Home » apologetics, atheism, eugenics, General, Jesus, Knights of Contention, original sin, science, scientism » PZ Myers: People are Just Meat, Deal with It

PZ Myers: People are Just Meat, Deal with It

HT Mariano

PZ Myers continues to descend down the various stages into madness that atheism can lead a person- that is to say, like the religionists he despises, he also believes every lick of what he says he believes.  In a recent blog post writing in reaction to an email from a pro-life person, he writes:

“You want to make me back down by trying to inspire revulsion with dead baby pictures? I look at them unflinchingly and see meat. And meat does not frighten me.”

On PZ’s view, we are all meat, whether we are diced and sliced or not.  This is what we’re up against.  P.S. I’m not talking about ‘science.’

I will not add further comment except to point the reader to my recent post on atheism and the lunacy of true believers and another post musings about ‘what atheism can become.’  I will remind the reader that he is a professor in the Minnesota university system.  If you are a citizen of that state or an alumni and find what he’s doing repulsive, you know what to do.   The full text of Myer’s post is below, just in case his self-preservation requires deleting it:

Lately I’ve been receiving a flood of messages from the anti-choice zealots. They’ve got one thing in common: they all contain lots of images of aborted fetuses, a common tactic used by these creatures to intimidate with horrible images. I’m not impressed. Here’s a representative example, with the url to yet another horror show removed.

Please read

Abortion is more than a “procedure” and it is rare that a pregnancy causes harm or death to a woman.

Maybe to better understand the murder that abortion truly is, you should study the photos in the link below. It is easy to desensitize yourself and your readers and say it’s just a procedure, and the fetus is just a “bunch of cells,” but again, I ask that you study the photos in the link below, and I hope you are sickened with the real truth- Abortion IS Murder.

URL deleted

Abortion is more about greed and selfishness. There are many many many families that would give anything to do a domestic adoption and offer prenatal care to a woman that did not want to keep/raise her baby.

No one says it better than Mother Teresa.

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you live as you wish”

I pray that you will take the time to more fully understand what abortion is, and why the option to kill our nation’s babies should not be an option at all.

Sincerely,
Sarah Dillon

Sarah Dillon is an ignorant hysteric, and she’s awesomely stupid. She couldn’t have written a letter better guaranteed to dissuade me from accepting her position.

First, never quote Mother Teresa at me — she was an evil hag who worshipped poverty, who did not help people except to encourage them to suffer more for her faith, while she lived in comfort and traveled far and wide to receive the accolades of the gullible. I would never find the words of that wicked woman persuasive.

Secondly, the standard bullying tactics of waving bloody fetuses might cow the squeamish, but I’m a biologist. I’ve guillotined rats. I’ve held eyeballs in my hand and peeled them apart with a pair of scissors. I’ve used a wet-vac to clean up a lake of half-clotted blood from an exsanguinated dog. I’ve opened bodies and watched the intestines do their slow writhing dance, I’ve been elbow deep in blood, I’ve split open cats and stabbed them in the heart with a perfusion needle. I’ve extracted the brains of mice…with a pair of pliers. I’ve scooped brains out of buckets, I’ve counted dendrites in slices cut from the brains of dead babies.

You want to make me back down by trying to inspire revulsion with dead baby pictures? I look at them unflinchingly and see meat. And meat does not frighten me.

The vilest thing in the picture is the moron waving the sign and thinking they’re making an argument.

Original Link

Share

97 Responses to PZ Myers: People are Just Meat, Deal with It

  1. But PZ Myers wasn’t talking about you when he said he saw meat. Nor was he talking about babies. He was talking about foetuses. Which are going to be people, but aren’t yet, any more than an egg is a chicken, or an acorn is an oak.
    I fail to see the madness. Good for him for not being intimidated by emotional blackmail attempts.

  2. Sorry, Korou, but that’s a distinction without a difference. If his position- and yours- is logical in the slightest, then you will extend it right to its conclusion. You don’t get to pull up short where you find even yourself growing horrified.

    Let us tweak the example a little. Let’s say PZ was not a biologist, but a 1940s era German mortician who supported killing off Jews. Pictures of Jews are shown to him, stacked up like sticks. He will react just as PZ did. After all, the mortician is very familiar with dead bodies- he works with them. A Jew isn’t a person, any more than a ‘fetus’ is. ‘People’ become ‘people’ when society/science decides/declares as much, and for the German mortician, Jews aren’t people. They are meat.

    And who are you to protest? Don’t you know how much medical knowledge has been added because the German scientists carried out all those experiments on Jews, Gypsies, blacks, etc- while they were still alive?

    Now, this is an ’emotional argument’ but it is not for that reason invalid. The basic components are all the same. There is no logical reason why PZ’s position cannot be construed in the exact same way. Indeed, we can be quite sure that if he had been alive in 1930s Germany, he would have had no problem extending his thinking to its logical end.

    Even so, we could replace the more volatile parts of the analog and the principles would still hold true. Make it a modern day mortician, if you will.

    The problem is not ‘science’ per se. It is the dehumanizing turn it takes in the hands of hardened atheists like PZ who have desensitized themselves so completely that all they see is ‘meat.’ If a modern day mortician did this completely enough, his own humanity would be extinguished.

    The fact that a mortician is desensitized to what he is doing does not make him a superior human. In fact, he has lost something of his humanity, hopefully of course in service to humanity. This is not PZ. PZ has utter contempt for the parts of humanity that do not share in his perspective and arrogance. This arrogance is on display in the post I cited and is present in most of his posts. This contempt is part of the madness.

    A mechanic who works all day with his hands and builds up so much callous there that he no longer has any feeling in them is not a better human. No doubt, the mechanic himself is aware of his loss of sensation and wishes he had it back. This is because he is sane and because he knows that typically, humans have feelings in their hands.

    It is the opposite with PZ. He is proud of his loss of sensation and doesn’t wish it back and derides those who still have it.

    However, I note that when he posted Sarah Dillon’s letter, he removed the urls to the images. Hmmmmm… I wonder what he was afraid of? If it was just pictures of ‘meat’ surely there was no harm in displaying them… and the many commentators who deplored the tactic of showing them also can have no objection… they are mere ’emotional blackmail attempts’ that will have no effect on the enlightened, no?

  3. This seems especially pertinent…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_of_Doctor_Moreau

    Apparently, his only reason for the pain he inflicts is scientific curiosity. Prendick accepts the explanation as it is and begins life on the island.

    As time passes, Prendick begins to deaden himself to the grotesqueness of the Beast Folk.

  4. Welcome readers from PharynyLand!

    Tonight we’re even going to have a debate about whether or not PZ should just be fired. Details: PZ Myers Should be Fired!

  5. Anthony looses. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law.

    Steph

  6. Do I?

    http://sntjohnny.com/front/eugenics-the-logical-consequence-of-evolutionary-theory-part-one/561.html

    Don’t worry Steph. I’m sure that none of what transpired in the 20th century had anything to do with what people believed. Nah. Couldn’t have been that. 😉

  7. “it is much more pleasing to God if a couple that is not of healthy stock were to show loving kindness to some poor orphan and become a father and mother to him, rather than give life to a sickly child that will be a cause of suffering and unhappiness to all.”

    Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

    Eugenics, nothing to do with belief in God whatsoever.

  8. Come on, people. I’m glad you’re here, but at least offer something respectable. The notion that Hitler had any kind of belief in a monotheistic God is patently absurd. It is thoroughly debunked here: hitlerandchristianity.com. Debunked AND Hitler’s real philosophical inspirations are explored. So, that’s just a red herring, to put it mildly.

    On the other hand, you would do well to inform yourself about the eugenics movement from 1860 on, which was very much an American project. The evolutionary and atheistic justifications for eugenics programs drips out of the primary sources. With a little help from Google you can find most of it online. Galton, Sanger, or you could start here and go from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hamilton_Laughlin

    If Christians need to come to grips with the role of belief that fueled the Crusades, atheists and evolutionists need to man up to the role of their philosophy in the 20th century.

    It isn’t my fault that PZ is advancing a position that is nearly identical to the eugenicists of the late 1800s and early 1900s.

  9. Fact One: You have no idea what PZ believes, other than this one entry. He doesn’t support eugenics, for example. (Classic example: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/dobzhansky_on_eugenics.php)

    Fact Two: Any one that has to resort to Hilter comparisons to make their point hasn’t thought the issue through enough. Patent over-exagerations and emotional plees are the resort of those without evidence.

    Fact Three: Whether or not Hilter was religious does not change the fact that he did terrible things. Just like Stalin (an atheist), Pope Lucius III (a Christian) and Osama bin Laden (A Muslim) all did terrible things regardless of their religious affiliations.

    Fact Four: Legal abortion does not increase the rates of abortions. It does, however, decrease the number of women who die from them. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8305217.stm. And, though this hardly should need stating, legal abortion is not the same thing as eugenics.

    Steph

  10. Yeah! It’s not like Hitler handed out copies of the Bible to all his people or anything!

    Oh, wait…

  11. Yea, Hitler also signed an non-aggression pact with Russia in 1939. I suppose that means he was a communist.

    Come on, man. Think.

    PS, in case you are unaware, Hitler invaded Russia just two years later.

  12. More facts for Steph.

    Fact one. Are you really so smug as to think this is my only experience with PZ and his beliefs? This isn’t the first time PZ’s blog has referenced me. Thanks for playing.

    Fact Two. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You can’t even tell when you’re being a hypocrite. You just called me out for allegedly only having read just one of PZ’s entries and now you think you know what kind of thinking through I’ve done based on what… have you read more than three posts on this blog? Do you really think I’m going to take you seriously when you behave like that? Find you credible? Not likely.

    Fact four. You are surely insane. There have been some 55 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade. Are you going to sit there and tell me that there were as many as that in the 35 years before? Steph, please. Why are you coming to this blog and insulting my intelligence? And then you cite the Guttmacher Institute. Come on. You’ve got to be joking.

    Fact Five: I didn’t say that legal abortion is the same thing as eugenics. Obviously, what would make it ‘eugenic’ is if the abortion was carried out, say, because someone didn’t like the eye color of the child, or if it had birth defect. Legal abortion and eugenics share one important thing in common, which also hardly needs stating, and that is a very low view of the thing chopped into pieces. Meat, of course. Just meat. We wouldn’t want to call it something that might evoke emotion, now, would we?

  13. “Sorry, Korou, but that’s a distinction without a difference”

    On the contrary. That distinction is at the heart of the argument. PZ is not horrified by pictures of aborted fetuses. Why should he be? Fetuses are not sentient. They are not persons. They are not babies. They are potential babies, certainly. But then so are the 50-70% of zygotes that naturally fail to lead to established pregnancies (if you believe those are all “babies”, then your God must be quite the monster. And you must be quite heartbroken at the thought of all that carnage. Unless, of course, you’re a heartless bastard.)

    “Let us tweak the example a little. Let’s say PZ was not a biologist, but a 1940s era German mortician who supported killing off Jews. Pictures of Jews are shown to him, stacked up like sticks. He will react just as PZ did”

    Assuming he would, his reaction would show him to be a callous monster, because the pictures in your example are of conscious persons, human agents with hopes and dreams, who have been murdered. The pictures PZ was referring to, on the other hand, are of fetuses.

    “I’m sure that none of what transpired in the 20th century had anything to do with what people believed. Nah. Couldn’t have been that.”

    Of course it did. They believed in racial purity…or that they were going to build a worker’s utopia.

    –Oh, I see; you want to claim that their societies were murderous because they were atheistical, right? Then I guess the Inquisitions and the witch-hunts and the Crusades and all the religious violence history has seen maybe had something to do with what the people in those societies believed, too–hmmm? Right?

    Except, notice that Stalin’s motivation for killing didn’t come from atheism–it came from a certain other belief system to which he was uncritically devoted.

    On the other hand, when it comes to religious wars, and religious violence, the motivation for the killings turns out to be uncritical devotion to a belief system which is…wait for it…religious.

    Moral: people should not be uncritically devoted to belief systems.

    And…from there it’s Hitler was an atheist (nobody really knows whether he believed in god or not, but his followers were overwhelmingly religious) and eugenics and how can a biologist be so callous about icky bloody pictures and why oh why do atheists hate teh baybees? (Answer: we don’t. We’re not impressed by photos of aborted fetuses, however. See my first point.)

  14. “Legal abortion and eugenics share one important thing in common, which also hardly needs stating, and that is a very low view of the thing chopped into pieces. Meat, of course. Just meat. We wouldn’t want to call it something that might evoke emotion, now, would we?”

    “Just meat” isn’t any more inaccurate than “baby” or “unborn child” when referring to an embryo or foetus. Which is why I prefer the words “embryo” or “foetus”, depending on …well, what it actually IS.

  15. “Assuming he would, his reaction would show him to be a callous monster, because the pictures in your example are of conscious persons, human agents with hopes and dreams, who have been murdered. The pictures PZ was referring to, on the other hand, are of fetuses.”

    And to Nazis Jews were not sentient. Not concious persons. Human agents with hopes and dreams. In short the Nazis view was EXACTLY like your view of fetuses Brown.

    Which is kind of the point. And if the Nazis were “callous monsters” to you when Jews were essentially no different than zygotes with the exact same reasoning you employ, shouldn’t that say something about YOUR views?

  16. The problem, End Bringer, is that the Nazis were working AGAINST scientific evidence that living Jews were, in fact, sentient beings.

    PZ Myers, however, is working WITH the scientific evidence. Fetuses are not thinking beings; they are not people until brainwave activity begins. It’s not a matter of politics or belief; it’s a matter of provable and proven fact.

    As history shows, every time you’re on the wrong side of science, you’re simply wrong.

  17. @Brown, The comatose are not sentient. They are not persons. Potentially, yes. But not. You do the math.

    The minute someone goes under general anesthetic they are not sentient. Thus, they are not persons. That must be why in this recent story the med student had no problem performing an anal exam on one of her unconscious patients. Who needs consent when it isn’t even a person? http://www.news.com.au/national/medical-students-are-performing-intrusive-exams-on-unconscious-patients/story-e6frfkw0-1225996222221

    What good is logic if you aren’t going to follow it all the way down the path?

    @Penelope, It would be great if you could remain consistent in the span of just 2 sentences. First, ‘meat’ isn’t anymore inaccurate then ‘fetus’ or ’embryo.’ A split second later, you prefer these words because, well, that’s what they actually ARE.

    If you think that they are just meat, that’s fine. Just be logically consistent and admit that we are all just meat. And if you think this is the case, then you shouldn’t be afraid of the pictures of the meat sliced and diced. PZ shouldn’t have redacted them. If anything, he should have been the first to happily make them available.

    Would you like me to send you some pictures of meat, Penelope? No? Why not? What’s the big deal?

  18. Copyleft,

    The Nazis were not working against science. That’s nonsense. What constitutes a person is not a scientific enterprise. Sentience has now come up several times, and you just invoked it yourself. Where is it experimentally shown that sentience is a/the defining trait of a ‘person’? The thing cannot be done. It’s a definitional thing. If its sentient, you call it a person. But why should anyone- say, the Nazis- accept your definition?

    You may insist that it is a scientific fact that there is no brain activity until a certain point. The declaration that it is not a person until then is not a scientific fact.

    You have no right to object to the definitions that other groups take. You certainly cannot object on the grounds of science, since a definition is not the sort of thing that can be demonstrated.

  19. Then what’s your opinion of the emotion-charged arguments like “abortion stops a beating heart” and waving around pictures of dead fetuses as though we’re supposed to treat them like people?

    Those are surely invalid arguments from a logical standpoint, yet the anti-choicers employ them all the time, 24/7… in fact, they seldom try to come up with anything else.

  20. Let’s also not forget out PZ Myers treats those who disagree with him who he WOULD call persons. In this case, Sarah Dillon. Frankly, I find the argument that sliced and diced unborn babies are just meat, not deserving our pity or compassion or respect or any regard at all, but ‘people’ are… and then turn around and treat them without pity, compassion, respect or regard. That PZ would feel all that bad about slicing and dicing Sarah Dillon seems a stretch to me. I mean, if he was brave enough to be logical all the way through. But I freely acknowledge that he isn’t.

  21. And of COURSE the Nazis were anti-science; didn’t you bother reading any of their agenda and programs before you made such an ignorant statement?

    Hitler was fanatically anti-Darwinian; he explicitly rejected evolution. He ordered government-employed scientists to discover facts to fit his preordained conclusions (exactly what the Discovery Institute does, appropriately enough). Every time scientific inquiry is subjected to political pressures, the result is anti-science.

    None of which has any bearing on the matter of abortion, obviously; it simply illustrates why the Nazi analogy is yet another shallow, irrational attempt to deflect the debate into emotional territory rather than face facts.

  22. And what are you raving about now? Please point to where Myers suggested that Sarah Dillon is not a person and deserves to be dismembered.

    And while you’re at it, please explain how such an argument “logically” follows from a simple observation that dead bodies are not, in fact, people.

    Logical. You keep using that word; do you understand what it means?

  23. “Then what’s your opinion of the emotion-charged arguments like “abortion stops a beating heart” and waving around pictures of dead fetuses as though we’re supposed to treat them like people?”

    I don’t understand how you got to this question from what I said.

    “Those are surely invalid arguments from a logical standpoint, yet the anti-choicers employ them all the time, 24/7… in fact, they seldom try to come up with anything else.”

    I don’t think any of you have any right to talk as though you know what constitutes a valid argument. Penelope can barely string a cogent thought across two sentences. How is waving a picture an argument at all? A car just drove past my house… another invalid argument! Pictures aren’t logical arguments.

    That said, invalid or valid, argument or not, if they are just meat, you really shouldn’t let it trouble you. What do you care? You should be standing next to them with your own sign of an aborted fetus with the words “JUST MEAT” emblazoned on it. If you think that would be a bad idea, you are discovering that what is being challenged is not one’s argument, but one’s humanity.

    That said, as someone who is active in the pro-life movement, I have to say that I’m frankly offended that you think bloody pictures are all the ‘anti-choicers’ have. That you are unaware of the vast amount of ‘logical’ material out there is amazing to me, but does perhaps speak to why some pro-lifers carry the pictures: their adversaries won’t bother to inform themselves, so something is better than nothing.

    My general feeling is that pictures are the last ditch tactic for a desensitized and dehumanized population. It’s all well and good to talk about slicing up people or ‘fetuses’ but its a different thing altogether to see it, and to do it. Many people find this last threshold difficult to cross… and the reason- the same reason PZ redacted the pictures- is that they call up inside something that rebels against the cold abstraction and rationalizations. They then get to wrestle with the plain issue: “If I think they’re only meat, then why should looking at them bother me?”

    That they bother you puts the lie to the ‘argument.’

  24. “And what are you raving about now? Please point to where Myers suggested that Sarah Dillon is not a person and deserves to be dismembered.”

    Why? I didn’t suggest that he did. Don’t lecture me on logic if you can’t even be literate.

    “And of COURSE the Nazis were anti-science; didn’t you bother reading any of their agenda and programs before you made such an ignorant statement?”

    Well, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, so I’m done here. I’ll leave you with this bit:

    Eugenics. When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. Tuberculosis, syphilis, that dread disease which cripples and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent children, epilepsy, and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science of being well born is called eugenics.

    —-
    If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried success fully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country.

    Are you telling me that this is not a scientific statement? Would you like to tell me which Nazi scientist said this? A smart guy like you won’t even have to google it.

  25. The pictures don’t bother me at all. (Why should they?) However, they DO bother the ignorant and emotionally vulnerable, tricking them into thinking they’ve just encountered a valid and powerful argument when they haven’t. And those fools vote, which in turn DOES bother me.

    I notice that you won’t admit the pictures to be an invalid argument, and indeed turn to them again instead of providing something more substantive. This failure on your part is quite telling for someone who apparently prides himself on logic.

  26. Pictures aren’t arguments at all, dude. Seriously, this isn’t about priding oneself on logic. If you think a picture is an argument there is no help for you. We can only wish that your job does not involve operating heavy machinery.

  27. You attempted (badly) to argue that Myers was somehow “irrational” because he failed to treat a raving lunatic with proper respect… which, according to you, is tantamount to slicing and dicing them to death.

    If that’s NOT your feeble attempt at an argument, then you need to make your case against Myers more clearly. How is treating an idiot with disrespect in any way comparable to dehumanizing OR killing them?

  28. Look, I just made an argument! http://www.public-domain-image.com/animals/dog/slides/dogs-beagles.jpg

    I didn’t do any of the things you just said, so I’m not going to defend them. You should just go back and re-read what I actually did say, and this time pay attention to the words. All of them.

    Toodles.

    Another argument: http://www.tgdaily.com/sites/default/files/stock/450teaser/obama.jpg

  29. @Penelope, It would be great if you could remain consistent in the span of just 2 sentences. First, ‘meat’ isn’t anymore inaccurate then ‘fetus’ or ‘embryo.’ A split second later, you prefer these words because, well, that’s what they actually ARE.

    If you think that they are just meat, that’s fine. Just be logically consistent and admit that we are all just meat. And if you think this is the case, then you shouldn’t be afraid of the pictures of the meat sliced and diced. PZ shouldn’t have redacted them. If anything, he should have been the first to happily make them available.

    Would you like me to send you some pictures of meat, Penelope? No? Why not? What’s the big deal?

    Read it again. I was perfectly consistent. Here, a quote for your convenience:
    “Just meat” isn’t any more inaccurate than “baby” or “unborn child” when referring to an embryo or foetus.

    If you are confused by my sentence structure:
    “Meat”, “baby”, “unborn child”: inaccurate
    “embryo”, “fetus”: accurate

    I don’t think emotionally loaded terms are particularly useful for either side of the debate, so I prefer the latter.

    Savvy?

    Regardless of word choice, I, too, am pretty unfazed by pictures of aborted fetuses. I’ve been pointed towards many in debates such as this. Show me some more if you want, but don’t expect a big reaction.
    I’m not a biologist and lack PZ’s dissection credentials, but gross-out-tactics/emotional blackmail does not work particularly well on me – I /do/ know what abortions and dead fetuses look like, I do know that they aren’t pretty, but I’m certainly not afraid to see them.

    I don’t need to “dehumanise” fetuses or distance myself from the gory details to be able to fully support women’s right to have a legal abortion if they need it. Nobody should be forced to be a life support system for nine months.
    And while, technically, I’m pretty convinced we are all meat and bones (as in “no incorporeal soul”), I still maintain there is a huge ethical difference between a grown human and a fetus. You may not agree with me here, but don’t tell me that pro-choice-people can’t (or don’t) make that distinction.

  30. Apologies for the sketchy grammar. I had to step out and didn’t proofread before posting.

  31. Alright, now I get what you were trying to do. Penelope. Thanks for the clarification.

    But you still don’t seem to be of one mind on the matter. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that ‘meat’ is also inaccurate- just as ‘baby’ and ‘unborn child’ are inaccurate. Ok. Then you go on and say that you are convinced that technically, we are in fact, all of us, just ‘meat and bones’? It sounds very much like you think that ‘meat’ is accurate, after all. Meat is ‘accurate’ but emotional. Is that it? Are ‘unborn child’ and ‘baby’ also accurate… but emotional? Is that what you are trying to say, ultimately?

    I’m really not sure that stripping ’emotion’ out makes things better. We are not just abstractions. We are humans, and emotion is part of what makes us human. No? So what if we started talking about whether or not we should start massacring humans? “Humans” also is an emotionally charged word. So, let’s just kill off the homo sapiens then. Will you then say, Well, alright, then. When you put it like that. 😉

    The fact that you think such images aren’t pretty says it all. Just as PZ indicated that he wasn’t afraid of it but refused to actually link to them, you aren’t willing to stand by your assessment that it’s ‘technically’ just ‘meat’. They are only ‘gross-out-tactics/emotional blackmail’ because in your humanity you know perfectly well what is going on. No argument necessary.

    You misunderstand me by saying ‘don’t tell me that pro-choice-meat- don’t make that distinction.’ (my paraphrase). I never said you didn’t. It is obvious that you do. That’s not the point. The question is whether or not the distinction is rational and logically consistent. It isn’t.

    Ethics are merely a human construct- just as the decision to label stages of human development… embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, juvenile, adolescent, adult, etc. These are just arbitrary labels. If you were consistent, you’d go as far as Peter Singer goes and declare that even a born child (can I use the word ‘child’ or is that just emotional blackmail?) isn’t automatically a person. So, in point of fact, you could kill it. I believe he says that up to 2 years old is fair game.

    When people (‘people’ being another one of those emotionally charged words) get in the business of determining what stages of human development a human is a ‘person’ the logical consequences are obvious to anyone brave enough to admit them. Sorry.

    BTW, nobody says a woman should be forced to be a life support system for nine months.

    Is anyone making me be a life support system for any length of time? Of course not. Certainly, if I suddenly wake up and find myself hooked up to some other person, entirely against my will and consent, I have every right to protest. I might even have the right to disconnect that person. But if I walk into a room and, by my actions and behavior and choice, put someone into a situation where they will die unless they are hooked up to life support to me, and then disconnect them, I am guilty of murder. See what I mean? No one should be forced to be a life support system for any length of time, and no one is suggesting anything of the sort. When however you, by exercising your free choice, hook someone up to you for life support against their will and choice, it is an entirely different matter indeed. Oh yes. Very different.

    And… wouldn’t you say that ‘hook someone up to a life support system’ is an emotionally charged way of putting it? 😉

  32. But if I walk into a room and, by my actions and behavior and choice, put someone into a situation where they will die unless they are hooked up to life support to me, and then disconnect them, I am guilty of murder.

    In other words, this is all about slut-shaming. It’s the fault of those loose women for getting themselves pregnant. Since pregnancy doesn’t make distinction between sperm donors or the circumstances of conception, then one can presume that you don’t either. So you don’t care if someone in a consensual relationship has done everything in their power to avoid becoming pregnant by using contraception (in fact, there are numerous opponents of abortion who disapprove of conception on religious grounds) or if they’ve become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. After all, they probably did something to deserve it too. Wore something provocative or was a Nabokovian “nymphet” just begging to be seduced, am I right?

  33. P.S. Since the women who “disconnect” their fetuses are guilty of murder, what criminal penalties should be applied to them? 10 years? 20 years? Life without the possibility of parole? The death penalty?

  34. I’d normally suggest going back to grade school to refresh one’s self with basic reading. But if one quotes “by my actions and behavior and choice”, and still goes off in a frothing rant about supporting rape or nonconsent or such, I’m afraid we’ve gone past the point where education can be of any help, and need to call the boys with the straight-jackets.

  35. I’d normally suggest going back to grade school to refresh one’s self with basic reading. But if one quotes “by my actions and behavior and choice”, and still goes off in a frothing rant about supporting rape or nonconsent or such, I’m afraid we’ve gone past the point where education can be of any help, and need to call the boys with the straight-jackets.

    If you think that admitting yourself to a mental facility is the right thing to do, then I will not stand in your way. After all, it is you who is demonstrating a massive failure of reading comprehension by claiming that I was talking about “supporting” any of the the things I mentioned, when I was simply saying that to be perfectly consistent here requires being indifferent to the myriad ways a woman (or a pubescent girl) can become pregnant. If abortion is “murder”, then it is murder regardless of the circumstances of conception.

    Are you claiming that you would have them do something different if the circumstances were one of rape or incest? What about the failure of contraceptive methods that I also alluded to above? Or how about financial reasons which make bringing a baby to term and raising it impracticable? Medical reasons which necessitate termination of the fetus? I can adduce dozens of well-grounded reasons for getting an abortion which describe the vast majority of the abortions people get. Contrary to the assumptions of (often male) anti-choicers, this is not a medical procedure that is conducted on a whim.

  36. LOL Like I said before (if rather indirectly). You’re insane.

    Anyone whose passed 4th grade reading can see you’re simply making up what is meant regardless of what’s actually being said. Because like Anthony said, you think you know what’s REALLY meant no matter what one says.

    As for your questions, with the exception of perhaps rape or medical risks, most of everything you ask can be avoided by one simple solution – don’t have sex.

    I’ll say it again since you seem to have so much trouble – With the exception of rape or medical complications, everything you ask can be avoided by the simple solution – don’t have sex. Shocking concept, isn’t it?

    Having children is a very real and obvious consequence of sex, no matter if one tries to prevent it or not. As such if people willfully engages (again just for you – WILLFULLY ENGAGES) in the act that produces children as a consequence, then it’s rather obvious they better be prepared for the consequences before engaging such acts. If not, then don’t do it. You don’t get to walk away from a car crash you caused by simply saying “I didn’t mean to.”

    It’s really just that simple. And as a result most of your “well-grounded reasons” are gone and whatever may be left seems to be reduced to probably what barely amounts to 5% of all abortions in this country (if that).

  37. As for your questions, with the exception of perhaps rape or medical risks, most of everything you ask can be avoided by one simple solution – don’t have sex.

    Peachy. But you have not dealt with the substance of the message I was responding to, which is that if abortion is “murder”, then that remains true regardless of the circumstances of conception. Your own response is thus rendered completely irrelevant.

    Not to mention, it’s a bizarre red herring. What does it matter if there is an allegedly “simple solution” to avoiding pregnancy? How does the presence of other solutions to pregnancy prevention make abortion a wrong?

    You liken pregnancy to a car crash. But do you accept the logic that because of the risk of a traffic accident one should never drive? If you’re like the majority of Americans over the age of 16, the answer to that is “no”. You accept that there’s a non-zero risk of a traffic accident every time you get in your vehicle, and you deal with accidents as they occur by other means than total vehicular abstention. So, by the lights of your analogy, you’d have to be a hypocrite to condemn women who opt for abortion once the “accident” happens.

    The ‘argument’ you advanced, such as it is, is entirely rooted in slut-shaming. That damned loose woman should be forced to carry a child to term as a consequence of opening up her legs. Maybe that will teach her to keep ’em crossed next time. It’s wantonly cruel, puritanical, and devalues the woman to the point where she is to be a passive incubator for a bundle of cells with no more capacity for personhood than a slime mold.

  38. “But you have not dealt with the substance of the message I was responding to, which is that if abortion is “murder”, then that remains true regardless of the circumstances of conception.”

    *snort* That’s like saying killing any human being at any stage of age is “murder” regardless of circumstances. Rather obviously that’s not the case, as “murder” is called “murder” precisely because it’s killing only under particular circumstances rather than all circumstances.

    “But do you accept the logic that because of the risk of a traffic accident one should never drive?”

    Only the logic of never drive if you’re not prepared for that risk. Or to accept any responsibility. As such if you’re prepared to have sex, you better also be prepared to take responsibility for the obvious consequences. That’s why the analogy works – abortion is the exact same as someone trying to walk away from a car accident they helped cause without accepting any responsibility. Which is indeed what motivates the vast majority of abortion on demand.

    “The ‘argument’ you advanced, such as it is, is entirely rooted in slut-shaming.”

    LOL And this is why you are insane. As you obviously can’t point to anything I’ve said that puts all responsibility on the mother’s shoulders alone or even mentions marital status. Go ahead and try to find a quote. I dare you.

    In actuality (if your at all interested in the truth) it’s the exact same even for married couples who just don’t want a kid, and the father shares equally in the responsibility. As it DOES take two to tango. 😉

  39. *snort* That’s like saying killing any human being at any stage of age is “murder” regardless of circumstances. Rather obviously that’s not the case, as “murder” is called “murder” precisely because it’s killing only under particular circumstances rather than all circumstances.

    Cool. I’m glad to see you agree with me that it’s silly to label abortion as “murder”.

    As such if you’re prepared to have sex, you better also be prepared to take responsibility for the obvious consequences.

    Now here’s where I get lost. Please forgive me if I’m not quite up to your exalted standards of reasoning, but here goes:

    A man and a woman have sex. Potential consequence: pregnancy. Pregnant woman gets an abortion. Consequence: she’s not pregnant anymore. So how is that not a method of dealing with the consequences of having sex?

    Which is indeed what motivates the vast majority of abortion on demand.

    [citation needed]

    LOL And this is why you are insane. As you obviously can’t point to anything I’ve said that puts all responsibility on the mother’s shoulders alone

    Denying a woman her right to an abortion is putting the responsibility on the mother’s shoulders. After all, she’s the one who has to incubate the fetus in this scenario, unless you know of some innovative medical development that I do not.

    or even mentions marital status.

    Patriarchy doesn’t make distinctions of marital status when it labels women as “sluts”. To the patriarchy, all women are either whores or Madonnas solely on the basis of their sexual desire, not on whether they’re married or not. Married women with perfectly natural sexual impulses are thus still regarded as “sluts” to be shamed when they make the decision to—*gasp*!—enjoy sex without it leading to procreation.

  40. “Cool. I’m glad to see you agree with me that it’s silly to label abortion as “murder”.”

    Now you’re not even trying to hide the fact that your not paying attention, are you? I could probably say ‘salmon’ and you’d construe that to mean I’m anti-semitic. Perhaps not every circumstance of abortion is murder, but for the vast majority of circumstances and motives, it really is nothing less.

    “A man and a woman have sex. Potential consequence: pregnancy. Pregnant woman gets an abortion. Consequence: she’s not pregnant anymore. So how is that not a method of dealing with the consequences of having sex?”

    About as valid as running away from a car crash, or more accurately in the case of abortion, killing the other party you crashed into is a “method of dealing with the consequences”. They’re indeed “methods”, but they are in no way valid, right, or sane.

    “Denying a woman her right to an abortion is putting the responsibility on the mother’s shoulders.”

    So that would be a “no” to the challenge of finding an actual quote then?

    I don’t know if you’d notice for the past 4 thousand years of written history, but the father has some responsibility in supporting both. And the responsibility comes from ‘parenthood’ which doesn’t end when the unborn becomes born. Under your reasoning killing children up to puberty would be valid (heck there’s even MORE care and responsibility needed when children turn 2 years old).

    “Patriarchy doesn’t make distinctions of marital status when it labels women as “sluts”.”

    Yet it’s interesting how you seem to be the only one throwing the word around so much. I’d say your veiw of women seems far more disparaging than anyone elses here.

  41. Now you’re not even trying to hide the fact that your not paying attention, are you? I could probably say ‘salmon’ and you’d construe that to mean I’m anti-semitic. Perhaps not every circumstance of abortion is murder, but for the vast majority of circumstances and motives, it really is nothing less.

    Now, could you explain how the circumstance of an abortion—a legal procedure—can possibly be a murder, which is defined as an “unlawful killing”?

    Furthermore, would you care to answer the question I posed above? If abortion is murder, then what should the sentence be on the women who have an abortion? 10 years? 20 years? Life without parole? The death penalty?

    They’re indeed “methods”, but they are in no way valid, right, or sane.

    So abortion is, conversely, “invalid”, “wrong”, and “insane”. Care to share your reasoning with the rest of us, or are you content to leave it at the level of argument by assertion, much like your claim about the reasons for the “vast majority” of abortions?

    I don’t know if you’d notice for the past 4 thousand years of written history, but the father has some responsibility in supporting both.

    Actually, what I notice is that there are numerous cases of fathers abandoning their children and leaving the women to pick up the slack. Euripides’ Medea is one of the classic stories. Even today, the only responsibility the law recognizes with respect to fatherhood is that of providing child support, which is strictly a financial arrangement. There is no requirement that the father be present to clean up after the child when it spits up, nurse a skinned knee, drive the kid to school, all of which the patriarchal system asserts is the woman’s domain. So yes, you are imposing a far greater burden on the woman than you are on the man. This is why anti-choicers are patriarchal and sexist. And even in the realm of pure finance, there aren’t enough resources to go after the deadbeat dads now who shirk their responsibility to pay child support. How are you going to make sure that this broken system can handle an influx of millions of new child support cases per year? And who’s going to pay the lawyers’ fees and court costs for these women whom you are forcing to be incubators to go seek child support?

    Under your reasoning killing children up to puberty would be valid (heck there’s even MORE care and responsibility needed when children turn 2 years old).

    Speaking of “insane”, the only person babbling on about “responsibility” is you. I reject the whole premise that getting pregnant entails any “responsibility” to bring the fetus to term.

    Yet it’s interesting how you seem to be the only one throwing the word around so much.

    Hardly interesting at all. The anti-choicers like to be politic and hide their contempt for women under a pile of insincere verbiage like “responsibility”. It’s only people like me, who do not begrudge women their personhood or their sexuality that can be so blunt about the BS your lot spews.

  42. “Now, could you explain how the circumstance of an abortion—a legal procedure—can possibly be a murder, which is defined as an “unlawful killing”?”

    Same way the Nazis’ and Communist Russia’s various acts of genocide were still murder despite being perfectly “legal”. There is indeed a Law above mankind.

    “Furthermore, would you care to answer the question I posed above? If abortion is murder, then what should the sentence be on the women who have an abortion? 10 years? 20 years? Life without parole? The death penalty?”

    I’d say it’d be reasonable to have the same sentence we employ for killing any child what with there being little difference.

    “So abortion is, conversely, “invalid”, “wrong”, and “insane”. Care to share your reasoning with the rest of us, or are you content to leave it at the level of argument by assertion, much like your claim about the reasons for the “vast majority” of abortions?”

    Or your assertions about “slut-shaming”? If you’ll notice what I ACTUALLY said it was that not all “methods of dealing with consequences” are valid, right, or sane. With abortion neither being valid or right, in that 9/10 times it’s a “method” of avoiding or running away from the consequences and responsibility, instead of owning up to one’s choices.

    “Actually, what I notice is that there are numerous cases of fathers abandoning their children and leaving the women to pick up the slack.”

    And with the rate of abortion we’re seeing numerous cases of women abandoning their responsibility to their offspring. By killing them. As such, pointing to acts of abandoning responsibility doesn’t really invalidate the fact that both the mother and father do indeed have a responsibility as parents. In fact, it just confirms it further.

    “It’s only people like me, who do not begrudge women their personhood or their sexuality that can be so blunt about the BS your lot spews.”

    In other words you just confirm the assesments about you not even caring what is actually being said and are practically making things up whole-cloth. Ah, to be young and full of hate.

  43. Same way the Nazis’ and Communist Russia’s various acts of genocide were still murder despite being perfectly “legal”. There is indeed a Law above mankind.

    [citation needed]

    I’d be very interested if you can a) show me this “Law above mankind”, b) demonstrate that it says anything about abortion, and c) explain why I should care. After all, if it’s a “Law above mankind”, then it seems as if it would be utterly irrelevant from a human perspective.

    Your mention of the Nazis is an interesting one, because the Nuremberg Trials were sometimes criticized as being “victors’ justice”. In other words, there’s nothing transcendent about it at all. It was simply a way of taking the focus off of Allied war crimes (nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, firebombing numerous cities in Japan and Germany, etc.) and retroactively framing the war effort in terms of moral intent. Curtis LeMay, who ordered the firebombing of Japan, remarked that if the war had turned out differently, he would have been the one standing trial on war crimes charges.

    I’d say it’d be reasonable to have the same sentence we employ for killing any child what with there being little difference.

    LMAO! This is truly one of the best demonstrations that the people who devalue human life are not the pro-choicers, but the anti-choicers. Putting a child on a level with a blastocyst? Are you kidding?!

    Allow me to demonstrate the difference:
    Blastocyst

    Child

    You may note more than a slight difference.

    And with the rate of abortion we’re seeing numerous cases of women abandoning their responsibility to their offspring.

    Would you care to demonstrate that women have a responsibility to act as passive incubators for their fetuses? This is the case I’ve been asking you to make all along.

    In other words you just confirm the assesments about you not even caring what is actually being said and are practically making things up whole-cloth. Ah, to be young and full of hate.

    Well, you’ve got me on not caring what you have to say, because what you have to say basically seems to boil down to a lot of assertions that are neither enlightening or interesting. But I’m not that young, and I’m not particularly full of hate for you. Change “hate” to “bemusement” and you’ve got a better picture of what I think.

  44. Sorry to interrupt, but:

    “I’d say it’d be reasonable to have the same sentence we employ for killing any child what with there being little difference.”

    EB, are you suggesting the death penalty for women who have an abortion?

  45. I just now see that some of my own replies, including some devastating blows to some of Copyleft’s statements 😉 were marked by spam by my own blogging software. It is useless to try to post them now. My apologies to Copyleft for giving the appearance of not replying.

  46. “c) explain why I should care.”

    Well just remember when the State revokes most of your rights to the point where you can be legally ‘aborted’, you won’t have any reason to object to it.

    “LMAO! This is truly one of the best demonstrations that the people who devalue human life are not the pro-choicers, but the anti-choicers. Putting a child on a level with a blastocyst? Are you kidding?!”

    Actually holding a blastocyst as a full human being is preety much holding the value of human life at a rather consistent and stable level. You can say [u]adolescent[/u] or [u]adult[/u] having some differences to a [u]child[/u]. None of which means it’s suddenly fair game to kill children as any differences you can sight are arbitrary physicalities and are irrelevant to being a human being. Unless you think certain bodily traits gives one the right to treat others as less than human. You wouldn’t happen to be a blond with blue eyes, would you? 😉

    “Would you care to demonstrate that women have a responsibility to act as passive incubators for their fetuses? This is the case I’ve been asking you to make all along.”

    Demonstrate? I honestly don’t believe I need to. Do I need to demonstrate that a women has a responsibility to act as a caretaker for their 5 year old child as well, for you to concede a responsibility exists there? If not, then I clearly don’t for the case of preganancy since it’s ultimately the exact same thing – a living being one helped create being dependant on the parent’s care and providence.

    “Well, you’ve got me on not caring what you have to say, because what you have to say basically seems to boil down to a lot of assertions that are neither enlightening or interesting.”

    The only thing worse than a hypocrit is an oblivious hypocrit.

  47. EB, sorry, but this is an important point: Are you advocating the death penalty for women who have an abortion?

  48. No, I’d throw in the doctor too.

    I’m advocating whatever sentence is already employed for murdering children as clearly from the pro-life perspective there’s no distinction and thus is completely consistent. Whether or not that’s the death penality per se may depend on a State-by-State basis. So just look it up where ever you live.

    How exactly was that not clear the first time?

    And before you jump to wild conclusions that I’m talking about all circumstances of abortion, I’ll be happy to grant for the purpose of legality exceptions for cases of rape or real medical complications and such, just like there are extenuating circumstances to clear-cut murder. But yeah, it would effectively kill abortion-on-demand (pun totally intended).

  49. Who else are you going to “throw in”? The nurse assisting the doctor? The receptionist in the clinic? The security guard? The architect who designed the clinic? The local councillors who approved the building of the clinic? They’re all accessories to murder, right? It is exactly the same as if they had put up a building with the intention of bringing people to it and shooting them dead, isn’t it?

    EB, you stupid, stupid, hate-filled person, I sincerely hope your views remain in the lunatic fringe where they belong.

  50. Whoever else falls into the catagory of ‘conspiracy to commit murder’. Look it up.

    “EB, you stupid, stupid, hate-filled person, I sincerely hope your views remain in the lunatic fringe where they belong.”

    Comming from you that’s a hilariously ironic statment Stath. And by that same token I guess holding someone as criminally responsible for killing a 2-year old or a Jew is ‘a hate-filled lunatic’. Though your ignorance-fueled selective descrimination is more patheticly sad than funny.

  51. No, the hate is your desire for someone to be given the death penalty for not sharing your religious views – because make no mistake, your entire objection to abortion is rooted purely and exclusively in your religious fundamentalism. You literally want to kill those who disagree with you.

  52. “No, the hate is your desire for someone to be given the death penalty for not sharing your religious views…”

    Actually it’s more my love of all human beings that have the same basic rights of life and liberty, and those who violate those rights should be held accountable – which is indeed driven by my religious views I’m not ashamed to say.

    “…because make no mistake, your entire objection to abortion is rooted purely and exclusively in your religious fundamentalism. You literally want to kill those who disagree with you.”

    No, I want those who kill innocent human beings to be punished. True all human and civil rights are rooted in my religious views, while yours really doesn’t have any reason to respect other’s value and dignity (as it doesn’t really acknowledge any value or diginity exists). But you really are showing your typical lunacy here Stath, as you really can’t quote anything I’ve said that remotely sounds like ‘Rawwr kill all pro-choicers and pro-abortionists.’ But like always you don’t care what is actually said since you think you know what’s “really meant”.

  53. Unfortunately, EB, your religious views came from books written by men, not gods. And where did all those values come from? Good boy! The dudes who made it all up! So your so called religious values are actually HUMAN values! Maybe that’s why you can’t produce a shred of evidence to even remotely suggest that Atheists behave any worse than Fundies like yourself (in fact, Atheists behave better) – we have our own values! Who’d a thunk it, huh?

    Let’s take the Ten Commandments for example, shall we? Actually there are only six, since the first four are your god acting, well, a bit like a little bitch, I’m afraid. But the last six are accepted by most good people as a pretty good start no matter what their religious or nonreligious stance is. Why is that? Because they are basic HUMAN values. Nothing to do with Mr. Bitchy, who is too busy giving top billing to not seeing any other gods and not having any blow-up gods instead of Thou Shall Not Kill which is number 5 on the chart.

  54. Blah, blah, blah.

    You honestly think your hate-filled closed-minded atheistic ranting has any effect on me whatsoever? Not that I expect anything else from you.

    Still doesn’t change the fact that under your atheism human life (including yours) has as much significance as the ants we step on. What’s even more hypocritical is your appeal to something like “good” when you don’t even have a standard to determine what “good” is. It’s just what you personally ‘like’, which no one need care.

    As such you have no reason to complain if those who have an abortion should be held to the death penality, or if the society ever brings it’s foot down on you. We’re all just ‘bags of randomly thrown together water and meat’, right? 😉

  55. Under my Atheism human life is a lot more precious than someone who thinks he is going to have eternal life can possibly imagine, so save your pathetic insect comparisons for your Bible study class.

    You don’t get the fact that your standards aren’t really from a god, they are from a person, just like mine are. It’s not what I personally like, it’s what people generally like. Everybody should care and most people do, even if they don’t need a scary, pretend bogeyman to make them care. You need Mr. Bitchy to make you behave, I don’t – yet you have no problem getting on a high horse about my supposed amorality.

    Your equally tiresome water and meat thing needs to be retired too – just because I’m water and meat doesn’t mean I think that life has no value. Just because my kids are water and meat doesn’t mean I love mine less than you love yours.

  56. “Under my Atheism human life is a lot more precious than someone who thinks he is going to have eternal life can possibly imagine, so save your pathetic insect comparisons for your Bible study class.”

    And what exactly makes human life so precious in an uncaring meaningless universe with no intended purpose to human being’s existence? Which is indeed the kind of universe Atheism espouses. Because YOU say so? Pffff.

    “You don’t get the fact that your standards aren’t really from a god, they are from a person, just like mine are.”

    If so then they are entirely meaningless. And as such one can have the standard that abortion is murder and those who commit it should be sentenced to death. And thus would be highly hypocritical for you to criticize that standard as it’s essentially is no different than yours – personal opinion. Seems like a lose-lose situation for you no matter how you slice it. 😉

    “Everybody should care and most people do, even if they don’t need a scary, pretend bogeyman to make them care. You need Mr. Bitchy to make you behave, I don’t – yet you have no problem getting on a high horse about my supposed amorality.”

    More like your contradicting attitude to appeal to some higher standard of ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’, yet deny the basis needed for that standard to even exist, let alone have any obligatory power.

    “Your equally tiresome water and meat thing needs to be retired too – just because I’m water and meat doesn’t mean I think that life has no value. Just because my kids are water and meat doesn’t mean I love mine less than you love yours.”

    The problem seems to be you don’t understand the fact that what you personally think just doesn’t matter. If water and meat is all you acknowledge you and your kids are than you and they objectively have no value no matter what you think. Period. Even your ‘love’ is just reduced to meaningless chemical reactions.

    Thus any sense of ‘value’ is just your meaningless opinion, and has no more relevance than a rat believing it’s life has value. It still gets exterminated, the universe still doesn’t care, and under Atheism humans are still essentially no different.

    So once again, you’re just another case of atheists trying to have their cake and eat it too in denying God’s existence, yet still appealing to principles that are exclusively on the theistic side of the fence (and thus evidence for Gods existence).

  57. I give up. The Bible is a creation of man, EB, and that is where your “exclusively theistic” principles actually come from. Unfortunately, the men who made up the Bible lived in primitive times and had no clue how the world worked (which is why the Bible, despite being the “Word of God”, never once revealed any information that was not already known at the time it was written). Your blind adherence to this primitive doctrine leads to bigotry, hatred and a hundred different kinds of stupid behavior.

    There is no need in modern society for the misogyny, homophobia and sectarianism that you find so precious, nor is there a place for the supernatural voodoo and superstition you so love to practice. The Bible is irrelevant.

    You may now have the last word.

  58. “The Bible is a creation of man, EB, and that is where your “exclusively theistic” principles actually come from.”

    No, the Bible is enspired by God. See? I can make assertions too.

    Obviously my simply asserting it means little to you (not that actual proof would diswayed you), so why you think simply asserting YOUR predictable beliefs is going to sway me even an iota, is mind-boggling.

    “You may now have the last word.”

    How gracious of you. Of course none of this takes away from the fact that mindless assertion is all you have to argue with, since you’ve obviously avoided responding to any of the criticisms leveled on atheism. You’re the classic example of atheists whose beliefs stem from #1 of SJ’s 5 Challenges to Christianity Apologetics Can’t Answer.

  59. EB, I said “have the last word”, not “lie through your teeth and I won’t respond”. I believe I answered all of your criticisms of atheism. Feel free to point out the ones I didn’t respond to and I will.

  60. “EB, I said “have the last word”, not “lie through your teeth and I won’t respond”. I believe I answered all of your criticisms of atheism. Feel free to point out the ones I didn’t respond to and I will.”

    In which any response isn’t the last word then? Not that your credibility wasn’t at rock bottom already. Just don’t make claims you know you won’t keep. Nor is the same tired assertions of ‘nO gawd xsits! U stoopid! ROFL’ would I call ‘answering’. 😉

  61. Then perhaps instead of saying I avoided responding you should have said “your responses did not please me”.

  62. Except such responses are indeed avoiding responding to the criticisms directly. It’s what in debating terms is called a ‘dodge’. SO again you don’t actually address any criticisms. Just continue to make mindlessly repeated assertions that are neither surprising nor significant.

  63. I was just giving you my viewpoint – if I don’t believe in God then I must believe that all the stuff in the Bible was made up by humans. If I believe that, then what you refer to as Biblical values are actually just human values. That is my opinion. I don’t think it’s a mindless assetion and it is certainly no less valid than your opinion. That’s all your religious fundamentalism is – an opinion.

  64. Like I didn’t know what your view point was already. Obviously if you believe God doesn’t exist you’ll believe the Bible is entirely man-made. Sadly for you that has little to nothing to do with anything being discussed. And in truth just makes your criticisms of…well…anything pointless and hypocritical since if it’s just humans making the decision that women can have abortions than it’s humans making the decision that women can’t and can be punished for doing so…or can kill Jews, or own other humans as property, etc. It’s all just human opinion.

    So once again everything is equal (and meaningless) under atheism. Which is the point you are avoiding.

  65. Yes, it is all just human opinion – your opinion is that women should face the death penalty for having an abortion. My opinion is different.

    Your opinion is that life has no meaning unless you believe every word of a group of primitive writings. My opinion is different.

    Your opinion, I presume, is that your belief in God isn’t just an opinion. My opinion is different.

    Doesn’t the word “opinion” sound funny when you say it over and over?

    Anyway, you are becoming even more repetitive than I am. I think we’re done unless you have something different to say.

  66. “Yes, it is all just human opinion – your opinion is that women should face the death penalty for having an abortion. My opinion is different.”

    No, it’s in actuality not just opinion. That’s simply all it just reduces to under atheism. Which means it’s as legitimate as a favorite flavour of food.

    “Your opinion is that life has no meaning unless you believe every word of a group of primitive writings. My opinion is different.”

    No, that’s actually a simple fact that any meaning or purpose can only be imparted by a Higher Authority. Otherwise it’s just self-serving delusion. No opinion about that.

    “Your opinion, I presume, is that your belief in God isn’t just an opinion. My opinion is different.”

    Thankfully, I know that when it comes down to it pure opinion is all you have in place of actual facts or proof. 😉

    “Anyway, you are becoming even more repetitive than I am. I think we’re done unless you have something different to say.”

    Heh. Like you haven’t said THAT before.

  67. “No, that’s actually a simple fact that any meaning or purpose can only be imparted by a Higher Authority.”

    Wow, I thought I was the one making tired assertions!

  68. You are. If meaning and purpose is only self-appointed then it’s entirely meaningless and delusional. I’m sure the insect or rat can say it’s life has meaning or purpose because it simply decides it does. Still wouldn’t stop them from being exterminated.

  69. Just how does your faith – sorry, your opinion – give your life meaning or purpose that mine does not have?

  70. Opinion or faith by itself doesn’t. Which is the point. It has to come from a personal Being greater than yourself for it to be anything other than delusion, or meaningless chemical reasctions. Otherwise you’re just a speck of dust, whose life or death didn’t matter millions of years before now it wont million years after.

  71. I’ll try again, then. How does a “personal Being greater than yourself” give your life more meaning and purpose than mine?

    And, are you saying your life mattered millions of years ago and will matter millions of years from now? Some ego you got there. And I thought the part where you were dishing out the death penalty to those who disagree with you was egotistical.

    Finally, I thought you kooks didn’t believe the world existed millions of years ago – don’t you think the world is a few hundred years old, or something equally ridiculous? Saying that your life mattered millions of years ago becomes even more absurd if that is one of your preposterous beliefs.

  72. Everyone all good with abortion in cases of adultery in addition to rape and medical conditions, right? I mean, that is in the Bible after all (unlike rape and medical conditions).

    Also, the Bible demands a different (much much less, as in money vs. death penalty) punishment for abortion vs. murder. Since we are apparently throwing out that God-inspired rule, why are we hanging on to the “God says abortion is really bad” one that actually, as far as the Bible is concerned, He didn’t say?

    Can’t be because even people who think they are following God’s rules pretty much make them up as they go along regardless of whether God or man wrote the Bible, can it?

  73. Care to share the Bible references to the passages you speak of so that we can analyze them? That would be much more constructive then just making a pot shot. What happens if your Bible references say no such thing? Do you drop your charge that ‘people are just making up rules as they go along’? I’d be interested to find out.

  74. “How does a “personal Being greater than yourself” give your life more meaning and purpose than mine?”

    Because if we’re specificly created, then we are obviously created with a specific intention. Which means we have purpose and meaning. Where as under your beliefs if our existence has no intention behind it due to existing by pure whimsical chance, then it’s no more meaningful than leaves randomly thrown in the wind.

    “And I thought the part where you were dishing out the death penalty to those who disagree with you was egotistical.”

    I see you’re sticking to your strawman to the very end. As far as ego goes I’d say the attitude of ‘I’m randomly thrown together junk, but I declare myself god of my own life.’ that atheists like you hold beats every other belief on the planet in the egotistical contest. Not surprising since that’s what primarily drives atheism.

    “Finally, I thought you kooks didn’t believe the world existed millions of years ago – don’t you think the world is a few hundred years old, or something equally ridiculous?”

    But you do. Which is why I addressed the criticism as opperating under your own belief system. Apparently you’re just proving your utter failure in basic reading skills to the point where you can’t tell I’m speaking from YOUR beliefs as being hypothetically true.

    And I still notice you’re dodging the criticisms.

  75. “Because if we’re specificly created, then we are obviously created with a specific intention. Which means we have purpose and meaning”

    What specific intention, and in what way does that specific intention give you purpose and meaning?

    “But you do. Which is why I addressed the criticism as opperating under your own belief system. Apparently you’re just proving your utter failure in basic reading skills to the point where you can’t tell I’m speaking from YOUR beliefs as being hypothetically true.”

    Not sure what on earth you are gabbling about there, but I suspect you are just trying to get out of a tight spot.

    “And I still notice you’re dodging the criticisms.”

    I already asked you to specify the criticisms but you did not. I would be happy to respond if you want to specify them now. Please be direct and easy to understand – as you know, my reading skills are almost as bad as your spelling skills.

  76. “What specific intention, and in what way does that specific intention give you purpose and meaning?”

    Admittedly the specific purpose and such can only be revealed by the Creator. You just asked how is meaning and purpose able to exist at all under theism and not under atheism. So again, meaning and purpose (whatever they are) can only exist if we are intentionally created. If we’re just brought about by random chance then our existence is without any real meaning as it would be the same if we didn’t exist.

    “Please be direct and easy to understand – as you know, my reading skills are almost as bad as your spelling skills.”

    Pretty much everything I’ve said about atheism, where your only response is repeated assertions of ‘God doesn’t exist.’ Which is pretty much the entirety of our conversation. So you have a lot of rereading to do. 😉

  77. “Admittedly the specific purpose and such can only be revealed by the Creator.”

    Wait – you don’t know what the purpose even IS? It’s enough to be of the opinion that we are intentionally created? That is enough meaning and purpose for you?

    “Pretty much everything I’ve said about atheism..”

    I would not go back and read through your semi coherent bluster to pick out specifics even if it were possible to do so. But, for the third time, I would be happy to respond to your specific criticisms of Atheism if you would care to let me know what they are.

  78. “Wait – you don’t know what the purpose even IS? It’s enough to be of the opinion that we are intentionally created? That is enough meaning and purpose for you?”

    Thankfully it has been revealed in a series of documents. Perhaps you’ve heard of them. They’re called ‘the Bible’. And yes, it’s enough know one has been intentionally created to know some meaning and purpose exists AT ALL.

    “But, for the third time, I would be happy to respond to your specific criticisms of Atheism if you would care to let me know what they are.”

    Already have as everything I’ve said on atheism has been a specific criticism. You’ve responded by summing it all up to “semi coherent bluster.” Which is why, again, I can confidently say you’re dodging and avoiding them. Assuming you’re even paying attention at all. And that’s a BIG assumption with you Stath. 😉

  79. “Thankfully it has been revealed in a series of documents. Perhaps you’ve heard of them. They’re called ‘the Bible’”

    Is is a secret or are you going to tell us what this purpose is?

    “And yes, it’s enough know one has been intentionally created”

    You don’t “know” anything of the sort – in your opinion you were intentionally created, and if that’s enough for you you are VERY easy to please.

    “Already have as everything I’ve said on atheism has been a specific criticism. ”

    Ummm, semi coherent again there, EB.

    “I can confidently say you’re dodging and avoiding them”

    EB, the only dodging going on here is you dodging being specific about your criticisms of Atheism despite being asked three times to tell me what they are.

    Last try, and for the fourth time – what are your specific criticisms of Atheism? They should be on the tip of your tongue, I would have thought, and therefore very easy to jot down.

    P.S. As an aside, what is it with you Funderoos and answering questions? You, as a group, seem to find it completely impossible to answer the simplest of questions, while you, as a group, simultaneously claim to know all there is to know about everything. Fascinating, yet completely unsurprising.

  80. “Is is a secret or are you going to tell us what this purpose is?”

    It’s no secret, but I’m not going to tell you as it’s pretty much irrelevant to the issue. Just think of it as another reason to take SJ on his offer to send you a Bible and read it for yourself. 😉

    “You don’t “know” anything of the sort – in your opinion you were intentionally created, and if that’s enough for you you are VERY easy to please.”

    I do indeed KNOW with absolute certainty. You can’t seriously believe something more complex than a watch or computer can create itself by millions of unintelligent random chances, and honestly say that such reasoning isn’t more than a little irrational. At least not without kidding yourself.

    “EB, the only dodging going on here is you dodging being specific about your criticisms of Atheism despite being asked three times to tell me what they are.”

    And I’ve already said – reread basicly everything I’ve said (to you) as it’s all been very specific. You just keep flippantly disimiss everything, which is why it’s clear that you’re dodging.

    And I honestly don’t feel the need to repeat my criticisms over and over again when I have little doubt you won’t address anything anyway (as you haven’t so far).

    “Fascinating, yet completely unsurprising.”

    I chalk it up to you not really paying attention to what is actually said and largely making things up to fit your predetermined bias.

  81. I think that your refusal to answer the first question is because you know that if you actually write down this “purpose” it will look as utterly ridiculous as it actually is. I also think that your refusal to list your criticisms of Atheism is because you know that even your criticisms of Atheism are ridiculous. The addition of accusing me of dodging isn’t fooling anyone.

  82. You’re free to think whatever wholely false notion that you like. Doesn’t change the fact there is no meaning or purpose to existence under atheism (there’s one specific criticisim you’ve been avoiding right there), nor that you’ve dodged all the others made and are just too lazy and/or unwilling to take the time to reread a few posts.

  83. At last! I can’t speak for all Atheists, but my life derives meaning and purpose from the people and things that are dear to me and from the people I help in my job and in my daily life, among other things. Probably much the same as yourself – minus the part where a supreme being created you so you could worship it, or whatever total nonsense you have decided you need to give your life a little extra meaning but decided not to tell me despite being asked four times in case I ridiculed you for being ridiculous.

    Any other specific criticisms? Any details on your god’s purpose for you? I’m not afraid of the answers, unlike yourself – and please stop posting if you are set on avoiding the issues we are discussing, you are only showing how terribly weak you are.

  84. “At last! I can’t speak for all Atheists, but my life derives meaning and purpose from the people and things that are dear to me and from the people I help in my job and in my daily life, among other things.”

    In which case it’s all meaningless self-delusion under atheism and highly temporary. And in pure materialistic terms one can say they aren’t truly “dear”; only that you’re geneticly programed to think so.

    “Any other specific criticisms? Any details on your god’s purpose for you? I’m not afraid of the answers, unlike yourself – and please stop posting if you are set on avoiding the issues we are discussing, you are only showing how terribly weak you are.”

    heh. Says the guy whose been dodging everything thus far. Even your above comment about things dear to you is irrelevant to the issue – meaning and purpose existing under atheism/theism. All you’ve done is reassert something you’ve already said before.

    I’ll even ask again – What makes anything you’ve said have meaning or purpose in an uncaring universe where such things only existed by random chance? Simply because YOU say so? Pffft.

  85. “And in pure materialistic terms one can say they aren’t truly “dear”; only that you’re geneticly programed to think so.”

    In which case they are truly dear to me.

    “Says the guy whose been dodging everything thus far”

    Are you serious? Dodging is all you have done. I’ll answer any question you have. You won’t answer my questions because you can’t without sounding like the utter fool you are.

    “Simply because YOU say so? Pfft.”

    Is “simply because the Bible says so” any better? Please explain if it is and tell us precisely what the meaning and purpose of life is. Somehow I don’t think you will…

  86. “In which case they are truly dear to me.”

    In which case they’re as about as “dear” as a mouse and printer is to a CPU.

    “Are you serious? Dodging is all you have done. I’ll answer any question you have. You won’t answer my questions because you can’t without sounding like the utter fool you are.”

    More like I haven’t answered any wholely irrelevant question simply because you’re too lazy to find the answer yourself.

    “Is “simply because the Bible says so” any better? Please explain if it is and tell us precisely what the meaning and purpose of life is. Somehow I don’t think you will…”

    Unless this is a round-about admission that simply YOU asserting something has meaning doesn’t make it so, then you’re still dodging. Aside from the fact that it’s irrelevant to the issue, this is why I won’t answer you. Because I know that you just don’t care, as this comment shows you haven’t been paying any attention whatsoever.

    Does the computer you’re using have meaning and purpose? Yes, it does so because it is a creation with an intent by it’s creator. Does the computer ‘know’ what it’s purpose specificly is? Obviously not, but that doesn’t really take away from the fact that it obviously has a purpose, now does it? Contrast that with leaves scattered by wind, and you pretty much have the distinction of meaning and purpose between theism and atheism.

  87. “..I won’t answer you.”

    That sums it up nicely. Later, EB – trying to get an answer out of you is a waste of time. It’s not that you won’t answer, it’s that you can’t answer because you are unable to disguise your blind, unreasoning faith with pseudo intellectual justification like your Master, SJ, tries to do. Have a nice evening.

  88. Ha! Maybe the third time’s the charm.

    Fact is you’re dodging Stathei. You won’t face any criticisim period, and think simply asserting things makes an argument. And the only way to save you’re wounded ego (in your eyes) is to whine about how wholely irrelevant questions aren’t being addressed, when you won’t face the ridiculously obvious irrationality of your own beliefs.

    But, hey, I knew exactly what you were long before I entered this discussion with you, and am more than satisfied to let other readers see for themselves.

  89. I was going to let this go and leave the “other readers” to enjoy the comedy of the hypocrisy dripping from every single sentence of this post – but then I realized that there are no “other readers” and that you are blissfully unaware of your own hypocrisy. Here we go, sentence by sentence:

    “Fact is you’re dodging” – you refused point blank to answer two simple questions four times. How is that not dodging?

    “You won’t face any criticism period” – I asked you four times what your criticisms were and you refused to answer.

    “You..think simply asserting things makes an argument.” Well what were you doing when you said a few posts ago: “No, that’s actually a simple fact that any meaning or purpose can only be imparted by a Higher Authority. Otherwise it’s just self-serving delusion. No opinion about that.” Yep, no opinion, just assertion by you. Your ENTIRE belief system relies on your assertion that the bible tells you all you need to know.

    “And the only way to save you’re (sic) wounded ego is to whine about how wholely (sic) irrelevant questions aren’t being addressed” – the questions were wholly relevant, and you know it. You are just unable to answer them without sounding like a tool.

    “you won’t face the ridiculously obvious irrationality of your own beliefs.” And your beliefs are RATIONAL? Even SJ wouldn’t claim that.

    So, there you go. Blind hypocrisy in every single sentence – sometimes more than once per sentence. Mark of a real Fundie, I guess. Or maybe just a complete and utter moron, it’s often hard to tell. I think we’re done now – at last.

  90. “I was going to let this go….”

    Heh. Suuuuuure.

    ““Fact is you’re dodging” – you refused point blank to answer two simple questions four times. How is that not dodging?”

    How were those questions in any way relevant? You think if you suddenly ask “Is the sky blue?” in the middle of a discussion and no one bothers to answer such a ridiculous question it some how constitutes “dodging”? Still doesn’t take away from the fact that you don’t address anything that’s been said and simply rehash assertion after assertion.

    Besides, why should you be taken seriously when any answer would almost certainly be met with the same ridicule and contempt you hold for everything else regarding Christian beliefs?

    “Your ENTIRE belief system relies on your assertion that the bible tells you all you need to know.”

    *snort* And this is why I can let other readers judge for themselves. As this discussion has always been about atheism and theism. Technically the same argument would apply for Islam just as much as Christianity. So this is just further evidence of you not paying attention, and thus indicative of not really wanting answers (unless it’s to ridicule them).

    I’ve made very clear arguments regarding how meaning and purpose is imparted – ie using examples of what Mankind has created in contrast to results of random processess. And have continually asked how you simply asserting ‘I care’ is in any way meaningful under a belief system that regards you as little different to a bug. Only for you to dodge everything and obsess over irrelevant trivialities.

    “Mark of a real Fundie, I guess. Or maybe just a complete and utter moron, it’s often hard to tell.”

    And you wonder why I don’t take you seriously simply when you ask a question.

    “I think we’re done now – at last.”

    Such a statement can be only met by the following response –

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  91. “You think if you suddenly ask “Is the sky blue?” in the middle of a discussion and no one bothers to answer such a ridiculous question it some how constitutes “dodging”?”

    No, but if I suddenly ask “How is your life more meaningful?” when you are accusing me of having a meaningless life and no one bothers to answer that pertinent question it constitutes more than just dodging. It makes it look like you don’t even know.

    “BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!”

    The most sensible thing you have said in this entire post.

  92. “No, but if I suddenly ask “How is your life more meaningful?” when you are accusing me of having a meaningless life and no one bothers to answer that pertinent question it constitutes more than just dodging. It makes it look like you don’t even know.”

    Except if one actually reads what was actually said, I’ve clearly explained why life is more meaningful under theism than it is under atheism, and how knowing or not knowing what that meaning is is irrelevant. All you’re obssessing over the question shows is YOU avoiding addressing anything. Which means you’re dodging. Repeatedly.

    “The most sensible thing you have said in this entire post.”

    I’m still waiting for you to say ANYTHING sensible (or at least true). 😉

  93. “You want to make me back down by trying to inspire revulsion with dead baby pictures? I look at them unflinchingly and see meat. And meat does not frighten me.”

    On PZ’s view, we are all meat, whether we are diced and sliced or not.”

    PZ is talking about dead babies, not alive people. Dead people are no more than meat. It is completely true. The “sliced or not” part was added by you, he didn’t say it. You are being dishonest.

  94. insightful website. but amazingly, I don’t hear or see anybody talkin’ about the REAL problem of ABORTION. IT IS CLEARLY ‘FORNICATION’. Putting urself in a situation where there is no plan for a family. Arguing for marriage and commitment is ignored altogether. We are not making any noise about the root of the problem. No one is expounding on why that is the REAL problem and elevate the ‘immorality’ of abortion which is born out of the carelessness, ignorance and lunacy of whoredome.

  95. Hi Felicia,

    Actually, this is something my ministry is interested in, although from a different angle. Check out the online conference we are hosting in a couple of weeks. It is devoted to defending biblical marriage. http://onlineapologeticsconference.com/

    Jose, You will note that I did not put ‘whether we are diced and sliced or not’ in quotes and attribute them to PZ. If I had, that would be dishonest. I didn’t. This is a pretty standard practice that I’m surprised you aren’t aware of it.

    You’re right that he was talking about dead babies, but on his view it applies to live babies- and all people. It doesn’t take much to realize that on his view of humanity, we are all just meat. Period, end of story.

    If you find that abhorrent, it surely means just one thing: whatever you say or think you believe, in point of fact, you agree with me that in reality we AREN’T just meat.

  96. Dodging questions on this post too, eh End Bringer?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*