Atheist experiences of religious apparitions

kylith

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Really? Sperm not required? Mother only conception now?

Your true colours in saying that a man who supports the idea of a woman having bodily autonomy should cut off his testicles.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

We need to be careful. The role of fatherhood is important in a child's life. I cannot understand men who refuse to see this. There is some sort of self hate going on?

No one is disputing that, but it only comes into effect if a child is born that needs parenting.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Imagine the respons a man would receive if he argued that a woman should have no say in whether her child gets born or not.

And yet, that's what it appears you're arguing for; a woman not getting the final say in whether she continues with a pregnancy or not.

Samaris

You keep giving your aggravated opinion about it without actually confronting any of the awkward situations, deusexmachina. Problem is that it's not as easy as you're making it out to be (man gets at least equal say in what happens to his foetus). Why not answer the specific scenarios;

- Woman is concerned about her medical history and that the pregnancy could be dangerous. Is it her choice if the father wants the baby?
- Man doesn't want vasectomy, woman wants better form of birth control (say she can't use various sorts). Does she have a say?
- Woman does not want baby for X reason, decides not to keep the pregnancy. Should the man just chop his balls off at that point?

smacl

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Wow. Sad. Why not chop them off now - you don't need them.

Some of us have sex for reasons other than procreation you know. There are rather less painful forms of contraception than castration, or are you scared some evil woman is going to sneak up on you, steal your sperm, and go off and have a baby without your consent? :rolleyes:

Deusexmachina

smacl wrote: »

Some of us have sex for reasons other than procreation you know. There are rather less painful forms of contraception than castration, or are you scared some evil woman is going to sneak up on you, steal your sperm, and go off and have a baby without your consent? :rolleyes:

Too scared and intimidated to want a say in your own child's existence because you are only a man?

kylith

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Too scared and intimidated to want a say in your own child's existence because you are only a man?

And if the woman does not want to go through with the pregnancy?

Deusexmachina

kylith wrote: »

And if the woman does not want to go through with the pregnancy?

We have done this already. It's a 2 person decision (Mother and Father). If they remain totally at odds then the decision is most likely made by the Mother.

But my point is that in some circumstances this could be awful - very late stage abortion for example or if the Mother decides to about for trivial reasons and the Father is devastated.

It's not so simple as 'woman decides'.

kylith

Deusexmachina wrote: »

We have done this already. It's a 2 person decision (Mother and Father). If they remain totally at odds then the decision is most likely made by the Mother.

But my point is that in some circumstances this could be awful - very late stage abortion for example or if the Mother decides to about for trivial reasons and the Father is devastated.

It's not so simple as 'woman decides'.

And how many abortions, statistically, are performed at a late stage for trivial reasons like the woman forgot she had a holiday booked or was going out and couldn't fit into a dress?

And what do you think is cheaper and less traumatic; rearranging a holiday or a late-stage abortion, which is childbirth?

oldrnwisr

kelly1 wrote: »

And you evidence for that I assume? Have you actually done any research into the reliability of the bible? Don't you know there's a very high degree of consistency across all the earliest available greek texts? Check Youtube for "reliability of the new testament manuscripts". Do the research, don't take the word of someone with an axe to grind.

Well, I have done the research as it happens and your argument is both wrong and misplaced.

Firstly, there are some significant later interpolations in the text.
Mark 16:9-20 is not present in the earliest copies of Mark and removing it gives the chapter and the gospel as a whole a more natural ending (dealt with in more detail on the historicity of Jesus thread).
The two main trinitarian references in the NT are also later interpolations. 1 John 5:7-8 is a later addition not found in any manuscript before the 14th century. Matthew 28:19 is also considered to be a later addition. Firstly, it goes against the evidence of Acts 19:5, where people are being baptized in the name of Jesus alone. Furthermore, Eusebius writing in the 4th century quotes Matthew's text but only makes reference to Jesus and not the trinity.
There are in fact quite a lot of additions to the text with many passages being missing from the earliest manuscripts including John 7:53-8:11, Acts 15:34, Acts 18:37, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, Luke 24:12 etc.

Secondly there are copying errors although these are less significant than the additions listed above.
Most of the copying errors that occur between New Testament manuscripts (about 300,000 individual variations in total) are very minor and of a technical nature.
One type of variation is that of haplography and dittography, the omission or repetition of text where two different sentences begin with (homoeoarcton) or end with (homoeoteleuton) the same string of letters. This is seen in Matthew 5:19-20 where the presence of the same string of letters: ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν at the end of the first and last sentence of verse 19 and the last sentence of verse 20 has given rise to a haplographic omission in both the Codex Sinaiticus (where most of verse 19 is deleted) and the Codex Bezae (where everything between the end of the first sentence of verse 19 and the end of verse 20 is deleted).
Another example of variation is Romans 5:1 where homophonous words in Greek have created manuscript variations. In the verse:

"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"

the phrase "we have" above is translated as we have in some manuscripts and we might have in others with the split seemingly fairly even between both interpretations. This arises from the similarity between ἔχομεν and ἔχωμεν in Greek.
Most of the other forms of textual variation are unintentional and very minor and involve spelling errors, word sequence adjustments, corrections to grammar and word substitutions. However, that is not to say that aren't some intentional and in some ways significant alterations to the text.
One example of an intentional and non-trivial alteration to the text is the retroactive harmonization of the text of Mark 9:31 and 10:34. In Mark 9:31 and 10:34, the foretelling of Jesus' death predicts that he will arise "after three days" or "three days later" (μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας). This stands in contrast to Matthew 17:20 (and Luke) where the verse is rendered "on the third day"(τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). Later copies of Mark use the wording from Matthew in order to try and gloss over Mark's seeming mistake.
Another intentional change is found in Luke 23:32. The verse is translated in modern bibles as:

"Two others also, who were criminals, were being led away to be put to death with Him."

The majority of manuscripts agree with this translation, however, the older manuscripts (P75, Sinaiticus etc.) render the verse as:

"And also other criminals, two, were led away to be put to death with Him."

The text was changed in later manuscripts to avoid the implication that Jesus was a criminal.

Finally, there are passages which are inserted into gospels different from those where they are originally found as a duplication error such as Matthew 17:21 (a duplicate of Mark 9:29) or Matthew 18:11 (a duplicate of Luke 19:10).

The other point about this "bible hasn't changed significantly" argument is the fact that there is so little evidence to make a conclusion either for or against this argument. This is a long and detailed argument dealing with 5745 manuscripts of varying length but the key points are as follows:

• 22% of the New Testament does not exist in any manuscript older than Codex Sinaiticus (the oldest extant bible).
• Some entire books of the NT do not exist in manuscripts prior to Codex Sinaiticus (e.g. 1, 2 Timothy, 3 John)
• Only 48 manuscripts predate Codex Sinaiticus
• The oft-cited figure of 5000+ manuscripts covers a period from the 2nd to 16th centuries.
• In all the NT only 62.9% of verses are the same in all manuscripts.
• With regard to the gospels in particular only 54.5% (on average) of verses are the same in all manuscripts (for pedants the exact percentages are Mark - 45.1%, Matthew - 59.9%, Luke - 57.2% and John 51.8%)
• The earliest fragments of the gospels are dated thus (John - 125-150CE, Matthew, Luke - 200CE, Mark - 250CE)

However, what's even more important here is the relevance of the manuscript consistency argument. GritBiscuit's comment in post 259 is that they doesn't find bible quotes to be authoritative due to, in part, rewrites, translation issues and consistency issues. With regard to GritBiscuit's comment it's not clear that they meant consistency across manuscripts as opposed to consistency across sources. The first is irrelevant and the second is actually a problem for Christians. You see, the historical reliability of the bible isn't supported by how well preserved the texts have been. It is far more likely that they were preserved for their theological message than any notion that they were accurately recounting the events they purport to depict. The early church fathers were very much of this mentality:


"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."
Irenaeus


"That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts."
Origen

Furthermore, the historical reliability is damaged by a number of problems including factual errors, internal and external contradictions, plagiarised or borrowed passages, the synoptic problem, the fact that 20 out of 27 books of the New Testament are either anonymous or pseudepigraphal (i.e. forgeries) or the fact that the supposedly divinely inspired books in the New Testament make numerous references to other books which aren't divinely inspired (e.g. Paul's exhortation to read the Epistle to the Laodiceans in Colossians 4:16).

kylith wrote: »

Ah, please be more specific in future

However, there's reason to believe that the NT wasn't originally written in Greek either:

A comment by a second-century bishop named Papias:


And from Josephus:

(emphasis mine)

Though he claims to have translated his own text at least.

Just a side note on this. I've dealt with Papias' comment on the historicity thread but there are persuasive reasons why Matthew wasn't originally written in Aramaic. Firstly, it doesn't read like a translated work. Secondly, we have no extant copies, even fragmentary ones, of an Aaramaic manuscript. Finally, Matthew borrows heavily from Mark which was definitely written in Greek. It seems like a lot of trouble to translate Mark into Aramaic, make some changes to it, and then translate back into Greek later.

oldrnwisr

spacecoyote wrote: »

Speaking of Jesus story, and the crucifixion, etc... how does poor old Krishna fit in with your beliefs.

Read number 9 on the attached list:

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

See any strange co-incidences (and that's just using Krishna as an example, never mind the rest on the list)?

Just a minor note on this. I really wish I could go back in time and pay the person that made Zeitgeist to go do something else. It's an awful piece of badly researched crap and only serves to hoodwink people into thinking something as true which can be torn apart with not much research.

In truth, there are only two examples of deities which undergo resurrection prior to Christianity which can be properly substantiated, Zalmoxis and Inanna. Inanna is also the only example of a deity who is crucified, died and is resurrected and appears before Christian writings. Her story is told on extant cuneiform tablets and the story itself is translated in History Begins at Sumer.

The list of crucified saviours is nowhere near as long as Zeitgeist or Kersey Graves or the others make out. But there are pre-Christian examples which may have found their way into or otherwise influenced the gospels.

smacl

Deusexmachina wrote: »

We have done this already. It's a 2 person decision (Mother and Father). If they remain totally at odds then the decision is most likely made by the Mother.

But my point is that in some circumstances this could be awful - very late stage abortion for example or if the Mother decides to about for trivial reasons and the Father is devastated.

It's not so simple as 'woman decides'.

How about the situation where the woman becomes pregnant after a brief fling and wants to keep the baby and the man decides that fatherhood isn't for him, maybe for reasons such as being expensive, a load of work, a killer of the social life, and just not really that into any kind of extended relationship. That's actually a far more common occurrence, where you've got a single mum who might appreciate a bit of support in raising junior but yer man has no interest whatsoever. Maybe he suggested an abortion but she wasn't into it, would you say its a joint decision in that case or does it ultimately rest with her? Maybe she would have liked him to stick around but he's having none of it, using a bit of bodily autonomy to get the hell out of dodge.

Deusexmachina

smacl wrote: »

How about the situation where the woman becomes pregnant after a brief fling and wants to keep the baby and the man decides that fatherhood isn't for him, maybe for reasons such as being expensive, a load of work, a killer of the social life, and just not really that into any kind of extended relationship. That's actually a far more common occurrence, where you've got a single mum who might appreciate a bit of support in raising junior but yer man has no interest whatsoever. Maybe he suggested an abortion but she wasn't into it, would you say its a joint decision in that case or does it ultimately rest with her? Maybe she would have liked him to stick around but he's having none of it, using a bit of bodily autonomy to get the hell out of dodge.

Indeed. There are a myriad of scenarios that could apply.
It's complex. One rule does not fit all, nor should it.

smacl

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Indeed. There are a myriad of scenarios that could apply.
It's complex. One rule does not fit all, nor should it.

So would you suggest it is reasonable for a man to ask a woman to have an abortion where her got her pregnant but does not wish to become a father? If not, why not?

looksee

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Indeed. There are a myriad of scenarios that could apply.
It's complex. One rule does not fit all, nor should it.

Er yes? That's what we have been trying to tell you. So now we are all agreed we can presumably move on?

beefburrito

Anyhow back to the original post.
I'm an agnostic and over the years I had experiences which are not scientifically explainational.

Actually that feeling of holiness or at one with everything is quite a surreal feeling, almost like a buzz....

Unfortunately atheists don't experience whats it like to be delusional, feeling of woo or that universal woo emotional....

It's quite nice and comforting, maybe the Atheist lacks that delusional gene or the woo feeling....

I'd say it's akin to getting up on a flying unicorn and flying through a land of make believe....

Call it delusional,call it a mental illness.....

Your call Atheists

I say it's contempt prior to investigation

looksee

beefburrito wrote: »

Anyhow back to the original post.
I'm an agnostic and over the years I had experiences which are not scientifically explainational.

Actually that feeling of holiness or at one with everything is quite a surreal feeling, almost like a buzz....

Unfortunately atheists don't experience whats it like to be delusional, feeling of woo or that universal woo emotional....

It's quite nice and comforting, maybe the Atheist lacks that delusional gene or the woo feeling....

I'd say it's akin to getting up on a flying unicorn and flying through a land of make believe....

Call it delusional,call it a mental illness.....

Your call Atheists

I say it's contempt prior to investigation

Of course it can be explained, or at least to the extent that sadness, grief, confusion, anger, happiness, enthusiasm etc can be explained. It is very nice to get that occasional surge of contentment and all is right with the world - people even try and encourage it with drugs - but that doesn't make it any way mysterious. Why would that particular emotion be put down as evidence of 'holiness' more than any other emotion?

beefburrito

looksee wrote: »

Of course it can be explained, or at least to the extent that sadness, grief, confusion, anger, happiness, enthusiasm etc can be explained. It is very nice to get that occasional surge of contentment and all is right with the world - people even try and encourage it with drugs - but that doesn't make it any way mysterious. Why would that particular emotion be put down as evidence of 'holiness' more than any other emotion?

Some people may think it's mysterious,it depends on how you call it.

An old lady living on a mountain side in Dingle might call it mysterious, some science student in DIT may call it contentment.

I call it open mindedness.

There may be no spiritual realm or anything outside the material sense of things....

smacl

beefburrito wrote: »

I say it's contempt prior to investigation

If there's one thing there has been lots of it is investigation. Paranormal studies used to be a big thing in American universities in the 60s-80s but have died out as nothing much came out of it. Similarly there has been extensive research into the history surrounding most religions, have read of some Bart Ehrman for example or even browse a related thread here. Note that there has been huge prize money available to anyone who could demonstrate anything paranormal over the years and no one has, but not for want of trying. So reasonable scepticism following exhaustive investigation really

spacecoyote

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Just a minor note on this. I really wish I could go back in time and pay the person that made Zeitgeist to go do something else. It's an awful piece of badly researched crap and only serves to hoodwink people into thinking something as true which can be torn apart with not much research.

In truth, there are only two examples of deities which undergo resurrection prior to Christianity which can be properly substantiated, Zalmoxis and Inanna. Inanna is also the only example of a deity who is crucified, died and is resurrected and appears before Christian writings. Her story is told on extant cuneiform tablets and the story itself is translated in History Begins at Sumer.

The list of crucified saviours is nowhere near as long as Zeitgeist or Kersey Graves or the others make out. But there are pre-Christian examples which may have found their way into or otherwise influenced the gospels.

Yeah, I posted the link, and while I was reading through it, some of the details seemed a bit too pulled together, so I did a bit of digging & was able to find a lot of gaps.

I could see, on the Krishna point, that there is some points towards how you interpret crucifixion. Some stories point towards him being killed accidentally by a Hunter with an arrow to his foot. Others seem to point to a different story where he was basically pinned to a tree by multiple arrows by a group of hunters, which appears to be the story they are using to close the gap between Jesus & Krishna's death stories (being pinned to a tree vs being pinned to a cross)

I would have thought that there wouldn't have been too much chance that any stories of Krishna would make their way to that part of the world, at that time, anyway and that any origin stories would be more likely to have been influenced by Greek/Roman/Eqyptian stories.

Outside of the pure crucixion story, there does seem to be a lot of commonalities around Gods incarnate/saviours across most religions though, from what I can see.

beefburrito

smacl wrote: »

If there's one thing there has been lots of it is investigation. Paranormal studies used to be a big thing in American universities in the 60s-80s but have died out as nothing much came out of it. Similarly there has been extensive research into the history surrounding most religions, have read of some Bart Ehrman for example or even browse a related thread here. Note that there has been huge prize money available to anyone who could demonstrate anything paranormal over the years and no one has, but not for want of trying. So reasonable scepticism following exhaustive investigation really

Well it looks like this debate or thread has come to the usual conclusion....

There's no evidence of Woo, God, miracles or other spiritual realms or dimensions....

I still like the fact now and again I can have delusional feeling' s and am in awe of god's, spiritual woo, and scepticism.

looksee

beefburrito wrote: »

Well it looks like this debate or thread has come to the usual conclusion....

There's no evidence of Woo, God, miracles or other spiritual realms or dimensions....

I still like the fact now and again I can have delusional feeling' s and am in awe of god's, spiritual woo, and scepticism.

Did you honestly expect any other conclusion in this particular forum?

nozzferrahhtoo

beefburrito wrote: »

I had experiences which are not scientifically explainational.

It is worth considering what you actually mean by those words. Specifically it is worth knowing the difference between "has not been explained scientifically" and "not explainable by science". Which you particularly mean is not clear as I suspect you may have invented a word.

While the former might be true, the latter will almost always be mere assumption. That said however the kind of things you describe.........

beefburrito wrote: »

Actually that feeling of holiness or at one with everything is quite a surreal feeling, almost like a buzz....

....... are experiences that do not lack for either scientific explanation or firm science upon which to ground hypothesis.

Take the feeling of being one with everything for example. We learned a lot about that when we studied Capgras Syndrome.

For those who do not know, this is a mental delusion where a patient becomes convinced that a person or object has been replaced with an impostor or replica.

What we learned is that places like the Amygdala in the limbic system give us a sense of relevance, emotional connection, and connectedness to a person or object. When you see a rock, it does very little. When you see your mother, it does. For example.

A random example but the point is that stimulation of different areas of the brain, by some natural imbalance in the brain, or artificially with a drug, hormone, chemical, electrical stimulus, or physical extremes has the potential to evoke such feelings.

And if such things become hyper stimulated than certainly one result is likely to be that the brain starts feeling like there are connections and relevance where none really exist. And suddenly the individual will feel like everything is connected and relevant and important.

So when we know and are continuing to research such things, it is a mystery to me what experiences you feel can not be explained by science. Maybe some have not yet been, but we are certainly on our way to doing so.

beefburrito wrote: »

Unfortunately atheists don't experience whats it like to be delusional, feeling of woo or that universal woo emotional....

I do not think that is true at all. I think atheists often experience all the same things you are describing. There are few experiences I hear theists describe that I have not myself had. And of the few I have not myself had, some atheists in close relationships with me have had them.

The difference between atheists and theists therefore does not AT ALL seem to be rooted in the experiences they are each having. Atheists can, and often do, experience all the same things.

No, the difference lies solely in the narratives and interpretations of those experiences they apply retrospectively after the fact. With the theist seemingly being more prone to interpret it by means of unsubstantiated fantasy and concepts like after lives and gods and souls.

King Mob

beefburrito wrote: »

Well it looks like this debate or thread has come to the usual conclusion....

There's no evidence of Woo, God, miracles or other spiritual realms or dimensions....

Well yea, you haven't presented any such evidence.

There are plenty of people who describe what you did only about religious ideas you would find completely laughable.

What do you say about people who claim to feel cured and/or awed by someone who is obviously fake or proven to be fake?
What makes your experiences different to an outside observer?

nozzferrahhtoo

kelly1 wrote: »

You won't get any serious engagement, just point-scoring rhetoric.

I hope my post to the user above disabuses you of that narrative as my post was very serious and not reliant on point scoring. Unless of course you define a lack of serious engagement as being anyone who makes points you personally dislike. In which case carry on.

kelly1 wrote: »

1 Cor 2: The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

That is one of the many tautology quotes I read often. It basically says nothing more than "People will agree with you if they agree with you". But more insidious it is one of the many moves religions make to deride anyone who does not buy into that religion. It is an attempt to spin YOUR lack of substantiation for your claims as some fault or lack on behalf of anyone who does not believe you.

It is a common move in religious discourse alas. But one we see often. The failure is never in you supporting your claims or points. Rather the failure is that the person who does not simply swallow them wholesale must be lacking in some regard.

It is not an honest move.

kelly1 wrote: »

Guys, I've been defending Christianity on the assumption that God exists. I can hardly base it on the assumption that God doesn't exist!

Well once you admit it is an assumption, nothing more than an assumption, and one that is not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated by any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you have ever offered............ then I do not think you will get much disagreement from all that many atheists on here.

kelly1 wrote: »

In order to make that point, the atheist must assume that God exists, for the sake of argument.

During the leaving cert I wrote a long essay for my teacher on the subject of why I do NOT think we should be quick to forgive the actions of Silas Marner. This annoyed the teacher of course as she wanted us to write a whole essay on why we SHOULD be very understanding and forgiving.

However I at no point during this assumed, nor was I required to, that Silas actually existed. Humans are perfectly capable of discussing the moral actions of fictional characters without ever having to believe them real.

kelly1 wrote: »

I do get it, you don't believe. That's your own business.

For me (only speaking for me here, I am not sure if others feel the same) it would be more accurate to say I "can not" believe rather than I "do not" believe.

Why? Because I am simply incapable of believing anything for which there is no substantiation. If there is no reason to believe something I simply can not switch on belief in my head.

Similarly if reasons are offered to believe something I can not PREVENT belief either. Belief simply happens to me. It does not matter if I really hate the truth or it's implications. I am simply compelled by the substantiation to believe it.

The issue here is that the idea of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent that created us and/or our universe is an idea you have presented without a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to support it.

So no I do not believe it. I also CAN NOT believe it. Until such time as you move to back up your claims, rather than offer excuses for not backing up your claims, this is unlikely to change.

nozzferrahhtoo

I trust you will find nothing "puerile" in my response or intending specifically to make "a big effort to offend". In fact as with all my posts on this forum, you will find the level of decorum you direct at me reflected back at you in kind.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I do find the level of anger, sarcasm and vitriol directed at anyone who expresses a faith in Christianity on many Boards threads is very interesting.

It is a pity and a shame where such people throw out emotion over intellect when deriding unsubstantiated nonsense. It does happen on boards for sure. But I fear that you might be exaggerating the depth and level of it in turn as I do not think it is as bad as you make it sound.

That said however..........

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Is it because most posters are adolescent (at least mentally) and are still rebelling against their parents? Is it just an Irish thing (due to the crimes of the Catholic Church institution)? Or is it just a passing phase - will we eventually grow up as a society and come to terms with our past?

........... I do not think it is any of the things you mention really. I think historically the unsubstantiated nonsense inherent in religion has been taboo to challenge, and enjoyed a special privilege that was sometimes even protected by law, violence, torture and even murder.

And like someone locked in a tiny apartment who then enjoys running free in a field of flowers......... more and more that special privilege is falling away and we can now call religion out for the unsubstantiated (and often damaging) nonsense that it actually is. And humor (sometimes, alas, derogatory humor) is one of the many faculties we can (and should) bring to bear on doing that.

Couple that with the linguistic hand waving and acrobatics theists engage in when challenged on their truth claims, and you have a foundation of genuine frustration fueling the above.

Imagine for example you were socially and politically very active. You vote and campaign and do talks and everything. Then one day someone waltzes in with a single page of statistics and started making policy demands and claims off the back of it.

Naturally you would want to know how the statistics were collated, how they were based, what methodology was used, who did the study, and more. But no, the person refuses. He just continues to wave the sheet around and demand we pander to it's contents. He not only refuses to show the foundation or background to the figures, but he finds multiple ways to deride or insult or silence anyone who even asks.

That is what we get with religion. When topics like, to name but a few, science, sexuality, reproductive autonomy and more come up the religious often have loud talkers who demand things off the word of god, some book of god, etc.

But when you ask them to substantiate ANY of that........ to lend even a modicum of credence that there even IS a god..... let alone that it's demands or opinions are as claimed........... they not only offer nothing but find ways to deride or insult you (close minded, materialistic, deluded by satan) or silence you (claiming to be offended, claims of blasphemy, demanding respect for beliefs and so forth).

This constant stone walling of open and honest discourse eventually has to break down in frustration and anger. And I can certainly understand, if not join, those who get insulting and derogatory and puerile in return.

As some old saying suggests, arguing with fools or liars can often force one to go to their level.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

You seem to mix up the belief system with some of the individuals who practice it.

That conflation is, alas, one many theists are prone to make when they claim to be insulted by comments directed at WHAT they believe. I myself maintain an intellectual distinction between people and the beliefs they hold. And I do not see the derision of one as being the derision of the other. In fact I hold to an axiom in all I do and say of "Respect people, not ideas".

Yet the intent from many is to be offended vicariously on behalf of their beliefs. And that move is the enemy of open and honest discourse. It is not something we should even pander to.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I'll try a question. What existed before the Big Bang?

Although you appear to be someone who does not like a question to be answered with a question, it has to be done here. Given that time itself is one of the attributes that arose with the "big bang" one has to ask what you (think you) mean by the word "before".

Generally however the answer is "we do not know, it is an open question we are working on". Is there another answer you expected or wanted?

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Try as you might, you cannot entirely nullify the role of fathers in the creation of humans.

I think you are missing (I suspect willfully, but I admit that is mere suspicion) the linguistic distinction people are making with the use of the word "parent". A parent is an entity that can be distinct from biological reproduction.

However I am not sure I even expect your sentence to be scientifically accurate in the long term. I think we are well on our way to understanding how to produce a human being using whatever DNA we want.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I would also suggest the grounds for termination should never be trivial.

In general, rather than in specific contexts, I do not see why not. I think the grounds for a termination at some stages should be entirely irrelevant in fact. If it can be agreed that there is no reason to think that, say, a fetus at 12 weeks of gestation has any rights or moral concern.......... then the reasons someone might have for wanting to terminate it should not be our concern AT ALL. It could not be less relevant.

As the process progresses however, later and later, I think that modifies itself and grounds for terminating at..... say..... 30 weeks..... should be non-trivial indeed.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

You are suggesting that the father should have no say in whether his child is born or is terminated.

I am open minded myself on that one as it is a specific moral question I have not yet found time to sit down and reason out. My heart, rather than my head, says no however..... I see no real reason why he should have a say. But there are many follow on implications to that which need consideration. Such as, for example, if a man says he wants the child terminated and the woman has the child anyway........... why can or should the man be expected to support (financially or otherwise) that child. So some people have the concept of men having the ability to have a "legal abortion" of the child divesting them of any responsibility for it.

But as I said I have no actual conclusions on it. I do mean to sit down and read and deeply consider all sides of that moral question.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

The sad thing is you probable think women will find you more attractive and desirable for holding this viewpoint.

That would appear to be the kind of pureile and uncalled for comment you first entered the thread deriding. I do not think you do anything but let yourself down in having made it while undermining the "points" you made about attention seeking and being needlessly emotive in attacks on the positions of others.

You are getting personal there purely and solely for the sake of getting personal and shooting your own opening posts in the foot by doing so.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Really? Sperm not required? Mother only conception now?

Scientifically we are certainly on the road to that yes. Currently however the majority of the people I have met who claim any such thing are the Christians. So you might want to take that particular one up with them.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

We need to be careful. The role of fatherhood is important in a child's life.

Is it though? How? Why? I have heard it claimed a lot but never backed up. Short of their (current) role in the biological process of reproduction I have not seen a single reason to think that the presence of a particular gender in the parenting of a child is AT ALL relevant, let alone "important".

And the last time the topic came up on boards when I was around one Jack Soap who was vocal on the issue of it's importance offered nothing except a loud and shrill conspiracy theory claim that all academia is liberally biased and is out validate any world view that supports it. Coupled with the claim that all the measures studies have used to show gender is NOT important in parenting were poorly chosen measures (of course the user could not suggest ONE better measure) before the coup de gras of claiming that a child not becoming dependent on drugs, or not ending up in prison, is not even a positive measure of an individuals outcome.

So I trust you have some more convincing reasoning to offer than that users barrel of manure as to why fatherhood or motherhood specifically are important in a child's life.