Is this the call for a confused Atheist?

[humble_in_doubt]

I am curious as to where you get the idea that the nuclear family is so longstanding as to have been around thousands of years before any religion.

As for the rest. Yes, there have been numerous studies on the subject and the further we go along the more information that comes up. The latest that describes the Pill as the “Divorce Pill” because of its affects on the ability of women to choose their mates.

I will see what I can drum up for you.

buddy if you truly think Christianity invented the concept of the family then I don’t know what to say. The ancient Greeks married, as did the ancient Romans, as did couples in prehistory. Marriage has taken many forms, but it always involved an agreement between a man and woman (or their families) to enter into a union, which involved exclusivity (in areas such as sex, child rearing, and so on). Just Google it if you really need to learn this stuff.

As for the pill and divorce … drawing that sort of nexus is frankly absurd (just conservative Christian nonsense). If you have proof for such an idea then feel free to enlighten me … but the fact is there is no real nexus between contraception and divorce. So anyways …

 

[buffgbob]

I have seen humble_in_doubt, who obviously is neither, say every statistic given is “biased.” Yet, the only statistic he has offered come from an obviously biased website. In fact, one of the statistics were from the same original source (Banna?). Apparently, this organization becomes more biased only later as its statistics don’t fit into his common sense ‘atheism is better’ worldview.

Atheism has its own problems. It is not this contrived nirvana. It does not exist, because man is fundamentally flawed. I’ve seen atheists point all these problems to religion, when it is obviously men which are the problem. The only two governments, to my knowledge, which were militantly pro-atheist were also the worst two governments in the history of the world. Stalin killed over 20 million people and that is a low estimate. Hitler killed millions more. The leap in logic to make these “religious” problems is inspired at best.

Not to mention the logical end of atheist is existentialism. I remember in my classes were atheists poured over existentialism to find out where it erred and the best answered were, “I don’t know, but it feels wrong; I feel x, y, or z.” The examples were generally placing meaning in “family” and the like, which is astute but ultimately meaningless. It can provide the foundation for relative meaning; you can be meaningful to your family or meaningful to humanity, but expanding the scope does not destroy its subjectivity. This planet is a spec in the universe and any atheist who hasn’t come to terms with that fact is only atheist to make themselves god.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Atheism has its own problems. It is not this contrived nirvana. It does not exist, because man is fundamentally flawed. I’ve seen atheists point all these problems to religion, when it is obviously men which are the problem. The only two governments, to my knowledge, which were militantly pro-atheist were also the worst two governments in the history of the world. Stalin killed over 20 million people and that is a low estimate. Hitler killed millions more. The leap in logic to make these “religious” problems is inspired at best.

The fact is nearly 20% of this country is atheist or agnostic, while only a fraction of 1% of the prison population are atheists (compare this to the percentage of inmates who are either Catholic or Protestant, well over half). However, these sort of statistics don’t really help us answer the fundamental question, does god exist?

Frankly, the sport of bickering over whose more holy is not an atheist sport, but rather a Christian sport. I merely pointed to the irony of how well behaved atheists are as compared to Christians … but anyways.

Not to mention the logical end of atheist is existentialism. I remember in my classes were atheists poured over existentialism to find out where it erred and the best answered were, “I don’t know, but it feels wrong; I feel x, y, or z.” The examples were generally placing meaning in “family” and the like, which is astute but ultimately meaningless. It can provide the foundation for relative meaning; you can be meaningful to your family or meaningful to humanity, but expanding the scope does not destroy its subjectivity. This planet is a spec in the universe and any atheist who hasn’t come to terms with that fact is only atheist to make themselves god.

Yes we like to view things through the prism of concrete human existence, rather than mythology or any other sort of irrational premise … so much should be obvious. However, the way you describe atheist philosophy doesn’t have blanket application to all atheists. Are there objective truths or is everything subjective? I for one do believe we can say there are objective truths, for instance murder is never a good thing, stealing is never good, assault is never good, love is almost always good, self-control is always good, etc. However, none of this gets at the fundamental question … does god exist. It hardly seems relevant to pick on what you presume my philosophy to be, since it’s really a red herring that detracts from the central question. If god doesn’t exist then all the musings of religion is based on a false premise.

You also said the atheist can only rely on ourselves insofar as governing our own conduct, I say you’re right … however, we believe of course this is true for all people (it’s just that religious folks don’t realize it). I also point to concrete statistics that show the utility of our philosophy. How is that there are virtually no atheists in American prisons? Why are atheists the least likely out of any sizable group in the US to ever commit a felony? I guess relying on ourselves serves us pretty well huh?

However, I don’t necessarily say atheism is better or worse than theism. We’re not all the same, nor do we all ascribe to the same philosophy. You might see merits in a system where all its adherents ascribe to the same basic philosophy … I say progress would be more difficult with so many like minded people; although I also concede there must be a concrete objective sense of morality, which you might argue without religion would be difficult to enforce or sustain? Valid argument … though again it doesn’t prove the existence of god.

The proof touted by various religions is not real proof, but rather events that the religious perceive as manifestations of divine power. Our ancient predecessors didn’t know why earth quakes or solar eclipses happened, they assumed it was the work of some god or gods who were angry at them. Today we know better … but many have not learned the real lesson from that history, which is just because we might not be able to explain something, doesn’t mean some god or devil was behind it.

Thankfully most scientists aren’t religious, because if they made the same sort of bizarre assumptions religion makes regarding the unknown … medical science (or any other science for that matter) would rarely discover anything (since why bother trying to explain the unexplainable work of some omnipotent deity who exists beyond our comprehension)?

Oh and btw … just because I’m intelligent don’t presume I’m not humble in my every day life. Humility is a good virtue … but of course the idea has been around far longer than Christianity. Indeed it is the religious who arrogantly tout they’re so sure about what lies behind the unknown, not us. We maintain an open mind & that it seems to me is the foundation of humility.

 

[josie_L]

The fact is nearly 20% of this country is atheist or agnostic, while only a fraction of 1% of the prison population are atheists (compare this to the percentage of inmates who are either Catholic or Protestant, well over half). However, these sort of statistics don’t really help us answer the fundamental question, does god exist?

You also said the atheist can only rely on ourselves insofar as governing our own conduct, I say you’re right … however, we believe of course this is true for all people (it’s just that religious folks don’t realize it). I also point to concrete statistics that show the utility of our philosophy. How is that there are virtually no atheists in American prisons? Why are atheists the least likely out of any sizable group in the US to ever commit a felony? I guess relying on ourselves serves us pretty well huh?

This is not a very well-rounded argument as you focus only on one element of life, as opposed to all the myriad aspects that can be considered in supposing that “relying on ourselves serves us pretty well” is indeed correct. For example, I’d be curious to know the suicidal rate for atheists, I mean this would be pretty indicative of how Atheism works as a philosophy:

According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. “Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt” (161:2303-2308, December 2004).

Furthermore,

Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization’s report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.

adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

Thankfully most scientists aren’t religious, because if they made the same sort of bizarre assumptions religion makes regarding the unknown … medical science (or any other science for that matter) would rarely discover anything (since why bother trying to explain the unexplainable work of some omnipotent deity who exists beyond our comprehension)?

Oh and btw … just because I’m intelligent don’t presume I’m not humble in my every day life. Humility is a good virtue … but of course the idea has been around far longer than Christianity. Indeed it is the religious who arrogantly tout they’re so sure about what lies behind the unknown, not us. We maintain an open mind & that it seems to me is the foundation of humility.

How open-minded can Atheists be if they insist that God doesn’t exist and that when we die there is nothing, NOTHING? And how pray tell would an Atheist know this, huh? In fact, when people have near death experiences that prove that there is something beyond the unknown you insist that it’s some neurological malfunction. When there are manifestations of miracles and/or apparitions you chalk it down to mass delusion or some yet unknown scientific explanation or better, an explanation that doesn’t quite explain the phenomena. Therefore, Atheists are just as stubborn in insisting upon their worldview as Christians are or for that matter any other religious group, and personally they have less of a reason to be so, as we have much (that has happened in this world) that is unexplained by your standpoint.

If anyone can claim the “humility” of which you speak of than only the Agnostics have a right to call themselves such.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

How open-minded can Atheists be if they insist that God doesn’t exist and that when we die there is nothing, NOTHING? And how pray tell would an Atheist know this, huh? In fact, when people have near death experiences that prove that there is something beyond the unknown you insist that it’s some neurological malfunction. When there are manifestations of miracles and/or apparitions you chalk it down to mass delusion or some yet unknown scientific explanation or better, an explanation that doesn’t quite explain the phenomena. Therefore, Atheists are just as stubborn in insisting upon their worldview as Christians are or for that matter any other religious group, and personally they have less of a reason to be so, as we have much (that has happened in this world) that is unexplained by your standpoint.

If anyone can claim the “humility” of which you speak of than only the Agnostics have a right to call themselves such.

I don’t insist it’s a neurological malfunction … I’ve only used the term “dream” (which is a normal occurrence among humans). Moreover, yes we are more open minded, because we don’t insist on any definite explanation of creation. Religion represents one of perhaps thousands or even millions of different possibilities. So you close you’re mind to millions of possibilities, we merely close our mind to your single possibility. Therefore, we are far more open minded than Christians.

As for suicide rates, the US has a suicide rate of about 18 people per 100,000. Norway (a country where virtually no one believes god exists) has a rate of about 16 per 100,000. Here’s a better one for you … in China the number is only 13 people per 100,000. So obviously your ill thought out theory that there’s a relationship between religion (or lack thereof) and suicide is fallacious.

btw you want really low suicide rates, Iran has a rate of 0.3 per 100,000 and Jordan has no suicides.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_rate

 

[josie_L]

I don’t insist it’s a neurological malfunction … I’ve only used the term “dream” (which is a normal occurrence among humans). Moreover, yes we are more open minded, because we don’t insist on any definite explanation of creation. Religion represents one of perhaps thousands or even millions of different possibilities. So you close you’re mind to millions of possibilities, we merely close our mind to your single possibility. Therefore, we are far more open minded than Christians.

As for suicide rates, the US has a suicide rate of about 18 people per 100,000. Norway (a country where virtually no one believes god exists) has a rate of about 16 per 100,000. Here’s a better one for you … in China the number is only 13 people per 100,000. So obviously your ill thought out theory that there’s a relationship between religion (or lack thereof) and suicide is fallacious.

btw you want really low suicide rates, Iran has a rate of 0.3 per 100,000 and Jordan has no suicides.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_rate

Have you forgotten I’m Catholic and therefore have no problems with evolution and the like? I am therefore more open-minded than you are because I can believe in God and Science, as I see faith and reason able to function side by side. I only have qualms with Science when I see it conflicting with morality. That is my only beef with “progress”.

As for suicide, I provided a link to an article that has derived it’s information from The Journal of Psychiatry and other scholarly books. Also, if you read the entirety of that article I quoted only in part, you will see that the most irreligious countries have the highest suicide rates. I wouldn’t trust Wikipedia on this one, Humble.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Have you forgotten I’m Catholic and therefore have no problems with evolution and the like? I am therefore more open-minded than you are because I can believe in God and Science, as I see faith and reason able to function side by side. I only have qualms with Science when I see it conflicting with morality. That is my only beef with “progress”.

As for suicide, I provided a link to an article that has derived it’s information from The Journal of Psychiatry and other scholarly books. Also, if you read the entirety of that article I quoted only in part, you will see that the most irreligious countries have the highest suicide rates. I wouldn’t trust Wikipedia on this one, Humble.

No the article you cite shows many (if not most) former Soviet block countries have higher suicide rates. There’s a whole host of factors besides religion that could be the cause of this, but anyway. With regard to whose more open minded … if you like you win (it’s just semantics anyway). You can be more open minded if you insist

The fact is what does any of this have to with whether or not god exists? It doesn’t … so sorry if I find your line of reasoning unpersuasive, but this is my opinion. Even if religion made people as happy as a pig in you know what, it wouldn’t mean a hill of beans insofar as answering the question is any of it true?

 

[josie_L]

No the article you cite shows many (if not most) former Soviet block countries have higher suicide rates. There’s a whole host of factors besides religion that could be the cause of this, but anyway. With regard to whose more open minded … if you like you win (it’s just semantics anyway). You can be more open minded if you insist

The fact is what does any of this have to with whether or not god exists? It doesn’t … so sorry if I find your line of reasoning unpersuasive, but this is my opinion. Even if religion made people as happy as a pig in you know what, it wouldn’t mean a hill of beans insofar as answering the question is any of it true?

I won!!, I won!!, ahhh, those are sweet words coming from a lawyer. Look, Humble, I may not be able to convince you of the Truth, but I can soften you towards it just a little. If by attempting to show you through statistics/reason that Atheism is not all that you set it out to be. But for what its worth I like you even if you are an Atheist.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I won!!, I won!!, ahhh, those are sweet words coming from a lawyer. Look, Humble, I may not be able to convince you of the Truth, but I can soften you towards it just a little. If by attempting to show you through statistics/reason that Atheism is not all that you set it out to be. But for what its worth I like you even if you are an Atheist.

the thing is I don’t really have any preconceived notions of what atheism is supposed to be or not be like. I simply don’t believe any of the claims made by religion are true, but beyond that I don’t try to fit within any particular mold. I’m not sure whether or not atheism is psychologically better or worse, I just know it’s true (and that’s enough for me).

Some people I suppose are more predisposed to believing in the supernatural and extraordinary as compared to others, I’m one of those people who are not predisposed toward faith in any religion & I feel I have the benefit of enough intelligence to form a cognizant understanding of why religion is fallacious (and I have). Frankly I just believe religion is contrived; and it’s world view bitter (of course I know theists would say the same about my outlook … but anyways).

 

[Reuben_J]

the thing is I don’t really have any preconceived notions of what atheism is supposed to be or not be like.

You’re being floored here, admit it. If you want to argue it has to come to a decisive point where you can’t find an answer anymore. Here, you don’t have an answer.

It is easy to rebut a belief but it is more credible for you why you rebut it and what your alternative is. I would like to know your answer until the end. You can’t supply it. It is not enough to say you don’t’ have any preconceived idea, because then, what is your belief; what is your stand; what is your conviction? Sometimes back you confidently said to me, you just know you are right. What is it that you know that you are right? You have to come out with a definite answer to that.

Another thing. You mention about what’s right and good. I ask you then, who set the standard of what’s right. You said murder, stealing is wrong. Who say they are wrong? Who set the standard for you? Yes, I know, it’s the state of Texas. But that we know too. But what goes beyond that? I mean, another day people (lawmakers) will come out with different set of rule.

Like abortion for example, the ruling on it is never fixed. Today it may be allowed but it was not before. And who knows what’ll happen later. Isn’t that meaning you set a rule for yourself? Doesn’t matter it is someone else who do it; but why are not having your mind on important issue and happily leaving it for other to decide? Is that what it means by being an atheist?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You’re being floored here, admit it. If you want to argue it has to come to a decisive point where you can’t find an answer anymore. Here, you don’t have an answer.

Any reasonable unbiased perspective would find my posts perfectly logical.

It is easy to rebut a belief but it is more credible for you why you rebut it and what your alternative is. I would like to know your answer until the end. You can’t supply it. It is not enough to say you don’t’ have any preconceived idea, because then, what is your belief; what is your stand; what is your conviction? Sometimes back you confidently said to me, you just know you are right. What is it that you know that you are right? You have to come out with a definite answer to that.

yes … I know I’m right about religion, but it would be absurd for me to say I know about everything that exists in this universe (or in other dimensions if they exist, or beyond the universe if there is such a thing). The bottom line is men throughout history sought explanations for things we don’t understand. The Greeks had Zeus, the Scandinavians Odin, and you guys have Jesus. There’s an obvious pattern here … but you folks won’t see it (which is fine, we can all believe what we like since thankfully we don’t live in a theocracy).

What will happen one day when science says we think we can create a wormhole and reach back in time? Or we think we can extend life significantly (if not indefinitely). I can see it now … ancient superstition will run ramped (and the zealots will charge that science is playing god). These are the superstitions that obstruct our progress (and have been for centuries). They make us scared to boldly discover what was once considered taboo.

Another thing. You mention about what’s right and good. I ask you then, who set the standard of what’s right. You said murder, stealing is wrong. Who say they are wrong? Who set the standard for you? Yes, I know, it’s the state of Texas. But that we know too. But what goes beyond that? I mean, another day people (lawmakers) will come out with different set of rule.

It certainly wasn’t any religion who created these laws? Arguably the Hammurabi Code predated any religious law. However, even long before Hammurabi there were proscriptions against murder and theft. They’ve been with us since ancient Sumer, Egypt, etc. There’s absolutely no support for the idea that the Jewish people invented these laws (in fact all the actual evidence debunks that idea quite convincingly).

So where did these laws come from? We created them pure & simple.

You just don’t want to believe that because you have no confidence in mankind. Like Durkheim said, we have religion because we’re in awe of ourselves.

Like abortion for example, the ruling on it is never fixed. Today it may be allowed but it was not before. And who knows what’ll happen later. Isn’t that meaning you set a rule for yourself? Doesn’t matter it is someone else who do it; but why are not having your mind on important issue and happily leaving it for other to decide? Is that what it means by being an atheist?

If we one day we proscribe abortion it will be because WE proscribe abortion. I guess you’re asking me why I don’t just let religious zealotry run ramped and unchallenged (I think)? The answer is simple … because I enjoy freedom; and I know left up to religion we would wind up living in some sort of surreal mind-numbing theocracy.

This is a country that has always challenged and checked religious zealotry, one of the reasons why we’ve become such a great nation. The western world is moving away from religion, and in a few short decades I’m confident it will be a minority view. This is for a logical reason … as mankind debunks the mystery once attached to natural phenomena – religion becomes an exceedingly harder sell.

 

[josie_L]

Any reasonable unbiased perspective would find my posts perfectly logical.

yes … I know I’m right about religion, but it would be absurd for me to say I know about everything that exists in this universe (or in other dimensions if they exist, or beyond the universe if there is such a thing). The bottom line is men throughout history sought explanations for things we don’t understand. The Greeks had Zeus, the Scandinavians Odin, and you guys have Jesus. There’s an obvious pattern here … but you folks won’t see it (which is fine, we can all believe what we like since thankfully we don’t live in a theocracy).

What will happen one day when science says we think we can create a wormhole and reach back in time? Or we think we can extend life significantly (if not indefinitely). I can see it now … ancient superstition will run ramped (and the zealots will charge that science is playing god). These are the superstitions that obstruct our progress (and have been for centuries). They make us scared to boldly discover what was once considered taboo.

It certainly wasn’t any religion who created these laws? Arguably the Hammurabi Code predated any religious law. However, even long before Hammurabi there were proscriptions against murder and theft. They’ve been with us since ancient Sumer, Egypt, etc. There’s absolutely no support for the idea that the Jewish people invented these laws (in fact all the actual evidence debunks that idea quite convincingly).

So where did these laws come from? We created them pure & simple.

You just don’t want to believe that because you have no confidence in mankind. Like Durkheim said, we have religion because we’re in awe of ourselves.

If we one day we proscribe abortion it will be because WE proscribe abortion. I guess you’re asking me why I don’t just let religious zealotry run ramped and unchallenged (I think)? The answer is simple … because I enjoy freedom; and I know left up to religion we would wind up living in some sort of surreal mind-numbing theocracy.

This is a country that has always challenged and checked religious zealotry, one of the reasons why we’ve become such a great nation. The western world is moving away from religion, and in a few short decades I’m confident it will be a minority view. This is for a logical reason … as mankind debunks the mystery once attached to natural phenomena – religion becomes an exceedingly harder sell.

Freedom does not include doing whatever we please, and we especially do not need the kind of freedom that gives us the right to commit evil, as is the case with abortion.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Freedom does not include doing whatever we please, and we especially do not need the kind of freedom that gives us the right to commit evil, as is the case with abortion.

Freedom is a concept that’s beyond good and evil (technically speaking); but you’re right, no free country is devoid of laws. However, abortion rights are a private matter & unborn fetus’ are not considered living human beings according to our laws (this has been well settled doctrine for over 500 years in Anglo-American common law).

We, as a collective society, have deemed abortion lawful … and that will not change (to spite all the wrangling over this issue, it’s simply too well settled in our jurisprudence at this point).

Not to digress (I honestly have no desire to enter the abortion debate) – but before Roe v. Wade there were proportionately more abortions than there are today (arguably we might attribute that fact to the wider availability of contraceptives, but I suppose that’s arguable). Not only that but roughly 5 - 6,000 women per year died as a result of botched abortions.

Obviously abortion must be a tough decision for any female, but the cat is out of the bag & it’s not going back in (to spite how many strange people, who need to get a life, handcuff themselves in front of abortion clinics). I for one could not see tossing some girl in jail because she decided to terminate a pregnancy. How can we compel anyone to carry a child for nine months? The fact is the alternatives, legally speaking, are simply too complicated to criminalize abortion. What would we then do … should we monitor females to ensure they carry a pregnancy to term? Where would we find the money for all these new criminals you would like to create? If we criminalize it only for doctors, then non-physicians will dominate the industry (and it will move to the black market). Then of course we’ll have thousands of dead young girls at the hands of unscrupulous abortion providers (who don’t know what they’re doing).

If a woman really doesn’t want to have a child no one can force her to; and frankly I think it’s twisted logic (and goes against the idea of liberty) to expect our government to be the moral police of our citizens. That seems very un-American to me.

 

[josie_L]

Freedom is a concept that’s beyond good and evil (technically speaking); but you’re right, no free country is devoid of laws. However, abortion rights are a private matter & unborn fetus’ are not considered living human beings according to our laws (this has been well settled doctrine for over 500 years in Anglo-American common law).

We, as a collective society, have deemed abortion lawful … and that will not change (to spite all the wrangling over this issue, it’s simply too well settled in our jurisprudence at this point).

Not to digress (I honestly have no desire to enter the abortion debate) – but before Roe v. Wade there were proportionately more abortions than there are today (arguably we might attribute that fact to the wider availability of contraceptives, but I suppose that’s arguable). Not only that but roughly 5 - 6,000 women per year died as a result of botched abortions.

Obviously abortion must be a tough decision for any female, but the cat is out of the bag & it’s not going back in (to spite how many strange people, who need to get a life, handcuff themselves in front of abortion clinics). I for one could not see tossing some girl in jail because she decided to terminate a pregnancy. How can we compel anyone to carry a child for nine months? The fact is the alternatives, legally speaking, are simply too complicated to criminalize abortion. What would we then do … should we monitor females to ensure they carry a pregnancy to term? Where would we find the money for all these new criminals you would like to create? If we criminalize it only for doctors, then non-physicians will dominate the industry (and it will move to the black market). Then of course we’ll have thousands of dead young girls at the hands of unscrupulous abortion providers (who don’t know what they’re doing).

If a woman really doesn’t want to have a child no one can force her to; and frankly I think it’s twisted logic (and goes against the idea of liberty) to expect our government to be the moral police of our citizens. That seems very un-American to me.

CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST
By Dr. Bernard Nathanson

I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968. A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to issue the decision which legalised abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA

We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened,sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that wehad taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This isthe tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We arousedenough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number ofillegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 butthe figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These falsefigures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed tocrack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was thatlegalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would thenbe done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method ofbirth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legislisation.

THE SECOND KEY TACTIC WAS TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD

We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its “socially backward ideas” and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as “we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics” and “Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform”. And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were {and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists’ opinions.

THE THIRD KEY TACTIC WAS THE DENIGRATION AND SUPPRESSION OF ALL
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionistto pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in NewYork City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great newtechnology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb. A favourite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma, but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems.

AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT
CONCEPTION

Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a
divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this
infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.

[Dr. Nathanson has since converted to Catholicism, being baptised in 1996.]

 

[humble_in_doubt]

CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST
By Dr. Bernard Nathanson

I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials
to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the
National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968.
A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against
permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court
to issue the decision which legalised abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced
virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand
the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world
with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA

We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened,
sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,
we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we
had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is
the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused
enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of
illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but
the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often
enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These falsefigures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed tocrack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was thatlegalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would thenbe done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method ofbirth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legislisation.

THE SECOND KEY TACTIC WAS TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD

We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its “socially backward ideas” and
picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was
played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as “we all know that opposition to abortion
comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics” and “Polls prove time and again
that most Catholics want abortion law reform”. And the media drum-fired all this into the
American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are
enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-
Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian
religions were {and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly
suppressed, along with pro-life atheists’ opinions.

THE THIRD KEY TACTIC WAS THE DENIGRATION AND SUPPRESSION OF ALL
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionistto pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in NewYork City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great newtechnology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb. A favourite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that
the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific
one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires
all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some
American doctors who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by
carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an
industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the
physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful
destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly
violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma,
but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast
resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic
utilitarian answer to social problems.

AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT
CONCEPTION

Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a
divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this
infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.

[Dr. Nathanson has since converted to Catholicism, being baptised in 1996.]

The fact is abortion statistics are well documented (the CDC tracks abortion numbers, and we’ve been tracking those numbers since about 1970). In the year prior to Roe there were 586,760 “legal” abortions (many states by that time had already legalized the procedure). In 1973 (the year Roe v. Wade hit the Sup. Court) there were 615,831, in the following year 763,476 (until finally hitting a peak in 1990, and the number has been reversing ever since). This of course doesn’t include illegal abortions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Number_of_abortions_in_United_States

It should be recognized that the movement to criminalize abortions began in the 1860’s (before that abortion had never been illegal in the US). By about 1900 the procedure was illegal in almost every US jurisdiction. So indeed abortion has been legal for much more of our history than it’s been illegal.

*The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services.

Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year. Although accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion.* See: prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html.

As for the statements of this doctor you cite … they’re not true. We do know there were around one million illegal abortions per year prior to Roe v. Wade (even if this is a high end figure the actual number was still very close, and not a mere 100,000 annually). This man has now joined your propaganda machine & his words are just unfortunate lies. I give him zero credibility.

 

[josie_L]

The fact is abortion statistics are well documented (the CDC tracks abortion numbers, and we’ve been tracking those numbers since about 1970). In the year prior to Roe there were 586,760 “legal” abortions (many states by that time had already legalized the procedure). In 1973 (the year Roe v. Wade hit the Sup. Court) there were 615,831, in the following year 763,476 (until finally hitting a peak in 1990, and the number has been reversing ever since). This of course doesn’t include illegal abortions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Number_of_abortions_in_United_States

It should be recognized that the movement to criminalize abortions began in the 1860’s (before that abortion had never been illegal in the US). By about 1900 the procedure was illegal in almost every US jurisdiction. So indeed abortion has been legal for much more of our history than it’s been illegal.

*The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services.

Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year. Although accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion.* See: prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html.

As for the statements of this doctor you cite … they’re not true. We do know there were around one million illegal abortions per year prior to Roe v. Wade (even if this is a high end figure the actual number was still very close, and not a mere 100,000 annually). This man has now joined your propaganda machine & his words are just unfortunate lies. I give him zero credibility.

I don’t even know why I bother to post statistics or the like, I think I’ll just let you believe what you want to believe, your side obviously doesn’t tell lies, it’s we the religious zealots that do. Good night, humble.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I don’t even know why I bother to post statistics or the like, I think I’ll just let you believe what you want to believe, your side obviously doesn’t tell lies, it’s we the religious zealots that do. Good night, humble.

yes I know the CDC must be part of the pro-choice conspiracy? At any rate … have a great night!

 

[josie_L]

yes I know the CDC must be part of the pro-choice conspiracy? At any rate … have a great night!

Don’t bother wishing me a great night!!

 

[buffgbob]

I will say that humble_in_doubt shows his ignorance at least on the issue of abortion. That is not to say he is not ignorant on the case of religion generally, but this ignorance is severe. Abortion is a business. Abortion providers have an interest in keeping it available, acceptable, and necessary; or legal, safe, and rare.

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=403
Agreed, the website I just posted is obviously Catholic. However, is does not rely on fabricated statistics. Saying there were “millions” of abortions per year prior to Roe is not only absurd but obviously fabricated. [Why would it significantly decrease after it becomes legal? Is the forbidden fruit theorem applicable to this (like drugs)? A reasonable man would see that it isn’t. A modestly educated man could see through their veil.] In reality, which some of us have to base our facts on, innumerable more women are hurt now from abortion than before it was legalized.

As an aside: previously when I posted, I was not attempting to prove God’s existence. My understanding of the conversation is that we were discussing practical consequences of different worldviews in which I was attempting to show that the idealization of atheism is futile. To say my argument does not show God exists may be true, but it is a straw man; it was not the subject of conversation or argument.

 

[Reuben_J]

Any reasonable unbiased perspective would find my posts perfectly logical.

Logical as in that you are not illogical. How can you refute us if you do not have answer for what we believe and you do not have complete belief in yourself? I think you are not logical.

yes … I know I’m right about religion, but it would be absurd for me to say I know about everything that exists in this universe (or in other dimensions if they exist, or beyond the universe if there is such a thing). The bottom line is men throughout history sought explanations for things we don’t understand.

Christianity can hardly be compared to Greek mythology. You are wrong again on this score.

The Greeks had Zeus, the Scandinavians Odin, and you guys have Jesus. There’s an obvious pattern here … but you folks won’t see it (which is fine, we can all believe what we like since thankfully we don’t live in a theocracy).

Jesus gave us the signs and wonders, even if you don’t believe him. Even the Sanhedrin admitted this even though they did not accept him.

**Acts 4:16-17 “What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name.” **

John 10: 25 … the works I do in my father’s name are my witness, (but you do not believe … .)

You don’t believe even though the signs are right before you.

Anyway, this is surely much better than your assumption on things.

What will happen one day when science says we think we can create a wormhole and reach back in time? Or we think we can extend life significantly (if not indefinitely).

You said this as if it is definite but you are merely assuming. If you think religious is belief and faith, would that make you any different from us in your own belief? In fact I would say you are an imagination run wild.

I can see it now … ancient superstition will run ramped (and the zealots will charge that science is playing god). These are the superstitions that obstruct our progress (and have been for centuries).

You have no proof that we are superstitious. In this forum, we are talking about Christianity. Everything in it can be explained and it is not superstition. We are not superstitious nor do we obstruct ‘progress’. I am tempted to ask you what the definition of progress is. Is it totally necessary in every aspect? Have you thought about moral progress, spiritual progress?

They make us scared to boldly discover what was once considered taboo.

We are not scared; we are governed by a principle. That is far from what you have because you do not have a stand on an issue – it up to the lawmakers. Today it a yes, tomorrow it’s a no.

If you talk about obeying the law of the government of the day, what make you think Christians do not abide by the law of the country? On the contrary they are exhorted to submit themselves to the authority.

It certainly wasn’t any religion who created these laws? Arguably the Hammurabi Code predated any religious law. However, even long before Hammurabi there were proscriptions against murder and theft. They’ve been with us since ancient Sumer, Egypt, etc. There’s absolutely no support for the idea that the Jewish people invented these laws (in fact all the actual evidence debunks that idea quite convincingly).

So what? Do you know the Ten Commandments? We have our set of rule and it is unchanging until eternity; even if some of the contents confirm to man-made laws, so be it. What’s more important is the undying principle that does not bend according to the majority thought.

But for you, you are like a blade of grass – you bend according to where the wind blows.

So where did these laws come from? We created them pure & simple.

I have no quarrel with this as mentioned.

You just don’t want to believe that because you have no confidence in mankind. Like Durkheim said, we have religion because we’re in awe of ourselves.

Forget about Durkhiem. I don’t know him and he does not impress me. Tell us about his greatness and love, and maybe let us see where he stands. The most it tells me that it is his mere opinion.

If we one day we proscribe abortion it will be because WE proscribe abortion. I guess you’re asking me why I don’t just let religious zealotry run ramped and unchallenged (I think)? The answer is simple … because I enjoy freedom; and I know left up to religion we would wind up living in some sort of surreal mind-numbing theocracy.

I am not religious bigot. You have committed a major error in assumption. Our religion teaches us not to judge because we do not know what is in his heart. Do you think it is a virtue to judge? I remember you once said you are so good almost to a fault.

The law of U.S. government is built upon the foundation of Christianity and this is what the founding fathers had in mind.

I was not saying whether we should have a law on abortion. I was saying how is that what’s right or wrong changes with the majority or changes with time? I am saying that because you said you are a good man and the law of the state of Texas is you guide that’s determine what’s right and what’s wrong. How can then that right and wrong be changed?

This is a country that has always challenged and checked religious zealotry, one of the reasons why we’ve become such a great nation. The western world is moving away from religion, and in a few short decades I’m confident it will be a minority view. This is for a logical reason … as mankind debunks the mystery once attached to natural phenomena – religion becomes an exceedingly harder sell.

You are out of point. We are not zealots. We are trying to be good Christians and good citizens of the country. You are creating a false premise and trying to put us in there. You are talking nonsense and out of topic.