I am an atheist thread 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter _A
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why does this have anything to do with ‘being an atheist?’ (the title of the thread):confused:
It just came up, I am content to let it lie. I think it enslaves women and is immoral. You think that it is a life of it’s own and she should be morally bound to nurture it.
Let’s let it lie, unless you can acknowledge the rights of a woman to do whatever she wants with her own body, you will think it is immoral.
 
With that reasoning it is ok for a woman to instantly kill a man while he is inside of her during sex, if she changes her mind about letting him in there.
Lets say he has his member in her mouth, and she changes her mind. If she says stop, and he refuses, I think she has every right to bite off the offending obstruction and flush it.
Killing may occur, but it was a defensive kill.
 
No, and that is why the decision about what stays in her body and what goes is hers alone.
I see nothing wrong with trying to save the fetus.
She, the mother is life support for the baby, life. She would be taking the baby off life support.
 
I don’t think a world full of athiest would survive very long.
There are countries which have a profound catholic influence on their governments, and countries which they have less. Why not see which ones are better off?
 
It just came up, I am content to let it lie. I think it enslaves women and is immoral. You think that it is a life of it’s own and she should be morally bound to nurture it.
Let’s let it lie, unless you can acknowledge the rights of a woman to do whatever she wants with her own body, you will think it is immoral.
Hi A!
No, you’re right, she can do anything with HER OWN BODY. But a baby isn’t her body, but needs her body to survive. If a woman wants to mutilate her own body, (that would be tragic and immoral as well) but it’s her own body. She doesn’t have the right to mutilate (or ask a doctor) an innocent life. Give the baby up for adoption. Sex has a price tag. This might not be the same argument if she contracted a deadly std. I have heard atheists blame a ‘god’ that would allow such things. Should there be no responsibility for having sex, or should there?

I will let it lie…soon.😛
 
A;

Do you have children? If not or if so, what might you tell your child about sex? Just do whatever you want, son or daughter, it’s your body…doesn’t matter. I don’t think you’d be that type of dad (or mom, I’m not sure are you male?:o ), for some reason. It’s different when we transfer our views onto our kids…actually, I used to be pro choice, until I had children. So, I know your views, and used to relate. But, I could never think of telling my kids to just have sex without taking repsonsibility. (and I don’t mean handing them a condom) I wouldn’t teach my kids to put their trust into a sheath of latex to protect them from a deadly disease, so we talk about abstinence and the consequences of sex. Running to an abortion clinic is not an option. So, I used to think a lot like you do on this subject, but could never think of telling my own kids the very same things that I once believed.

Just food for your thoughts.
 
There are countries which have a profound catholic influence on their governments, and countries which they have less. Why not see which ones are better off?
There are also countries that outlaw Christianity like Stalin’s Russia where 40 to 60 million were killed either outright or through starvation. I know someone from Ukraine whose family were victims of his Atheistic values.

Then there is Mao’s China where 95 million were killed. Then there is the Atheism of Mussolini and Hitler, both mocked religion. Hitler’s youth brigade had some wonderful anti catholic songs they were required to participate in.

Then there’s Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia.

In the 20th c Atheism has a very bad human rights record. Why is that?

Atheism holds no value in the individual. The State is the only “ultimate value.” And, of course, in the above examples “the state” meant whoever usurped the power. Since the individual holds no dignity, neither through religion nor through a concept of Natural Law, he is totally expendable.

Parenthetically, in China, for example, abortions are mandatory as is sterilization. They were and are cultures of death.
 
Of note, the DNA structure of the fetus is distinct from the DNA of the woman’s body. The fetus is not “part” of her, like the stomach, the liver or the brain; while dependent for sustenance on the mother, the fetus nonetheless has a distinct identity that will remain if the fetus is allowed to mature.
The fetus is ‘part’ of the woman in the sense that if she does not choose to support it, it dies.
 
And as far as depending on the mother for food, sure the mother can remove it if she wants. If the baby was already born and the only food around was her milk, I guess she could claim the right to refuse the baby access to her body and let it die that way too, based on that reasoning. But in either case she’d still be heartless and selfish.
The ridiculous situation you describe would indeed be heartless and selfish, I just refuse to blindly accept that all situations are the same as your caricature.
 
Then there is the Atheism of Mussolini and Hitler, both mocked religion. Hitler’s youth brigade had some wonderful anti catholic songs they were required to participate in.
Interestingly, Hitler claimed to have ‘stamped out’ atheism in Germany back in 1928.
In the 20th c Atheism has a very bad human rights record. Why is that?
Please, show us this organized, monolithic Atheism-with-a-capital-A. Or are you pointing fingers at something so nebulous and intangible as saying ‘no’ when asked a particular question? There are other questions even more people happen to agree with totalitarian dictators on the answer to: I am sure Stalin valued oxygen just as much as you and I do. Does that make us horrible people by association?

The claim that atheism itself is directly responsible for atrocities such as those committed by Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao Zedong is ludicrous. Those crimes were carried out in the name of totalitarianism and protecting the nation; that the ‘danger’ happened to be religion in many cases is incidental. Art and literature were also frequently punished, if you’ll recall; but where’s your outrage over that?

On the other hand, Francisco Franco is a definite sore point for religion.
Atheism holds no value in the individual.
Really now? And here I’d thought atheism was a theological stance, not a question of ethics, and as such the idea of individual value was out of its scope!
The State is the only “ultimate value.”
Uh… I don’t know where you’re getting these ‘facts’ about atheism, but they sure don’t look like anything I’m familiar with.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A View Post
What else would you call forcing pregnancy on someone?

Why is the church so dead-set against allowing women the freedom to decide?

Because weather the child is in the womb or out of the womb It is murder. NO ifs ands or buts. MURDER. We can sanitize it by calling it abortion but the does not change the fact thats is plain cold blooded premeditated MURDER.

The women knew when she had sex that pregnancy was possible. And made the decision to have sex that ends her choices on the matter. If she can not kill after its born she can not kill before.

In cases of rape killing the child does not cancel the rape and therefore is still wrong. If we as a society do not respect life at its beginning how long till we stop respecting it as it comes to its end.

It amazes me that there are people that do not see that the killing of innocent children as wrong.

I also find in ironic that a women can have here unborn child killed and that is just fine and dandy under the law, at the same time if some where to kill a pregnant women they can be charged with killing the woman and the unborn child. I mean come on make up your mind here either it is or is not a human life with proctect under the law.

Peace in the Lord

Scott
 
She, the mother is life support for the baby, life. She would be taking the baby off life support.
Declining to save the life you value a great deal.
I still say that it is a decent and respectable choice that a woman may make, regardless of religious doctrine.
 
A;

Do you have children? If not or if so, what might you tell your child about sex? Just do whatever you want, son or daughter, it’s your body…doesn’t matter. I don’t think you’d be that type of dad (or mom, I’m not sure are you male?:o ), for some reason. It’s different when we transfer our views onto our kids…actually, I used to be pro choice, until I had children. So, I know your views, and used to relate. But, I could never think of telling my kids to just have sex without taking repsonsibility. (and I don’t mean handing them a condom) I wouldn’t teach my kids to put their trust into a sheath of latex to protect them from a deadly disease, so we talk about abstinence and the consequences of sex. Running to an abortion clinic is not an option. So, I used to think a lot like you do on this subject, but could never think of telling my own kids the very same things that I once believed.

Just food for your thoughts.
I give my daughters all the information they can get. Their Mother is a nurse. If one of them chose to have an abortion, I would support that choice. If they chose to keep it from me, I would support that, too.
They are responsible for their own lives, to a point, even at 12 years old.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A View Post
What else would you call forcing pregnancy on someone?

Why is the church so dead-set against allowing women the freedom to decide?

Because weather the child is in the womb or out of the womb It is murder. NO ifs ands or buts. MURDER. We can sanitize it by calling it abortion but the does not change the fact thats is plain cold blooded premeditated MURDER.
Murder is a legal term. You are simply wrong.
 
Murder is a legal term. You are simply wrong.
Sorry to say but no your the one that is wrong. The Killing of an innocent human life is Murder,and as such Abortion should be outlawed.
 
Murder is a legal term. You are right with that. However… murder of and innocent life is illegal and this law should be extended to protect the one’s who can not protect themselves.
 
A,

Please go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and download the talk entitled “Was Hitler Right? or Why Athiests Have No Rights” and listen to it. It’s about 45-55 minutes long. It’s free. If you are unable to download, you can order it in CD or tape form, free.

Just listen to it, and take away from it what you will.
 
Murder is a legal term. You are right with that. However… murder of and innocent life is illegal and this law should be extended to protect the one’s who can not protect themselves.
To take this a step further, why is murder wrong? If there is no God there are no commandments or moral laws, why can’t we all just murder each other at will without any consequences?

A, have you ever murdered anyone? Why or why not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top