. That does not in my opinion necessarily imply that followers of that faith are all _certain_ that the god they follow exists.

---

Nah..One either has Faith, or one doesn't. But my understanding (and I'm usually wrong anyway), is that a Faith is Christianity for instance, and a religion would be a sub-culture of that ie; Roman Catholic, Baptist, Mormon etc.