Political Roundtable Quasar of Mayhem part III

[fugop]

Popper, I assume that you actually understand that there is very little correlation between religiosity and proclivity toward violence. Fervent belief, either in doctrine or dogma, can lead to atrocity, no question.

[Zonkerbl]

Cockroaches are alive and we kill them. Mushrooms are alive. Mosquitos are alive. Give me a break.

For that matter, cows are alive -- should we not kill them? Chickens are alive. Chicken eggs are alive. Fish are alive. Corn is alive. Wheat is alive. Cotton is alive.

It's obvious that the issue is not at what point does a zygote or fetus become alive. At what point is it a person with rights?

The only non-religious answer you can come up with is the point the fetus is viable.

Popper revealed why it's important to keep religion out of the discussion by sneering at Atheists as Communists and murderers. This is the intolerance that forced Massachusetts to strike out its official religion from the State constitutions. This is why I will sacrifice my life to keep the Government from endorsing a particular religion, because it leads inevitably to genocide. Name me a country with an official religion that has not at one point or the other declared Jews or Gypsies or some other easily targeted minority enemies of the state?

[fishercob]

Popper revealed why it's important to keep religion out of the discussion by sneering at Atheists as Communists and murderers. This is the intolerance that forced Massachusetts to strike out its official religion from the State constitutions. This is why I will sacrifice my life to keep the Government from endorsing a particular religion, because it leads inevitably to genocide. Name me a country with an official religion that has not at one point or the other declared Jews or Gypsies or some other easily targeted minority enemies of the state?

I have no problem with religion shaping someone's beliefs. I have a problem with it shaping laws.

I also deplore religiousists who will fight like hell for the rights of the unborn, but if that child happens to be gay they're happy to torment it for it's existence -- and heaven forbid if it wants to pick up a gun and defend our country.

[pineappleheadindc]

If I've contributed to some "definition of life" sidetracking, my apologies.

I use the term "life" and "viability" interchangeably. And apparently I may have started discussions where there's thought that these are two distinct things. In my mind, they are not. Until a zygote or fetus is viable, I don't think it's "life".

[popper]

Popper, I assume that you actually understand that there is very little correlation between religiosity and proclivity toward violence. Fervent belief, either in doctrine or dogma, can lead to atrocity, no question.

I do understand in theory but have never seen a study on the subject. Let me know if you have one in mind. Again, I can make a logical case for murder assuming one is an atheist. I cannot do so if one is a Christian for instance.

[Nivek]

fish: I'm not following your logic. What should shape laws if not the beliefs of the people making them? I think the criteria for laws, legislation, regulation, government initiatives, etc. should be that it "works" in the real world. I don't care what set of beliefs motivate or shape a particular law -- I only care about the effect.

[popper]

Cockroaches are alive and we kill them. Mushrooms are alive. Mosquitos are alive. Give me a break.

For that matter, cows are alive -- should we not kill them? Chickens are alive. Chicken eggs are alive. Fish are alive. Corn is alive. Wheat is alive. Cotton is alive.

It's obvious that the issue is not at what point does a zygote or fetus become alive. At what point is it a person with rights?

The only non-religious answer you can come up with is the point the fetus is viable.

Popper revealed why it's important to keep religion out of the discussion by sneering at Atheists as Communists and murderers. This is the intolerance that forced Massachusetts to strike out its official religion from the State constitutions. This is why I will sacrifice my life to keep the Government from endorsing a particular religion, because it leads inevitably to genocide. Name me a country with an official religion that has not at one point or the other declared Jews or Gypsies or some other easily targeted minority enemies of the state?

Wow. I'm afraid you've read a lot more into my post than was written. I simply stated that life does in fact begin at conception. The discussion was about human life and then several respondents replied with examples of non-human life. I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion but maybe I'm missing something. I have no problem with anyone that wants to define "right to live" with viability, vs. the beginning of life. The Supreme Court has done just that.

I don't understand how I am intolerant for citing examples from two of the largest mass-murdering governments in history to support my point that it is perfectly logical for atheist to murder in pursuit of self-interest. It is illogical for Christians to do so. I don't support our govt. endorsing an official religion and never have. I'm not sure why you attempt to impart that belief to me.

[montestewart]

Here's what I read: "I don't understand how I am intolerant for [asserting] that it is perfectly logical for atheist to murder in pursuit of self-interest."

[popper]

This is a polemic I wrote approx. ten years ago. Pls let me know if you find a flaw in the logic.

A Conversation on the Pursuit of Self-Interest


Sally – I found a wallet on a deserted beach today with $300 in it.

John – Are you going to keep it?

Sally – I haven’t decided yet. What do you think I should do?

John – Does it have the owner’s identification in it?

Sally – Yes.

John – Did anyone see you pick it up?

Sally – Not a soul.

John – Are you influenced by any particular religious belief?

Sally – Not really.

John – Tell me then Sally, what is it that you really desire in life?

Sally – Like most people, I desire pleasure, comfort, security and acceptance.

John – Well then, if you kept the money, would it help you satisfy your desires?

Sally – Yes. By keeping the money, I achieve some measure of pleasure, comfort and security. Since no one saw me take the wallet, then my desire for acceptance is not diminished.

John – Then in accordance with your belief system, it sounds like you’re going to keep the money.

Sally – I don’t see why I shouldn’t, although I have been taught throughout my life that stealing is wrong.

John – People are taught all kinds of things in life. Some are taught to hate a particular ethnic or religious group. Others are taught to worship the sun. Therefore wouldn’t you agree that lessons taught, are not, in and of themselves, necessarily worthy of acceptance.

Sally – I would have to agree with that.

John – Then it follows that, in any given situation, each individual should independently examine alternative actions to determine that action which most satisfies their desires.

Sally – To do otherwise would not make sense.

John – So now when you independently examine your alternative actions, to keep the money or return it, which action will most satisfy your desires?

Sally – Clearly, keeping the money would most satisfy my desires.

John – Then the question begs, what about the commission of even more heinous crime, like murder, in pursuit of your desires?

Sally – I can think of no logical reason not to commit murder if it contributes to the satisfaction of my desires, and, if there is little chance of being caught and punished.

John – I see. But what about the many people in the world with similar belief systems who do not commit crimes to satisfy their desires?

Sally – I understand now that if these criminal actions help an individual satisfy his or her desires, and a sufficiently low probability of apprehension exists, then one would be acting illogically not to engage in crime.

John –Your point is well taken. But how, given the logic of your criminal behavior, will you protect your reputation, and thereby advance your desire for acceptance.

Sally – I will conceal from others my true nature, the logic that informs it, and the extent to which I will commit crime to satisfy my desires.

John – Does that mean that everyone in the world with a similar belief system should commit crime to advance their interest?

Sally – Only if they are thinking logically and there is a sufficiently low probability that they will be caught.

[dobrojim]

a couple things -

what exact point actually defines conception for pro-lifers?

a sperm fertilizing an egg involves a number of discreet steps.
cell membranes fuse, nuclei fuse, the cell starts to divide, later
it becomes attached, even later it starts to differentiate in a
set program in which the developing zygote has more in common
with 'primitive' vertebrates than with humans, gill slits etc.

Since the opposition to abortion for many 'pro-lifers' is considered
to be biblically based, I was always curious where in the bible it
defines conception with a level of precision that would allow me
to think about the extent to which I might agree or disagree with it?

also I always loved the Al Franken query - if there is a fire
in a fertility clinic and you only have time to save either
a freezer with 1000 frozen embryos, or a 3 month old,
which do you save and what is your reasoning?

Finally, why do pro-lifers get 'special treatment' from
their congress critters and the MSM that I as an opponent of
military budgets far in excess of any rationally based need would
never receive?

[Zonkerbl]

This is a polemic I wrote approx. ten years ago. Pls let me know if you find a flaw in the logic.

A Conversation on the Pursuit of Self-Interest

John – Are you influenced by any particular religious belief?

Sally – Not really.

John – Tell me then Sally, what is it that you really desire in life?

Sally – Like most people, I desire pleasure, comfort, security and acceptance.

etc. etc.

So the only reason Christians do not commit murder is because their religion tells them not to? Yeesh.

I think it's safe to say that the large majority of people that I know are atheists, and none of them are murderers. Miraculously they were able to come to the conclusion that murder is wrong even without the aid of religion.

I would go so far as to say I would be more likely to trust someone with my life if they came to the conclusion that murder is wrong on their own, rather than having to be told it is wrong by someone else.

[montestewart]

Popper, I think you're confusing atheists with psychopaths.

[Wizards2Lottery]

Popper, I assume that you actually understand that there is very little correlation between religiosity and proclivity toward violence. Fervent belief, either in doctrine or dogma, can lead to atrocity, no question.

I do understand in theory but have never seen a study on the subject. Let me know if you have one in mind. Again, I can make a logical case for murder assuming one is an atheist. I cannot do so if one is a Christian for instance.

Funny since the holy almighty Bible belt of this country always has higher crime rates than the "liberal sceular" North East.

Oh it must be the atheists.

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

“The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.”

That's Adolf Hitler for you.

If I were a narrow minded religious prick, I think I would make a statement like:

"Again, I can make a logical case for murder assuming one is a Christian. I cannot do so if one is an Atheist for instance."

Let's not forget all the passages advocating genocide in the Bible either.

[daSwami]

I lurk this thread almost daily, but generally opt not to participate lest my own heart-felt views get drowned out by this annoying tsunami of links to other peoples' thoughts (by "other people" I mean pundits). This thread (or at least previous iterations thereof) used to be a place where posters shared their opinions and ideologies using their own words. We all know where we can go to get our own opinions reinforced for us (i.e., MSNBC or FOX News, depending)... But that's not why I come here. I come here to gain insights into other peoples' experiences so that I can better understand why people lean (politically speaking) the way they do, which provides some context for my own beliefs.

So, the "life" debate. This is HUGE for me personally right now. When I hear candidates like Romney say that they would support a Constitutional Amendment (!) defining that life begins at conception I cringe. The idea of codifying --in our country's governing document!-- something that is - by definition - unknowable is wholly disconcerting.

Specifically, it would mean re-reversing the GWB ban on fetal stem cell research, which, for me personally, (because I suffer from a neuro-muscular disorder) would severely diminish the likelihood that I will ever be cured. Cerebral Palsy, Parkinsons, stroke, traumatic brain injury ... the patients with any of these conditions (and many more) could benefit from the research being done on human embryos.

[popper]

Popper, I assume that you actually understand that there is very little correlation between religiosity and proclivity toward violence. Fervent belief, either in doctrine or dogma, can lead to atrocity, no question.

I do understand in theory but have never seen a study on the subject. Let me know if you have one in mind. Again, I can make a logical case for murder assuming one is an atheist. I cannot do so if one is a Christian for instance.

Funny since the holy almighty Bible belt of this country always has higher crime rates than the "liberal sceular" North East.

Oh it must be the atheists. Your example of "two" mass murdering Atheists is a bunch of crap. I'm assuming one of the two is Adolf Hitler who the religious right love to throw out as an atheist but in reality:

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

“The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.”

That's Adolf Hitler for you.

If I were a narrow minded religious prick, I think I would make a statement like:

"Again, I can make a logical case for murder assuming one is a Christian. I cannot do so if one is an Atheist for instance."

The two examples I gave were Russia and China, not Germany. The anger coming through in your post is palpable. I thought this was a forum for these types of discussions.

[Wizards2Lottery]

I edited my post because I skimmed over your earlier post, which is my mistake.

It's not anger, rather irritating to read what you write. I've been reading your crap for a while now and you seem to have to this "I am right, everyone else is wrong" idea about your view points.

You don't find anything wrong with labeling what is a growing community (Atheists) in our country, as those who would be OK with murder? It's disrespectful, derogatory, ignorant, you want me to keep going? How about that some of us who are atheists might get offended by such a narrow minded shallow view point of us? What if this was pointed another way towards the resident Jews, Muslims, Hindu's etc of this board?

Grow up popper. You are the most intolerant person I've read in this thread.

[montestewart]

Far too angry Wizards2Lottery. I've gotten used to certain believers standing in the shoes of so-called atheists and logically assigning to them a self-serving moral bankruptcy. I've gotten used to the "atheist" murderers in China and Russia contrasted against such spiritually righteous countries as the United States, which itself has a long history of logical and religiously inspired goodwill toward the less fortunate Native Americans, the many African immigrants that came to the new world looking for economic opportunity, and the many unfortunate non-combatants in battle. Get used to it, Wizards2Lottery.

[Wizards2Lottery]

Get used to it, Wizards2Lottery.

In some ways, I have to a certain degree.

My solution to this is putting popper on ignore. I've yet to read something from him that isn't the usual Fox News drivel and I'm assuming that is never changing.

[fishercob]

fish: I'm not following your logic. What should shape laws if not the beliefs of the people making them? I think the criteria for laws, legislation, regulation, government initiatives, etc. should be that it "works" in the real world. I don't care what set of beliefs motivate or shape a particular law -- I only care about the effect.

The beliefs of the governed.

I don't want to spawn a whole tangent on representative democracy, but laws should be made with the "end user" in mind, not because a lawmaker's religion dictates it. For instance, I'm Jewish. Observant Jews ranging from ultra-orthodox to those who call under the traditional Conservative (capital C) movement keep kosher and follow certain dietary laws to varying degrees of strictness. Some people do it because they believe in their hearts that these laws are derived from the word of the Lord, breaking them is a sin, etc. I'm pretty sure the Old Testament would punish the breaking of these laws with something fun like stoning.

I don't want to government telling me it's a crime to eat shellfish, pork, or a steak and cheese. I welcome Jewish lawmakers to hold such beliefs and respect their right to do so. But those beliefs shouldn't shape laws about what people can and can't do.

I know there are biblical prohibitions against things like killing, stealing, etc. If those prohibitions didn't exist, or the old testament didn't exist, somehow I think people would figure out those things were wrong, and societies all over the world would have laws against them.

[popper]

I give up. I'll voluntarily refrain from posting. I've learned some interesting things on this thread but it is obvious that my opinions and thoughts are not welcome to the majority. Best of luck to all.