C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Sides should be irrelevant.
- Status
Q
querying
Guest
Now why is that?
Is it because such atheist countries are truly more moral, or because such atheist dominated countries have very lax rules on what constitutes illegal activity?
I go with the latter. Infanticide is legal in the Netherlands, for children with disabilities. To kill a born child in most civilised countries is a transgression of the law, in many liberal-atheistic countries- it isn’t.
Also, take a look at the liberal drug laws which exist in much of liberal Europe, not to mention the legalisation of pedastry-bordering on paedophilia in many of these liberal atheist countries. Go take a look at the age of consent laws, and see how children who have barely entered puberty, can engage in sexual relations with 60 year old men in many of these atheist countries.
Don’t get me started on legalised incest between children of age 18 and above, and their parents.
In civilised theist nations, such conduct is not only illegal, but backwards and a danger to children.
Now if you think nothing of your 12 year old son or daughter being legally molested by a toothless 64 year old man, then such atheist nations should be ideal for you.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
The rates directly compare crime rates per 100,000. So were not talking about differences in society.
For example Murder…
(Religious)
United States [59][60] 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.7 6.1 5.8 5.8
(Atheist)
Denmark [46][50][55][58] 1.09 0.97 1.04 1.20 0.79 0.98 0.98
Netherlands [70] 1.42 1.23 0.97 0.97
Germany [46][50][55] 1.17 1.05 1.11 0.99 0.98 0.98
Japan [50][58][59] 0.50 1.10 0.64 0.64
England, Wales (UK) [46][50][55][66] 1.61 1.52 1.62 1.62 1.37 1.37
Sweden [46][55][58] 1.88 2.45 2.13 2.39 2.64 2.64
Scotland (UK) [46][55] 1.95 2.20 1.84 2.56 2.56
…
Religion has not done much for the USA eh?
T
Tomster
Guest
atheism: (Gr. - without God)
The attitude of those who ignore or deny God. Atheism is: (a) theoretical, if it is founded on the judgments of the mind; (b) practical, if it prescinds from reasoning and shows itself in the manner of living. Theoretical atheism can either be negative or positive, according as it implies ignorance of God or denial of God with motivation. The question which apologists and theologians pose is twofold:
- Are there or can there be negative atheists? Many answer negatively; others admit the fact and, consequently, the possibility with various limitatations (for some time; not for one’s whole life; relative and not absolute ignorance; etc.) The more correct answer: absolute and invincible ignorance of the existence of God, in principle, cannot be conceded because it is impossible for human reason not to ascend from experience of the external world and the internal world of man to the cause of them, as well as it is impossible for man not to feel at all the force of the moral law. But is also true that relative ignorance of God is possible on account of abnormality, or some period of psychological darkness; likewise, it is also possible that a clear idea of the existence of God be lacking.
- Does positive atheism exist or is it possible? Here also there is a divergence of opinion, which, however, is not substantial. The more possible answer: Since the existence of God is not immediately evident, man can fail to see the force of the arguments advanced to prove it and can, consequently, accept some contrary argument, forming thus a false conviction. But a positive atheist is always guilty, at least initially, for lack of prudence, of careful consideration, and of a more accuate and dispassionate investigation. An atheist really convinced and in perfect good faith is a hypothesis bordering on the absurd.
Q
querying
Guest
Those figures seem indigestible.
Interesting you ignored the murder rate of born babies (I’m not talking about abortion- but **infanticide **- there is a difference). Oh right, I forgot, such figures aren’t included in published statistics, just like Cuba opts not to publish the infant mortality rate of babies who have died up to a few hours after birth, therefore deceiving western socialists into thinking their children live longer than those in other parts of the world.
**Oh- no words about legalised paedophilia and incest? **Is that the kind of society you want for your children? Where old men can prey on young children as the law permits it?
Or are you one of the many internet paedophilia apologists who think children who still play with dolls can consent to sex with an adult?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
LOL you were correct right up to the point your started writing…
atheism: (Gr. - without THEISM)
In the broadest sense, it is the **absence of belief **in the existence of deities.[3]
Ignore or deny has NOTHING to do with it. How can i ignore that which does not exist?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Please provide me a link to this legalised paedophilia…
Are you saying all the countries i listed have legalised paedophilia???
Q
querying
Guest
Yes. The age of consent laws are VERY low, indeed- look them up yourself as I have no time to post each one.
I say this as an African living in Western Europe. Some of the age of consent laws are bordering on paedophilia in the Netherlands regions.
Child prostitution is rife in Amsterdam, Prague and cities like it, with many American businessmen travelling there to molest children, sometimes legally. Yet law enforcement does nothing.
And yet these are the countries that you regard as “moral”.
**And again, you still have ignored legalised infanticide **, and even euthanasia. Just imagine the number of disabled and elderly who are snuffed out by the socialised health care system because they are not “contributing to society financially”, either by health care professionals or greedy and selfish family members. There are reports of this, so I suggest you google search this.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Actually i have not…
The laws in Amsterdam are vastly different from the other countries i mentioned. For example Scotland. No legalised infanticide, Age of consent 16. % of popultion that attend church under 2! Murder rate 4 times lower than the religous USA. Not bad for a goodless nation eh?
I think you have been watching to much Fox “news”.
Q
querying
Guest
**You have 1 example of one country. **Again, take a look at much of eastern Europe and you will see a different story altogether.
Again, you do not mention the legalised infanticide for disabled children not being included in the official murder statistics in these countries, as killing such children is not against the law.
I don’t have satellite TV so I have no access to Fox news and other American broadcasters here in the UK, aside from CNN.
Try again.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Well you keep making claims but you have not backed any of them up, please point me to the stats.
And you have still to explain why these atheist countries have lower murder rates than the god loving USA…
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
"Oh- no words about legalised paedophilia and incest?"
I take it you don’t believe in adam and eve then?
I take it you don’t believe in adam and eve then?
T
Tomster
Guest
Actually it is - atheism (Gr. - without God)LOL you were correct right up to the point your started writing…
atheism: (Gr. - without THEISM)
In the broadest sense, it is the **absence of belief **in the existence of deities.[3]
Ignore or deny has NOTHING to do with it. How can i ignore that which does not exist?
Please show us how you can prove that God does not exist.
S
StillWondering
Guest
Unless my memory deceives me, I think your info tab listed Atheist before I made this post. But either way, yeah none fits how you understand religion. I’m glad you no longer cannot accept there may be a God. I hope you will soon find that God to be the just, merciful, and every present God that I have come to know, argued with, accepted, yearned for, and loved.
Best wishes to you and all you may be searching for God.
T
Tomster
Guest
Well, prove your position. We are waiting!
Q
querying
Guest
I judge how moral a nation is upon how they treat their most vulnerable- the least among us- like Jesus said. And the most vulnerable sections of society are the elderly, children and the disabled. Atheist nations have a horrific record in how they treat the aforementioned.
Sigh. Laziness is not a virtue:
bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/dutch_ethicists_defend_infanticide/
Dutch ethicists defend infanticide
Infanticide is not a practice that has taken off in most paediatric wards. However, in the Netherlands it is effectively legal for severely impaired newborns under the so-called Groningen protocol, named after the hospital where it was written. Recently the Hastings Center Report, an American publication which is probably the world’s leading bioethics journal, published a robust defence of the Dutch position by two feminist bioethicists, Hilde Lindemann and Marian Verkerk. It is a revealing look at how Dutch have rationalised this controversial practice.
Lindemann and Verkerk calmly point out that, however disturbing the notion of deliberately killing disabled babies might seem to doctors elsewhere, the reality is “even more radical than its critics [have] supposed”. **They demonstrate that the Dutch system condones both the deliberate killing of babies whose quality of life will be “very grim” and babies who could survive without technological support for “many years, even into adulthood”. **Such children will face a life of “hopeless and unbearable suffering”, in their opinion. But how can doctors justify mounting “lethal preemptive strikes before any actual suffering has occurred”?
chninternational.com/euthanasia__the_netherlands%2008.04.07.htm
"Mercy killings have gone unpunished for decades in [Holland], but their numbers have dramatically accelerated. Elderly or chronically ill patients and deformed or critically ill newborns have long been considered eligible subjects. . . . As of last fall, doctors have been able to euthanize sick children as young as 12, as long as Mom and Dad agree."
“. . .there remain many other cases of killing the patient which we would call euthanasia, and which are not called euthanasia, but which are called “normal medical practice” by the Dutch government.”
blogicus.com/archives/dutch_euthanasia_leads_to_permitted_infanticide.php
Dutch Euthanasia Leads to Permitted Infanticide
In the Netherlands, infants are killed because they have birth defects, and doctors justify the practice. A 1997 study published in the British medical journal, The Lancet, revealed how deeply pediatric euthanasia had metastasized into Dutch neonatal medical practice.
According to the report, doctors killed approximately 8 percent of all infants who died in the Netherlands in 1995. Assuming this to be typical, this amounts to approximately 80-90 infanticides per year.
Of these, one-third would have lived more than a month. At least 10-15 of these killings involve infants who did not depend on life-sustaining treatment to stay alive. The study found that 45 percent of neonatologists and 31 percent of pediatricians, who responded to study’s questionnaires, had killed infants.
**A follow up study of end-of-life decisions made for infants published in the April 9, 2005, found that nothing had changed. In 2001, “in 8%” of cases, drugs were administered to infants “with the explicit intention to hasten death.” **
In 2004, Groningen University Medical Center made international headlines when it admitted to permitting pediatric euthanasia and published the “Groningen Protocol,” infanticide guidelines the hospital utilized when killing 15-20 disabled newborns each year.”
The Protocol creates three categories of killable infants: infants “with no chance of survival,” infants with a “poor prognosis and are dependent on intensive care,” and “infants with a hopeless prognosis,” including those “not depending on intensive medical treatment but for whom a very poor quality of life…is predicted.” Par for the course, authorities refused to prosecute even though pediatric infanticide is clearly murder under Dutch law.
nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200503220759.asp
Bureaucracy has trumped morality in the Netherlands. How else can one explain a country where, when doctors admit publicly that they commit eugenic infanticide, the leaders’ response is not to prosecute them for murder, but instead to urge that guidelines be created under which future baby killings can openly take place?
The “Groningen Protocol” — named after a pediatric hospital which admittedly permits doctors to end the lives of babies born with disabilities or terminal conditions — seeks to normalize infanticide by bringing the practice out of the shadows and into the light of day. Under this thinking, it isn’t the killing that is wrong, but the secrecy.
**Secrecy? What secrecy? It has been widely known for years that Dutch doctors kill disabled and dying babies. As far back as 1992, the Dutch Royal Society of Medicine published guidelines to be used in deciding whether to kill a baby, including whether the child would ever be able to live independently, experience “self realization” (being able to hear, read, write, labor) and have meaningful interpersonal relations.
**
No, the publishing of the Groningen Protocol isn’t designed to end the secret that is not a secret. It is intended to legitimize eugenic infanticide and move it from a crime tolerated by the, oh, so tolerant Dutch, to outright legality. In other words, the last vestige of protection left in the Netherlands against infanticide — that is, the technical illegality of killing babies in the Netherlands — is to be stripped away, including the protection against the killing of disabled infants not dependent on intensive care for survival.
archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/115852.shtml
Dutch Consider Legalizing Infanticide
Infanticide used to be taboo in the Western world. But the government of the Netherlands is currently considering what many consider to be unthinkable – the creation of legal standards for pediatric euthanasia.
According to the London Times, a committee will soon be set up to regulate the practice, which doctors have quietly been performing for years in the Netherlands. Shockingly, Dutch politicians have not faced the wrath of many domestic or foreign critics.
S
StillWondering
Guest
The description you wrote Tomster of the Atheist view of society and it’s anthropological effects reminds me of Ayn Rand’s works. She is an amazing thinker and I love her books from an intellectual perspective and from a personal reasoning perspective having lived under oppressive regimes myself. Unfortunately, her works and her philosophy is Objectivity, a field she created to explain a world where utopia can be achieved through the dignity of the man independent any supernatural effects. One where society can exists and coexists through this simple idea. It’s a great and noble goal of hers. Sadly it is flawed in its description of what societal ideals support this view.
My greatest difficulty with her reasoning is that it takes the anti Fascism, anti Communism, and Individualism view too far. At least for me. I cannot see a world that I would want to live in without social justice campaigns, regulations and guidelines. I know for some Catholics (who then become cafeteria Catholics), having an authoritative Magisterium is a difficult thing to accept on every issue taught by the Church. But that same Magisterium is what keeps the same Truths over the last 2000 years. It is a wisdom that define time and individualism when taken too far defies any authoritative and every present body. In a world where individuals are the ultimate pillar of society, senseless things can happen including unrecognized rape, widespread drug use, and the killing of the old and unborn.
Q
querying
Guest
Last but not least:
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071705.html
US Pediatric Nursing Journal Toys with Condoning Infanticide
Writes countries must continue to examine the moral, medical, ethical and legal aspects of direct killing of disabled infants
July 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A professional journal for pediatric nurses has produced an article examining the ethics of infanticide according to the Dutch Groningen Protocol. The Protocol permits the killing of babies in the Netherlands on the judgement of a physician based on “quality of life” criteria. The article, appearing in the May-June 2008 edition of the Journal of Pediatric Nursing, and jointly authored by J. Catlin and Renee Novakovich, talks about the effects of the Protocol on medical ethics in the US.
However, bioethics writer and critic Wesley J. Smith is sounding a warning, saying that as soon as academics start approaching an issue of life and death with terms like “complex” and “gray areas” and “difficult,” the ground is already laid for acceptance.
On the other hand, the article implies, countries with government-supported medical systems, such as Canada, Britain and the Netherlands, will be more likely to weigh the scales in favour of infanticide as a form of “social justice” in order to make more of the public medical system available for more worthy patients. (Americans who are still undecided about government controlled universal healthcare need to focus on this last paragraph)
Next time, do a quick google search yourself.
Now I await for you to defend the killing of not only babies, but children up to the age of 12, as long as parents consent to it.
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071705.html
US Pediatric Nursing Journal Toys with Condoning Infanticide
Writes countries must continue to examine the moral, medical, ethical and legal aspects of direct killing of disabled infants
July 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A professional journal for pediatric nurses has produced an article examining the ethics of infanticide according to the Dutch Groningen Protocol. The Protocol permits the killing of babies in the Netherlands on the judgement of a physician based on “quality of life” criteria. The article, appearing in the May-June 2008 edition of the Journal of Pediatric Nursing, and jointly authored by J. Catlin and Renee Novakovich, talks about the effects of the Protocol on medical ethics in the US.
However, bioethics writer and critic Wesley J. Smith is sounding a warning, saying that as soon as academics start approaching an issue of life and death with terms like “complex” and “gray areas” and “difficult,” the ground is already laid for acceptance.
On the other hand, the article implies, countries with government-supported medical systems, such as Canada, Britain and the Netherlands, will be more likely to weigh the scales in favour of infanticide as a form of “social justice” in order to make more of the public medical system available for more worthy patients. (Americans who are still undecided about government controlled universal healthcare need to focus on this last paragraph)
Next time, do a quick google search yourself.
Now I await for you to defend the killing of not only babies, but children up to the age of 12, as long as parents consent to it.
S
StillWondering
Guest
A couple of pages ago I proved that any universe with a beginning immediately contradicts atheism. I asked atheist readers here including, at the time, Charles Darwin who is active on this tread, to prove the universe has no beginning. He replied that it is unprovable and so will not.
I think proving the universe has no beginning is way easier then proving God does not exists. If atheists here cannot answer my challenge by stating it is impossible, then it simply makes no sense to be atheist. That’s why CD now has none as his religion. Which is already a wonderful step.
T
Tomster
Guest
Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it . . . etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe (yes, including you!), from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.LOL you were correct right up to the point your started writing…
atheism: (Gr. - without THEISM)
In the broadest sense, it is the **absence of belief **in the existence of deities.[3]
Ignore or deny has NOTHING to do with it. How can i ignore that which does not exist?
Hope this helps! :hey_bud:
- Status