The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by enorbet I say No. Eggs are not birds yet and a fetus is not yet a child.

False comparison.
Bird eggs are not birds yet, and human eggs are not humans yet.
Though, once the bird egg is being fertilized, mother bird cares about it and "considers" it as its offspring.
Its not the same for humans, because we evolved to be quite unnatural creatures - a bird cannot hate it's wing, or the colors of it's feathers; a human can hate enough it's own body to go to the plastic surgery to change it.

So, not all the women care for their offspring, even when it's born.

Inside of an fertilized egg is a future bird, a bird's offspring.
It is alive, and it develops.
It-s life begins when it's development begins, and that is after conception.

Science does consider that human development starts after conception - that is why you have "intrauterine human development" in medicine textbooks (the one I used as a student, for example), and also, there are many scientific articles about intrauteral or prenatal human development.

Science has made it possible to have higher rates of survival for "premmies" and even though we could say, "That's not natural survival" that we can do it matters, so I don't think abortion should be allowed after it is possible for a fetus to survive outside the womb.

I agree with you that it should be allowed in that period, but because of other reasons.
It's a hypocritical reason, the same which explains why I can eat fish only if I don't see it's head. If I don't "feel" that it's alive, if it doesn't look like alive, that justifies a killing and me eating it.

IMHO, abortion is far more complex issue than eather pro-life or pro-choice ideological indoctrination tries to prove.
And it is one of the most complex ethical and legal questions.

Basically, pro-life ideology is claiming that "all life is sacred", which I do not agree with.
And pro-choice ideology is making logical acrobatics like "ok, we have to have abortions, and we can't if it is human and alive, so let's proclaim it not human and not alive and we solved the problem"

Which is also a nonsense because it is human, and it is alive. You cannot call it a baby, because baby is a different stage of human development, but it is human and it is alive. It is a living human offspring.
If you want the chicken egg comparison, yes, when I want to eat an egg and realize that there is a little chicken offspring inside, I usually say " fuck. I just killed a future chicken."
Yes, I'm a hypocrite when it comes to my eating habbits.

The reason I think it should be allowed is that women have always been doing it, and in all of these times and places, if they did it illegaly, it most likely resulted in a death of two human lifes, not only one.
So, yes, having abortion legal kills human offsprings, but at least saves mothers.

I highly support pro-life stance of educating children about prenatal development, and showing them the intrauterine development of a human, as well as the process of abortion.
That should be done simultaniously with sexual education, where they should be learning about all the ways to prevent pregnancy.
Because it is possible to prevent it, many women are doing it successfully.

There are some exceptions in my view such as rape and if continuing pregnancy the Mother's life is threatened.

Rape cases are very rare, as are the cases in which a mother's life is threatened.

Rape is a more difficult case but I'm not a woman so I don't think my opinion matters much on that.

My stance is that we cannot predict the future. We have no idea what kind of relationship would a mother who was raped have with the child. We have no idea if the child will inherit father's traits.
Separating the child from a mother at birth and giving it for adoption is a more preferable option in my view.

Again, I'm not talking about legal issues so much, because I don't care much about the law. What I'm interested in is the ethics.
I'm also not interested in indoctrinating people, but I am in educating them.
If you're sexually active and you don't want children, use protection, so that you don't put yourself in the position where you have to decide about ending a human life. I live in a country which was first in Europe for decades, when it comes to abortion rates. Every second woman had at least one, a significant percent of women had multiple abortion. I have two women in my family who had more than ten.

We had a strong feminist propaganda in the 1950's, promoting abortion as a "human right" (which it isn't, nor it should be - but it should be allowed, IMHO. Smoking isn't a human right, but you shouldn't prohibit cigarettes either, IMHO), and the percent of women having it sky-rocketed (if that's the word. I learned English by watching movies). This is the effect of implementing indoctrination instead of education. A proper education prevents unwanted pregnancies, it does not promote abortions.

Also thanks to Science we can feed far more numbers of people than at any time in the past

Every time a science believer mentions the Holy Science so frequently, my first thought is this .

Science is just a tool, bro, it's not holly.
Science also made colonizing and invasions easier, and hence, all the atrocities which lead to food scarcity in many areas.
Science made annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki possible.
Let's just say that science is, in many cases, dealing with issues caused by science.

I have published scientific researches and I don't think that science is holly.

I salute the courage of any family that chooses to risk entire family death by taking on the burden of caring for yet another child (maybe hard to imagine since Science has made survival easier

It's not hard to imagine because:
a) my grandparents grew up in such families (I'm 50)
b) I know such families
c) I experienced hardships (war, homelessness)

I also respect those families dedication to the survival of their existing families and see that choice as theirs, not The State's.

I don't respect their choices, I just accept them as something that is none of my business.
And I couldn't care less about the State. Any State.

It's redundant for me to answer yet again that which I've posted so many times in this thread but you are apparentlty new here (welcome aboard ) and ultimately this is a conversation so I will explain for whatever it's worth.

Originally Posted by SanjaM False comparison. Bird eggs are not birds yet, and human eggs are not humans yet. Though, once the bird egg is being fertilized, mother bird cares about it and "considers" it as its offspring. Its not the same for humans, because we evolved to be quite unnatural creatures - a bird cannot hate it's wing, or the colors of it's feathers; a human can hate enough it's own body to go to the plastic surgery to change it.

By your own words I don't see the comparison is false. Both bird eggs and human eggs are only of any life concern once they are fertilized. If they aren't fertilized they are inert. Yes, development begins with conception but development is by no means the same as "child" and that is exactly the point of the comparison. Birth is not a single event.

It is a process, a progression of chemical reactions encoded in DNA that hopefully will result in a baby birthed. At what stage we can call that progression fully human is blurry and debatable but it cannot be accuratelly stated that a zygote is a human child. I agree that at some point before actual birth the developing lifeform is a human child but I argue that can only be some point after that lifeform can actually exist outside the womb. I suppose that could change if so-called test tube babies becomes a reality but AFAIK that isn't so just yet.

Originally Posted by SanjaM Science does consider that human development (emphasis mine) starts after conception - that is why you have "intrauterine human development" in medicine textbooks (the one I used as a student, for example), and also, there are many scientific articles about intrauteral or prenatal human development.

Again development by definition is not the same as fully realized or we could call a log a cabin, or a bridge, or anything we imagine it could become before it becomes that thing.

Originally Posted by SanjaM IMHO, abortion is far more complex issue than eather pro-life or pro-choice ideological indoctrination tries to prove. And it is one of the most complex ethical and legal questions.

Here we absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by SanjaM Basically, pro-life ideology is claiming that "all life is sacred", which I do not agree with. And pro-choice ideology is making logical acrobatics like "ok, we have to have abortions, and we can't if it is human and alive, so let's proclaim it not human and not alive and we solved the problem"

If we are talking about mere individual opinion I imagine there are individuals who apply such convoluted, insincere machinations to justify but Law isn't supposed to work that way an Science does not approach issues assuming conclusions before the research. I see how YOU see it that way but hopefully the "egg comparison" and the "log comparison" may give you some cause to reconsider. Again ... developing is no way the same as the results ot Time and progressions have no meaning.

Originally Posted by SanjaM Rape cases are very rare, as are the cases in which a mother's life is threatened.

Maybe that might be so where you live and maybe rare because of the stigma in some societies on the victims resulting in very low reported rapes, but in the US according to the Statista Research Department, in just the year 2020, one year! there were 126,430 reported rape cases.

Originally Posted by SanjaM My stance is that we cannot predict the future. We have no idea what kind of relationship would a mother who was raped have with the child. We have no idea if the child will inherit father's traits. Separating the child from a mother at birth and giving it for adoption is a more preferable option in my view.

I agree you should have that choice but since I'm not the one either pregnant or dealing financially with not only an unwanted pregnancy for the better part of a year but the continued reminder of a horrific event and it's emotional scars, I have to respect those victim's choices, too.

Originally Posted by SanjaM Every time a science believer mentions the Holy Science so frequently, my first thought is this .

Science is not the same as a belief system and it is most certainly not "holy" whatever that is supposed to mean. I love to cook and I respect recipes because they are proven to have predictable results. That doesn't make me a "cookist" or a "recipe believer". BTW that South Park link is not working for me. It says it is currently unavailable.

Originally Posted by SanjaM Science is just a tool, bro, it's not holly. Science also made colonizing and invasions easier, and hence, all the atrocities which lead to food scarcity in many areas. Science made annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki possible. Let's just say that science is, in many cases, dealing with issues caused by science.

Inconsitent progression there Sanja. Agreed - The Scientific Method is a tool, a problem solving tool and a recipe for critical research. However, Tools have different uses and functions in the hands of different people. A hammer is a tool and it can be used to build or repair many things or it can be used to cave someone's head in. Science has no responsibility for how people choose to use it anymore than we put hammers on trial for murder.

Originally Posted by SanjaM I have published scientific researches and I don't think that science is holly.

Congratulations! I, too am published in research and development, mostly in the field of electronics but naturally on the way to that degree I studied Math, Physics, and Chemistry, as well as Poly Sci, History and Literature and most importantly NOTHING is holy to me. Things stand or fall on merit... period.

Originally Posted by SanjaM And I couldn't care less about the State. Any State.

It's sad that you had to experience war and homelessness and my heart goes out to you. I can only hope you have managed to use the experience to grow stronger and more aware of our sometimes powerless limitations and that no matter how hard it gets, life is still sweet and worth living well.

In my view, it is highly unlikely any of us will live totally free apart from The State, so I think we must consider it since it's impact on our lives can be so immense. While I think the implementation of Roe V Wade has been sometimes too casual, I can't justify tossing the whole thing out, and some states have already taken even that a lot further into flirting with tyranny. They are not even as reasonable as you seem to be, and possessing great power, that can be a recipe for imminent danger and danger that can evolve ever worse.

It is a process, a progression of chemical reactions encoded in DNA that hopefully will result in a baby birthed. At what stage we can call that progression fully human is blurry and debatable but it cannot be accuratelly stated that a zygote is a human child.

But I wasn't stating that. I used the word "offspring", and I asked:
a) is it alive?
b) is it human?

And it is, both of these things.

We are never fully human. We develop and change all the time.
None of us can ever experience everything a human can be.

The South Park episode is "Go God Go", Part II.

I feel the urge to reply to some other points you made, but it is an unhealthy urge so I wont bother you anymore.

Originally Posted by SanjaM But I wasn't stating that. I used the word "offspring", and I asked: a) is it alive? b) is it human? And it is, both of these things.

"A rose by any other name....". Obviously I agree that a zygote is alive but I do not agree at all that a zygote can be considered a human until it can possibly survive outside the womb, just as an egg is not a chicken, and Nature "knows this" since generally an egg requires a fully formed beak and the instinct and ability to break the eggs protective shell.

Originally Posted by SanjaM We are never fully human. We develop and change all the time. None of us can ever experience everything a human can be.

That sounds like nebulous obfuscation. Just because we can't possibly exist as ALL humans does in no way imply we are "less than human". Basically, once birthed from a human Mother, we qualify as human. My Grandmother birthed a child named Billy with rather extreme Cerebral Palsey. He couldn't even feed himself not talk or communicate anything meaningful including if he had defecated in his diapers until he died at 21 years of age. He was totally bed-ridden, almost constantly thrashed about making almost animal noises, and looking into his eyes, nobody "was home".

My Grandmother who weighed all of 90 pounds carried him around, fed, cleaned and talked to him, cared for him hand and foot and was utterly devastated when he died. I will never forget it. My Grandmother was one of the most beautiful and loving human beings I have ever known. It devastated me to witness her condition upon his death BUT I do not think she should have had an abortion because that was not my place, not my choice. She "made her bed and she slept in it" and I think, heroically. However had she decided on abortion (though that was far less than likely in 1936) that would not have diminished my assessment of her since she was who she was with or without Billy and such a choice I am confidant would have been based entirely on what she saw as good for her Family. "We pays our money and we takes our chances"

Originally Posted by SanjaM The South Park episode is "Go God Go", Part II. I feel the urge to reply to some other points you made, but it is an unhealthy urge so I wont bother you anymore.

I cannot find any full episode available here. I don't know if that is some kind of censorship or just commercial interests but apparently I can't see it.

Well, I respect you right to determine what is healthy or not. Good Fortune.

Originally Posted by enorbet My Grandmother who weighed all of 90 pounds carried him around, fed, cleaned and talked to him, cared for him hand and foot and was utterly devastated when he died. I will never forget it. My Grandmother was one of the most beautiful and loving human beings I have ever known. It devastated me to witness her condition upon his death BUT I do not think she should have had an abortion because that was not my place, not my choice. She "made her bed and she slept in it" and I think, heroically. However had she decided on abortion (though that was far less than likely in 1936) that would not have diminished my assessment of her since she was who she was with or without Billy and such a choice I am confidant would have been based entirely on what she saw as good for her Family. "We pays our money and we takes our chances"

Using your words enorbet, these thoughts further increase my assessment of you. It is great to see common sense.

As a non-American, we watch, agog, from afar with morbid curiosity about recent events in your country... And we pray for you.

One positive possible outcome from this is that it could bring more young people to the polling booths this November.

Thank you for your kind words, rkelsen, but I wouldn't default to morbid just yet. The USA has always been sharply divided, at the very least from time to time, and though it is a dangerous path, it also conflict that creates energy and the need to wrestle with deep and divisive events and philosophies. I'd certainly be a lot more positive if Political Correctness and Identity Politics were less "a thing" these days, but I do have considerable confidence in "that which doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" and the concept of Checks and Balances has proven a powerful leveling force. I do have to say that it disturbs me that so many of those who shout "Constitution" apparently haven't actually read and understood the importance of Free Speech and dissent within Checks and Balances. The implied conformity of One Way is a Bad Way.

Autocracy, especially Divine Right Monarchy, may work well for ants but for humans?... Not so much.

Originally Posted by enorbet it would be extremely comforting to think some part of me will go on forever and be reunited with loved ones, so I take no solace, let alone pleasure in concluding all scripture is superstitious myth. I simply must go with real evidence not wishful imagination since I accept that living by principles isn't the soft, flower-strewn path.

I believed in the evolution myth taught in indoctrination centers way back when too. Too bad because of the messengers you aren't willing to spend a few hours learning what technological advances and archaeology have produced since your last formal indoctrination period concluded.

Originally Posted by SanjaM IMHO, abortion is far more complex issue than eather pro-life or pro-choice ideological indoctrination tries to prove. And it is one of the most complex ethical and legal questions. Basically, pro-life ideology is claiming that "all life is sacred", which I do not agree with. And pro-choice ideology is making logical acrobatics like "ok, we have to have abortions, and we can't if it is human and alive, so let's proclaim it not human and not alive and we solved the problem" Which is also a nonsense because it is human, and it is alive.

A very good point. When a woman is pregnant and desperately does not want to be, two "inalienable rights" come into conflict: her right to control her own body (a right that every man takes for granted when it's his body) and the unborn child's right to life. There is no conceivable action or inaction that will preserve both, so there is no truly right way forward, just a choice of wrong ways. No wonder most people on both sides prefer to ignore the rights that the other side wants to defend!

The traditional way of dealing with this kind of situation is by democratic majority vote, not because the majority is always right, but because the will of the majority is always ascertainable and what is right may not be ascertainable. In a democracy, people vote freely to elect politicians who will pass the kind of laws that please them. In the US, this is usually done at state level. In states where most people favour readily available abortion services (for example New York or California), legislatures will pass pro-choice laws. In more rural and conservative states, they will not. Women in these states who need an abortion can always take a trip to a more liberal state. After all, every US citizen has a constitutional right to travel freely within her own country! In addition, political activism can be used to change public opinion about such matters. When I was growing up, abortion was illegal in the UK and the idea of same-sex marriage was unthinkable. Now we have both because public opinion has changed (more exactly has been changed) and parliament has had to take account of this.

What Roe v. Wade did was to prevent states from forbidding abortion even if their electorates wanted that, by claiming (rather weirdly imho) that this conflicted with the constitutional right to due process. But does anyone really believe that this was what the founding fathers intended "due process" to mean? Surely they had in mind people accused of crimes who were denied a hearing in court, a very different matter. All that has happened is that a wire-drawn interpretation of the constitution has been replaced by a more sensible one. This still leaves women free to go and get an abortion in any state of the union that provides them, and both men and women free to work to change public opinion in any states that don't.

Originally Posted by hazel the will of the majority is always ascertainable

Are you sure? IMO, not likely any more with vote by any method other than physical presence with proof of qualification at a registered voting precinct. Professional hackers most probably can spit out loads of votes by dead people people, and in multiple locations by persons with more than one apparent residence in which to register.

Originally Posted by hazel What Roe v. Wade did was to prevent states from forbidding abortion even if their electorates wanted that

Thank you for explaining this.

I wasn't alive at the time that this case was decided. While I did study some areas of law, this particular case wasn't part of my studies... And I'm also fortunate enough to live in a country where constitutional democracy, decency and common sense (relatively speaking, and for the most part) coexist peacefully.

Originally Posted by hazel This still leaves women free to go and get an abortion in any state of the union that provides them, and both men and women free to work to change public opinion in any states that don't.

That's the (rather devious) goal here, isn't it? It's gerrymandering by another means... using people's own biases to manipulate them as a populace.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Are you sure? IMO, not likely any more with vote by any method other than physical presence with proof of qualification at a registered voting precinct. Professional hackers most probably can spit out loads of votes by dead people people, and in multiple locations by persons with more than one apparent residence in which to register.

Except that voting more than once in any particular election is a felony for which the penalties include a prison sentence of up to 10 years in some states.

The Founding Fathers of the US were quite wise with their design choices and, as mentioned multiple times, created a system which has checks and balances at it's heart.

People who make claims of voter fraud and rigged elections have failed to grasp the fundamental principles upon which your nation is built.

Get out there and vote. Don't let anyone dissuade you.

Originally Posted by mrmazda I believed in the evolution myth taught in indoctrination centers way back when too. Too bad because of the messengers you aren't willing to spend a few hours learning what technological advances and archaeology have produced since your last formal indoctrination period concluded.

It doesn't surprise me that you assume I am so intellectually weak that I can just be indoctrinated with no critical examination of evidence, since that appears as you projecting your ways on others.

For example you apparently actually assume there are zero contradictions or scientific errors in scripture because, from my POV in reading what you write here, any discrepancy you see you spin to support whether there is any objective evidence or not. That is the definition of "Confirmation Bias".

One glaring example is your misguided belief in Young Earth, a planet merely ~10,000 years old, despite massive geological, chemical, DNA, and radiometric dating evidence. Attached is a photo of a cave painting from Altamira Cave. Since the pigments are organic, they can be very accurately dated by several different means and they all agree. The painting is over 35,000 years old.

Astronomical and Geological data shows the Earth is almost 4,000,000,000 years old. This has been tested thousand of times by different people with different technologies. I have to ask you would even a novice carpenter continue to use a tape measure that was so inaccurate that actual 10,000 would be measured as 4,000,000,000? Do you really think the brightest people in the world for the last 200 years or more are that stupid or that delusional, or worse, that agenda-ridden?

Scientists individually can certainly be swayed by every human fault there is BUT Science as a whole is self-correcting. One example of actual fraud perpetrated by a self-styled archaeologist was the infamous Piltdown Man. It was highly doubtful from the beginning of the "find" in 1912 and took 41 years to finally be absolutely and objectively falsified. Due to improved global communication and other technology advancements, peer review takes less time these days. A fraud in 1990 was uncovered by 1992. Most don't last more than a few months in the 21st Century.

For reference here is the Merriam-Webster definition of Myth

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition of myth 1a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon creation myths b : parable, allegory Moral responsibility is the motif of Plato's myths. 2a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society (seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs the utopian myth of a perfect society) b : an unfounded or false notion the myth of racial superiority 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence (the Superman myth, The unicorn is a myth) 4 : the whole body of myths a student of Greek myth

In complete fairness, while I have zero confidence in a "perfect society) I must admit that individualism technically qualifies as a myth (since there is no objective proof) but it is a useful Myth because it is objectively provable that it works, that society progresses more rapidly when individualism is employed. That attrribute may be totally psychological, but psychology exists exactly because it explains human motivations and actions.

I must therefore posit that your belief in the Christian Creation Myth (there are thousands of creation myths) may well work for you, mrmazda, so I can't and don't fault your adherence to that general myth. However your reliance on Myth over actual evidence (such as somewhat literal interpretation of ancient scripture) does disqualify you from any authority in Science. Your insistence on Young Earth only punctuates that assessment since it is only "defensible" by people who choose Myth over a preponderance of objective evidence. In my view, you don't grasp the definition of admissible evidence as objective, reproducible, and falsifiable. It only has to fit your preconceived notions.

"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a high school football coach had a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard line after his team’s games.

The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal members in dissent.

The case pitted the rights of government workers to free speech and the free exercise of their faith against the Constitution’s prohibition of government endorsement of religion and the ability of public employers to regulate speech in the workplace." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/u...h-prayers.html

"Held: The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance
from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression. Pp. 11–32. ...

(c) Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free
and diverse Republic. Here, a government entity sought to punish an
individual for engaging in a personal religious observance, based on a
mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances
even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither
mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Mr. Kennedy is
entitled to summary judgment on his religious exercise and free speech
claims. Pp. 31–32.
991 F. 3d 1004, reversed." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...1-418_i425.pdf

On TV right now, CTN Lifestyle on Roku: "I don't have the faith to be an atheist."

Hmmmm I wonder why the Christian Television Network Lifestyle would either assume or try to promote the equivalence between Science and Religion? What a concept! Who knew. <sarc>

Originally Posted by enorbet Hmmmm I wonder why the Christian Television Network Lifestyle would either assume or try to promote the equivalence between Science and Religion?

Evolution as taught in tax-supported public schools is, like religion, based on faith, little to none based on science. That anything can be dated with the remotest accuracy much before people began recording their observations and began their scientific activities is fiction dressed up as fact, especially as the years digit count approaches 5. Various dating methods are based upon unprovable assumptions, and fall down dead before 6 digits, if not before 5. Dinosaurs lived with people. For some definition of proof, human's cave paintings, and soft tissue in dinosaur bones, prove it, but there's no significant statistical probability soft tissue comes from bones more than 9,999 years old. We can only speculate that there were such things as time or matter 10,000 years ago. We don't know (it cannot be stated as fact) miracles cannot happen. We don't know what we don't know. If we knew half what there was to know we still wouldn't know anything about the other half.