By Tom Bartlett
The challenge of endeavouring to debate atheists, secularists or other non-Christians is the deceptive machinations they adopt. They will name-call, misattribute comments or positions to their opponent, and drop out of the discussion when their assertions are called into question. Others will cherry-pick scripture or comments taken out of context, or shoehorn favoured talking points into unrelated issues. Most condescendingly marginalize the Christian by suggesting their faith makes them too irrational to debate with; and they carefully craft a premise that automatically discounts the Christian worldview, accusing their adversary of being hateful or not grounded in reality.
I do respect the atheist who at least makes attempts to join the dialogue. It’s just that I find it tiresome to be respectful enough to engage in a debate only to be met with ad hominem attacks rather than genuine debate.
When one person asserted that atheism is a religion, an atheist insisted on evidence to support the charge. I wanted to respond, but not with a pithy rebuttal. I wanted to address the issue more fully in hopes of generating some meaningful discussion. Here is my evidence to support the premise.
Much like the Christian’s foundation rests on the principle that God exists; the atheist is grounded just as firmly on the contention that there is no God. The atheist is no agnostic fence-sitter waiting on the evidence to sway them one way or the other. By their own self-identification, they are invested in the unwavering belief in the non-existence of a god.
The Christian cannot shrug off the questions of those sceptical of their faith (i.e. “why do bad things happen to good people” or vice versa)?” If they are committed to their faith in an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God, the believer cannot put on or take off their convictions to suit the prevailing circumstance.
Similarly, the atheist by their blind faith in the non-existence of God necessarily has much to explain that is unavoidable due to their fundamentalist views:
1. If their conclusion is that there is no God, there are severe limits on their scientific inquiry. If exploring the complexities of life on earth point squarely to a designer or creator, they must reject the evidence to find a more palatable conclusion that fits their preconceptions. As such, you will find that their claims of pure devotion to science are bogus. Science is a tool to pick up or put down for pragmatic purposes.
2. Their decisions and claims about human behaviour are similarly pragmatic. The atheist will be completely at ease adopting the absurdly conflicting viewpoints that truth is subjective while insisting they are the sole proprietors of absolute truth. By merely holding their unmitigated certainty that there is no God, they have disproved their premise and demonstrate that they are guided by faith, not evidence.
3. To assume there is no God means that life is merely a chance occurrence. If this is true, there is no arbiter of right and wrong and no way to judge the behaviour of another. This creates the interesting scenario whereby all viewpoints are equally valid, except those related to believe in a god. Renowned atheist, Christopher Hitchens posited that there was no value that a Christian could hold that an atheist could not. He promised payment to anyone who could disprove his claim. This clever sleight of hand does not expose the reasonable nature of atheism, but rather its profound lack thereof. While you can find most positions that some atheists might hold in common with some Christians, the same is true of atheists’ camaraderie with serial killers, pedophiles, or rapists. Having no moral compass means you can set the needle wherever it’s convenient. Hitchens claim, however, is easily disproved. A Christian believes that they have an obligation to bring non-believers to Christ. This is commanded through the Great Commission and not something that can be ignored. An atheist would argue that this is perpetrating a fraud on another person. I presented this response to an atheist who demonstrated that I’ve met the standard when he responded, “But is that ethical?”
Like Christianity, atheism has many denominations and schisms. In fact, the likelihood of such factions is especially inevitable when your shared core premise is that there is order to life. It is surprising that atheists of different stripes (secular humanists, progressives, environmentalists, socialists…) have as much in common as they do. The only explanation is that their conclusion determines their thinking rather than following their inquiries to their inevitable conclusions. Thus, large numbers of atheists can rally around glaringly unethical positions guided by self-serving purposes.
By way of example, I challenged one self-described atheist to make the case for abortion without attributing subjective value to the unborn. She stated that she doesn’t share my belief that a child at the pre-conscious stage had sufficient worth to warrant any rights or protections. She similarly shrugged off late-term abortions as comparatively rare, thus the killing a living child 2/3 of the way out of their mother’s body wasn’t cause for concern. If that is not pragmatic subjective self-interest trumping science and facts, I don’t know what is.
Now, let the debates commence.
Your first paragraph says enough.
Proverbs 9:7
Proberbs 9:8
Proverbs 23:9
Proverbs 26:4
Proverbs 27:22
Matthew 7:6
The Atheist’s Argumentation Arsenal
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Sure, I’d love to debate this subject. You sound like an honest adversary.
I’m an atheist, a secularist and I am anti-abortion.
I’d like to challange what you wrote in relation to morality and, your claim, that without a divine “arbiter” there is none.
First off, what is morality? Morality is defined as the conformity to the rules of right conduct and/or accepted social behavior. This is not limited to humans. If you look to the animal kingdom (especially primates) you see they have social-familial-structures that mirror, with less complexity and nuance, our own. One would be reaching if they were to say that primates have “morality” but they most certainly have social-structures that forbid/discourage certain behaviors much like we do. What are the implications of this?
I presume you consider the ascent of man from lower primates to homo sapians as having much positive scientific proof in its favor; the implications of this are quite simple. Our concepts of “morality” are a natural occuring phenomenon that have been refined over many centuries and aided by our more advanced primate brains.
If you look at modern day humans and observe their social-structures and accepted behaviors you see they don’t change much from culture to culture regardless of the dominant religion (or lack thereof). All sane people, mostly, find murder, theft and purgury reprehensible and anti-social. Would you not agree with that? But I’ll press, these societal norms are innate to our species and not given to us by a metaphyisical diety. They predate even our concepts of god(s).
Where does a god or gods fit into this? My answer: only in mankind’s mind. A manufactured intity created by man to comfort, soothe and make exsistance more bearable with a promise of reward upon death (that’s the nice way of putting it.)
Lastly, I did find it mildly hypocritical of you to state in your first paragragh the grievance that, “It’s just that I find it tiresome to be respectful enough to engage in a debate only to be met with ad hominem attacks rather than genuine debate.” And then only to write later in your article, unprovoked mind you, “the same is true of atheists’ camaraderie with serial killers, pedophiles, or rapists.” Really, Sir? Do you want to go down that road?
But I will agree with you that science is very limited in what it can contribute to the fields of ethics and morality. Philosophy picks up the thread here. I think religion is, basically, a form of philosophy. And like all man-made philosophies is subject to both great fallacies and the sublime; the moral and immoral.
I look forward to spirited exchange.
Cordially,
Mr. Butcher
Jack,
I don’t see how your web citation is an “Atheist’s Argumentation Arsenal”. It is just a basic logic resource. It’s a great tool for the Christian theist. Atheists are constantly trapped in these fallacies.
Ted,
When I’m asked for an answer, I’ll answer (1 Peter 3:15).
You cited Proverbs 26:4, that’s good. But in light of the next verse (26:5), I am contextually compelled to interpret verse 4 as a warning not to get subsumed into the atheists unwarranted presuppositions, lest I head straight into his foolish futility – not necessarily to never engage an atheist, if that is what you’re getting at with your Bible citations. Verse 5, “answer the fool according to his folly”, means to show him where his presuppositions lead, through an internal critique of his worldview system – which always leads to folly. That is a good apologetical method.
Mr. Butcher,
Thank you for venturing in. Surely you recognise that there is nothing to be gained from using examples from the animal kingdom to make a case for human morality. The gaping chasm between instinct and rational thought are exactly what distinguishes man from animal and why we are uniquely created by God (according to the Christian). The atheist has no such foundation for explaining the difference since life merely evolved from nothingness by chance. We can infer nothing about rational behaviour from creatures acting out of instinct, unless you are maintaining that human morality arises from instinct which I would be happy to disassemble. Social structures within the animal kingdom are for purposes of survival.
You need look no further than Middle Eastern countries, Communist China, North Korea, or recent examples of Soviet Russia and Hitler’s Germany to demonstrate there is no broad condemnation of murder, perjury, or any number of behaviours not normally sanctioned in North America. These are examples of countries following either atheism or oppressive non-Christian religions and it is Christians who are overwhelmingly victimized. You may argue that it is the government leadership that imposes these evil practices, but the populations largely fall in line through indoctrination and corruption of these non-Christian world-views. Just look at the toppling of Iraq. You didn’t see a people looking to embrace freedom from the oppression – they continued the fight that Saddam and other oppressive regimes. Embracing of liberties become rare the more countries move from Christian values to secularism. Socialist and liberal countries or leaders (i.e. Obama) always impose greater restrictions and controls over choices, speech, and wealth. Would you disagree?
If you read carefully, I was not painting atheists as serial killers, pedophiles and rapists, only that an atheist world-view cannot counter these behaviours claiming a sweeping contempt for them. Atheism is such a big tent that those individuals who cross lines that even most right-thinking people would deem wrong find a home in the atheist world-view. Rape, for example is sadly not a rare crime. This act cannot be defended under the Christian faith, but there are no secular counter-arguments to proclaim it is wrong. Similarly, on the abortion issue, I presume you are anti-abortion because you recognise it is killing. Surely you also know that you are in the minority while Christians condemn it. I am actively involved in pro-life work and through the debates I’ve had here, I assure you that atheists or secularists rarely join the fight against it or even endeavour to speak out against it. Note also that I’ve pointed out many atheists can hold virtually every other value held under Christianity, but not under a broad secularist mindset.
You also seem to have a narrow understanding of Christianity. We do not act as we do because paradise is waiting around the corner. Muslim extremists also hold their own vision of the afterlife and both what gets them there and what to expect is vastly different. Our guiding force is obedience to God in all areas and how we know we are to live our lives. It also involves witnessing to unbelievers and taking personal risks for our faith. It is based on reflecting God’s love for others in our attitude toward others while keeping true to His standards. Also, contrary to atheist thinking, it is extremely freeing – not oppressive.
Your turn.
Jack,
How about applying some thought of your own and making what you find to be a compelling case rather than trying to borrow from others. It also gives you the luxury of picking what you find most compelling and defensible. I can take it.
Mr. Bartlett,
Fair enough.
Atheism makes no claims of morality. It isn’t a mapped-out ethical belief system. It’s simply the non-belief in dieties. No more no less.
Morality has been shaped by philosophy (which religious theories fall under) and repeated social interaction. Your dismissal of our primate cousins and their social-structure is a little too flippant. Do humans not also form groups and social-structures in order to strengthen their survival chances too? The very act of belonging to a religion, social-group, family, surrogate-family and having friends is demostrative of this. These things are vital to mental health, our understanding of right and wrong and, thus, survival. We are no differnt than primates in this concern. Only more complicated.
I must call a mulligan on atributing Hitler, Stalin and Mao’s crimes to the products of non-belief.
First, the Fuhrur.— The German people (who made up the SS and carried out the Final Solution; manning the firing squads, the ovens and gas showers) were mostly made up of Christians (Luthern, Roman Catholic), Hiter often evoked God in his speeches and in his book and was fond of neo-paganism and the occult. “Gott Mitt Uns” (god with us) was engraved on the SS’s belt-buckles. The hatred of Jews has a long history of Christian support and proselytization as punishment for the collective “Christ Killers.” The Nazi’s were many things but atheist and secularist they weren’t.–To be fair, nor do I blame Christianity for their actions.
Second, Soviet Union.—One can not address the Gulag and Pravda without mentioning Communism and noticing the corrolation between it and religion. Granted Stalin was an atheist he was also a former student of the Cloth having studied (albeit rebelliously) at a Georgian Seminary. Communism goals are, essentially, religious: forming the perfect society and purging it of its “ills”. Obviously, the communists persecuted the religious because they wanted to make themselves into the New Gods and do away with the old ones. One could even notice similarities in this and Constantine at the birth of Christianity.
What about all the regimes that took their murderous decree from Christianity and laid their lands to barren waste littered with piles of corpses? I’ll just compile a brief list: Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy, the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda and Apartheid in South Africa. All were empowered and emboldened by their Christian faith.
But I think it is fair to say that the cause for these terrors has less to do with metaphysical religious beliefs and everything to do with human perversion, its use of tyrannical power, servility and lack of knowledge.
What do you think?
Regards,
Mr.Butcher
You say, “To assume there is no God means that life is merely a chance occurrence.”
That is not what the theory of evolution posits. Natural selection is the mechanism that effects the increase or decrease of traits in a population of organisms over time, not mere chance.
Mr. Butcher,
I don’t plan to revisit the whole “was Hitler a Christian” debate. It’s absurd and a favoured fallback of atheists. It was the national socialist party and socialism is completely at odds with Christianity. Lay out all of Hitler’s ambitions and actions and tell me which ones reflect biblical Christianity. I could invoke Ghandi and slaughter babies and that wouldn’t make me a devout follower of Ghandi.
Vast numbers of Christians risked death to protect Jews from the Holocaust. There was absolutely no church or Christian defense for what happened in the Holocaust, the gulags or any example you’ve cited. Furthermore, Muslims and liberals are the most hostile toward Jews and it is Christians and conservatives who routinely speak in their defense. Any Christian recognises that all of us as sinners are responsible for Christ’s death and if not, we would have no part in His atonement on our behalf. Fred Phelp’s is the moron “pastor” of a “church” who leads his followers on demonstrations with signs proclaiming, “God Hates Fags.” He no more acts as a representative in Christ than – Hitler, Chairman Mao, or Charles Manson. The “god with us” slogan was doubtless the arrogance of the Nazis who believed themselves superior to the Jews or any other non-aryan race. If this is how you want to characterise Christians, then you demonstrate the futility of trying to engage in earnest debate. I don’t attribute these brutal dictators as representative of atheism as a whole, only that their actions are defensible under atheism – like it or not – but not Christianity. There is no foundation – as you rightly point out – for an atheist to claim these actions are wrong as there is no uniform understanding of morality and ethical behaviour.
As far as family systems, look around and you will see that living in family systems, while vital to people’s happiness, well-being and survival, is denounced by secularists of all stripes leading to the situation where divorce, single parenting, and co-habitation have been progressively displacing marriage. People are consciously acting against their self-interest and the welfare of others (spouses, children) by embracing selfishness that leads to vast social problems. Your example demonstrates that Christianity places on us a higher calling of commitment and the benefits are astounding while following the world and “enlightened” thinkers leads to despair, misery, and loneliness. To value the family, as you know, goes against the grain and is hard work – rather than instinctual or natural. It is selfishness that explains all these social problems as well as abortion and euthanasia. As I’ve also stated, freedom is also not natural as so many are looking to government and others to take care of them as a higher good. The bible says just the opposite. That is why the current culture is so hostile to Christians and Christianity and why Christianity answers so much that the non-believer can’t.
Mr. Bartlett,
I’m glad we can put aside the quasi-blame-game over the atrocities of the 20th century. It’s not the debate I was trying to make but you brought it up and I felt the need to return volley because it is a common occurance amongst the faithful.—- Morality and Ethics are my angle.
Here’s where you misunderstand atheism and morality, “There is no foundation – as you rightly point out – for an atheist to claim these actions are wrong as there is no uniform understanding of morality and ethical behaviour.”
Very true. No free-thinking atheist will ever say he gets his morality from not believing in religion. Nor do I postulate to argue as such. Directly; morals are not soley based on “divinely-revealed” texts because those texts were not divinely revealed because revelation is impossible to prove. We must reconcile ourselves to understanding those texts were written by mere mortal men. Morals, in truth, derive from shared existence, human solidarity, philosophy-literature (which does include the aformentioned man-written religious texts) and respect for the rights of the individual. —-I could here delve into the bible and quote immoral passages from the Old Testament, which is still part of the official “revealed word of god” according to Christian Biblical Canon, on morality and make you defend them but I won’t do so. I’m sure you are well aware of much of the backwardness, wretchedness and immorality that in there lies (I could indict the New Testament too but I’ll save that for later) but I trust you don’t abide by the Old Testament decree of killing your non-believing children so why broach it? Christianity has evolved.—No, I’d rather approach this philosophically and ask you to respond to these two simple questions: (1)Is the belief in an invisible divine over-seer really needed in order for humans to behave morally? and (2) Do you, by believing as such and submitting yourself so, REALLY know what is moral and what is not?————–Sidenote: personally, as a fellow man, I share your revulsion over abortion and find libertine approaches to pair-bonding and child-rearing unwise and unhelpful to both the child and humanity. Plus, if it helps you understand me further as an individual, I take a fairly fond view of political conservitism.
Humbly,
Mr.Butcher
“By way of example, I challenged one self-described atheist to make the case for abortion without attributing subjective value to the unborn. She stated that she doesn’t share my belief that a child at the pre-conscious stage had sufficient worth to warrant any rights or protections. She similarly shrugged off late-term abortions as comparatively rare, thus the killing a living child 2/3 of the way out of their mother’s body wasn’t cause for concern. If that is not pragmatic subjective self-interest trumping science and facts, I don’t know what is.”
-
Tom! Glad to see I’m in your article. Sorry it’s been so long.
I’d like to say first off, I never “shrugged” off “killing a living child 2/3 of the way out of their mother’s body” – that’s very misleading actually, considering I’ve told you before that I don’t agree with arbitrary late-term abortions (perhaps you’d forgotten). It borders on a blatant lie. The statistic on abortions after 20 weeks, of 0.8%, however, isn’t something you should be arguing.
I also never said anything remotely suggesting that the small number of late-term abortions made them irrelevant. But if you’re arguing against all abortion based on your instinctive revolt to late-term abortions, then you should revise your statements to make it clear that this only makes a case for banning a very small fraction of abortion procedures.
As far as your last sentence there: you brought up no science, stated no facts, and yet accuse me of “pragmatic subjective self-interest” in the name of them …
I’m not sure how it counts as “self-interest” on my part, considering I’ve never been in a situation where I’d have the option to choose an abortion.
A woman having an abortion, though, should not be faulted for choosing her own best interests, and her own independent life, over the potential for a life to come from her.
-
To continue our debate: why would a pre-conscious foetus (to clarify, I said pre-potential for consciousness, erring on the side of caution by looking at actual brain/synapse development) have any rights to begin with? What is there in that developing organism, other than the potential for life? Yes, given time, luck, good nutrition and a host of other contributing factors, it will develop into a human being. But this is all in a hypothetical future, much like saying that preventing a family from renting an apartment is exactly the same as arbitrarily evicting them. This one of my main disputes with the anti-abortion movement; the idea that the potential for life and the actual existence of a life are one and the same, and so it is the woman’s responsibility to ensure a certain outcome of this potential – which is often undesirable to her. It has very little to do with the worth of an actual human life, and a lot to do with the undue hardships on a woman, all for a “potential” life.
It appears I can’t figure out the comments on the last article, so I’ll briefly respond here about points of clarification and then head off to sleep:
Rates of STDs in general are excedingly higher now than they were prior to comprehensive sex ed. It also dropped off in the aftermath of the AIDS scare and with the increased awareness of how widespread STDs have become. There is absolutely nothing to suggest this is attributable to comprehensive sex ed unless that is sufficient evidence for you.
Needed: proof that STD rates are higher than before “comprehensive sex ed” – which can be defined many ways. I’ve given a few links, that’s all, and unless you take issue with specific areas of them, I have no idea what your pronouns (this, that) are referring to.
-
If you want a jarring example, look at the Uganda situation. With education teaching ABC (abstinence, birth control, condoms) with a vast emphasis on abstinence, rates of AIDS and STDs plummeted. Then, CSE advocates jumped in to “correct” the success story by highlighting the alternatives. Once again, rates have greatly trended back up.
Any links to these rising rates? I was under the impression that Uganda was a bit of a success story for public education. “ABC” sex ed is the same as comprehensive sex ed, as far as I’ve understood it. “Non-comprehensive” sex ed would be just “A”, and possibly “B” for married couples.
-
By your premise, those with mental disabilities, in comas, suffering from dementia, head injuries, etc. are all sub-human and not deserving of rights.
No, no, my premise doesn’t lead here, although I knew this would get thrown out there sooner or later. Those with mental disabilities, in comas etc. all have consciousness or the potential for consciousness. Just because someone is mentally disabled doesn’t mean they lack basic brain function that would allow them to perceive the world around them, and being in a coma/having head injuries doesn’t usually eliminate the areas of the brain responsible for consciousness, even if they’re not active at the time. A pre-conscious fetus has none of these abilities.
-
You have led us back into the realm of end of life care based on what value is attributed to you. What you are bringing up is not science, but your personal take on when one has worth – the very point I was making. In case you are not familiar with the demolition illustration, I will share it. A man comes to blow up a building he believes to be uninhabited, but does so without checking first to see if there is anyone inside. That is the pro-abortion argument – we will allow the killing just in case the entity inside the mother is not a human being – or in fact living. Since when is it reasonable to err on the side of assuming the person has no value.
Except in this case, it is possible to check if there is “someone inside”, because of what we know and can observe of fetal brain development. No synapses = no possible thought or meaningful brain activity. You simply cannot send signals from one neuron to another without functioning neurons and synapses.
-
It is also completely disingenuous because the “not fully conscious entity” will become a fully conscious and independent sentient human being if not intentionally taken apart in pieces in the womb.
But it is not a fully conscious and independent being, just because it has the potential to become one. It’s not even biologically possible for it to be conscious in the early weeks. Not to mention the approximate 30-50% of fertilized eggs that never implant, or miscarriages and stillbirths, which account for 10-20%! There’s no guarantee of a certain outcome in pregnancy, even before abortion is taken into account.
-
Furthermore, I don’t accept your claim of .8% of late term abortions …
Well, MgS provided this link. It’s not a matter of accepting a claim. It’s simply data.
-
… but even if I allow that, your response is that this is acceptable collateral damage for women to abort to pre-conscious babies before they are allowed the chance to develop …
No. I’ve given my opinion on late-term abortions, repeatedly. My point is, this 0.8% of abortions doesn’t validate being against the vast majority of abortions. You can’t use one scenario to vilify a different scenario.
Before they are given the chance to develop? The alternative is forcing women to give birth.
-
“… for what we statistically know to almost exclusively be a decision of convenience.”
Depends how you define “convenience”. Non-life-threatening pregnancies, in most situations? Yes. Don’t simplify the woman’s thought process down to, “I could have this baby or not, as it doesn’t matter to me either way, so I guess it’s more convenient not to.” There’s age, standard of living, future plans, whether or not there is a stable family structure, the possibility of adoption (not every unwanted child gets adopted, although that would be ideal), even the desire to have children in the first place, to take into account.
-
“Yes, I maintain you are applying subjective standards to human life.”
I maintain that a fetus is not a human life, at the very least until it has meaningful brain activity.
-
A humorous (sarcastic) blog post on the topic of when life begins, which I happened across: http://circlecitysnark.blogspot.com/2009/02/fertilized-eggs-are-people-scrambled-or.html?zx=581ee863220aad4d
Although you might not find it funny …
*perceive the world around them … or their internal environment. I didn’t mean to limit consciousness and thought to the senses!
Mr. Butcher,
Sorry for the delay, but I’ve been busy.
I am not letting atheism off the hook. I maintained throughout that atheism provides the foundation for the atrocities. In the absence of God, anything is acceptable as a world-view. Even “good” or “well-meaning” atheists can overlook a raft of abuses in order to stand by a horrific belief system. Look at how many liberal journalists covered up what they did know about life under Communist Russia and have never recanted their support for it. Millions continue to throw their support behind communism, believing that man is perfectible and that people will remain motivated to work for others even when the incentives of the self-interest (work for pay) is gone and that socialist governments won’t naturally become corruptible. In many cases it is ignorance of humans and human nature. Others believe they would be part of the power structure. This is why Castro’s Cuba is also seen as a socialist paradise and Che is an admired figure. The Christian explains this through understanding that we were created to live in relationship and rely on others. To the Christian, that is a God who is all compassionate, but puts responsibility on us as individuals. To those without God, they are susceptible to handing over power to others to manage their life and the consequences of their indulgent behaviour or level the playing field (i.e. through wealth redistribution). As to your points:
1) I say yes for many of the reasons I just stated. Affairs are one example of a common problem that are largely now dismissed by most secularists. They can be rationalized because they are conducted in private. Most don’t openly pronounce they are seeking or engaging in an affair unless it has progressed far enough that they are ready to walk out on their spouse or partner. A whole raft of other crimes and deceptions get their justification or arise because of hidden crimes and deceptions. Knowing there is a god overseeing things guides both what we do and don’t do. Our nature is to sin; it is unnatural to sacrifice and control urges for a higher purpose. Pragmatism has no place in this structure if it is outside God’s standards for us.
2) My view of morality is not my own, but common to the Christian faith. The bible outlines moral behaviour and I need to follow even the obligations that are difficult. You can dispute the biblical version of morality, but only by throwing out everything or cherry-picking what to accept.
I won’t avoid the brutal passages of scripture almost specific to the Old Testament. I admit I don’t have all the answers to what was allowable at that time. I do know that Christ’s arrival ushered in a brand new hope because of His life, example, teachings and sacrifice. He came to fulfill the law and the prophets and I accept the teachings from Christ, the disciples and apostles for how to live my life. I know, for example, that homosexual acts are condemned, but I would be disobedient and not reflecting Christ’s commands to be hateful toward or carry hateful attitudes for homosexuals as people. It is also not that basic because Christ empowers and gives us the resources to transform our hearts and minds – such as forgiving those that no one could forgive under their own strength of will. That is also broadly true of Christians since I’m sure you know what things the Christian community broadly supports and what they oppose. That is why Christians do not call for Old Testament-style approaches to issues as you well know. As I’ve stated, Christians with hateful ideologies who try to shoehorn the bible into their actions have Christians denounce them and are provably not following the overarching tenets of Christianity (i.e. the character issues of how we are to conduct ourselves.
Surely you recognise as a “conservative atheist” you are in a tiny minority of atheists. To me you sound more like a Libertarian. The only problem I have with Libertarians is that, while they tend to hold high values (i.e. freedom) in common with Christians, they fail to recognise the source and also accept (or at least necessarily rely) on the goodness of man. That only works if society behaves like Christians. I believe that if you stop looking for the minutia about Christianity you don’t like )and/or set aside the caricature you may attribute to Christians) while looking also at the flaws of atheism, you could easily become a fellow believer. I can also assure you that I know first-hand astounding examples of lives transformed through accepting Christ(i.e. overcoming addictions and detrimental lifestyles). Such cases are not true in reverse of a conversion to atheism leading to a transformation.
I respect you as an honest agent and only ask that you not stop seeking and asking questions and not start with a belief in God’s non-existence. I will be praying for you – starting right now.
Kate,
Thank you for picking this up.
In case you aren’t aware of how a late term abortion is done, a birth is induced with the “doctor” turning the baby into the breech position. Only the head is left inside the mother’s body. An incision is made and brain tissue is removed so the baby’s skull collapses and then the child is fully removed. Of course, the other more humane method would be to dismember the child, vacuum out the remains, and piece the “embryo” back together to ensure they have all the pieces.
Yes, I maintain there is a callous dismissive aspect to your attitude toward late term abortions. You have highlighted the comparative rarity and I’ve still read no condemnation for the act. Incidentally, the medical community verifies that it is almost never medically necessary to perform a late term abortion, so the question becomes – what do you consider an “arbitrary” reason. I will try to find the info again, but I recently read the breakdown from a late term abortionist as to the reasons he cited for women having abortions. The vast majority were for mental or physical deformities (to major or minor degrees) of the unborn child. Is that an “arbitrary” or justified reason in your books. Oops, sounds like we’re venturing back into subjective evaluation of human life. We don’t otherwise know because abortions, as you should know, are protected under privacy laws. It’s also why we know abortion numbers are fully unreliable and abortion providers (who have a huge personal investment in it) are the ones who largely provide numbers. We also know that there were concerns about late-term abortions misrepresenting 2nd vs. 3rd trimester abortions and legislation to correct this was struck down by Kathleen Sebellius. Doubtless this must somehow be a benefit for women, but I don’t see it. Incidentally, late term abortions are as rare as they are because so few doctors will perform them. In Canada, we fly women to the U.S. to have them done.
Such relatively small numbers are used to justify abortion. That percentage is roughly the same as the number of abortions for medically necessary reasons or for cases of rape and incest; the pre-eminent emotional arguments for abortion on demand.
I checked out a site for a breakdown of reasons for abortion and this info came from “About Women,” a website defending the “difficult” choice of abortion. 89% gave more than 1 of the responses, 72% gave at least 2:
74% – having a baby would dramatically change my life (interrupting schooling, a job/career, or impacting other children or dependents
73% – can’t afford a baby now
48% – don’t want to be a single mother/having relationship problems
38% – have completed their childbearing
32% – were not ready to be a mother for a(nother) child
25% – don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22% – don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
14% – felt their husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13% – possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12% – said there were physical problems with my health
6% – parents want me to have an abortion
1% – a victim of rape
<.5% – a result of incest
The women's "health" claim is broadly applied and usually stuck into any legislation pretending to deal with the issue as it is basically an escape hatch. It doesn't match the facts on "medically necessary."
So tell me which of these reasons is not subjective, which preclude adoption as an alternative, which don't involve real or perceived coercion, and which could be considered frivolous, self-serving or arbitrary?
Again, you are manipulating "potential life" to suit your purposes. It is merely a necessary stage of development for all creatures. If abortion were done in the first trimester on all women, you would not call it killing, but life would be largely over in roughly 100 years. It is an argument of convenience, not science. This, along with your claim that "given time, luck, good nutrition and a host of other contributing factors, it will develop into a human being" is absurd. This is like suggesting that murdering someone is defensible as they might have a life-ending accident. If a child does not live through no deliberate actions from the woman and the doctor, it is called a miscarriage, not abortion.
I'll get to the rest later. I have to run.
Mr. Bartlett,
I’ve been busy too (and I am mindful of your other contentious discussion)
but to pick up where we left off..
…..and I’m not letting humanity off the hook. The atrocities we both find repellent are not caused by lack of metaphysical beliefs. Nor are they resolved by adopting the wishful-thinking of divinity. They, the “evils of the world”, are indicative of non-thinking, non-questioning subservient individuals who are willing to accept the comfort of, either, (a)religion or (b)statism. Religion and statism are where all tyranny is begotten.
That said, I do have respect for “believers” of all faiths as individuals. As long as they don’t, as the cliche goes, try to impose their beliefs on me, I find no fault. And, as you mentioned, I am aware of other individuals who call themselves “atheists” who are, frankly, aggresive, illogical, overly-emotional/overly-analytical, idiotic and just plain mean to people who religion has value. I don’t like that. “Atheism” does have conotations that attract imbalanced and immoral people. But the same can be said of Christianity and religion in general, would you not agree?
I hope I’ve impressed upon you that not all atheists want babies killed in clinics nor do they want Prolatariat Dictatorships….
I’ll keep seeking as long as you start doubting….deal?
Respectfully,
Mr. Butcher
Mr. Butcher,
I’m afraid I can’t extend the same honour broadly to all faiths. There’s no nobility in an earnest belief in something if it is wrong. Different religions of all stripes lead one away from Christianity rather than toward something of equal value. All roads do not lead to God and this is true of any other god-oriented faith or atheism. I’ve often argued with secularists who criticize God as being too harsh or cruel because He will allow other “good” people to go to hell. This brings us back to the debate over what “good” is. If man determines his own standards by adopting his own value system, how can he be deemed to be good? As I’ve already stated, to an atheist, leading people to Christ would be seen wrong while compelling people to abandon their faith in God would be a higher good as they would insist this is not promoting fairy tales. Consequently, they believe they should be rewarded for acting against God’s will because they followed their personal standard of what is right. The other absurdity is to suggest that spending eternity in a place they don’t believe in, in the presence of a God they don’t believe in would be just. This is the consequences of having and exercising free will.
As my pastor discussed last Sunday, Christ did not allow the possiblilty of any way to God except through Him. As such, Christianity ultimately needs to be wholeheartedly embraced or rejected outright. Muslim’s deny Christ was killed on the cross and accept that Mohammed, the warrior profit over-rides Christ (who is also seen as merely one of many prophets). How can Christ be a mere prophet if He maintains He is God in human form and His sacrifice alone was able to cover our sins. He would have to be either a heretic or who He claims to be.
The Jewish faith rejects Christ as co-equal with God, therefore they cannot claim His sacrifice as bringing about the forgiveness of sins. Other religions, whether relying on reincarnations, seeking Nirvana, or whatever the path, makes our own efforts what determines their outcomes. Christianity is unique in both it’s message of salvation and the freedom it allows. Certainly there are large numbers of peaceful non-radical Muslims, but I maintain the flaws in their belief system and their adherence to Mohammed makes them inherently given to oppressive control and violence. Just imagine a world without Islamic influence and you should recognise that some faiths can be more dangerous than unbelief. This is because people are organized around a system which is a far more powerful force for good than evil. The more liberal you are as a Muslim (not following the Koran and their holy books), the less prone to violence. The opposite is true of Christianity.
I fully agree with you on the dangers of non-thinking followers of any group. To not fully understand or abide by Christian teaching while claiming to be a follower makes you susceptible to manipulation and deception. I became staunchly pro-life just over 10 years ago because I explored the evidence through. I debate and discuss issues related to my faith because I have thought them through and can logically defend them. I grew up in the public school system and have suffered from the arrogance of liberal elitist attitudes so I fully know their position, but liberals don’t know the first thing about Christian or conservative principles because they’ve been taught how to think about issues. They’ve been spoon-fed notions of who “their opponents” are (their judgmental, intolerant, don’t care about the poor, etc.). This is what is wrought by failing to question your beliefs.
If by doubting, you mean that I will not stop asking questions about the hard questions relating to my faith – absolutely. I can tell you that the evidence in favour of my Christian faith is overwhelming (both personally and in others). Living in a community of vital believers and striving to live out one’s faith daily with compassion and love for all is powerful. I have seen countless ways God has brought me through adversity and has equipped me to deal with problems I could never manage on my own, I have no reason to turn my back on Him. I always seek out the most compelling counter-arguments for my beliefs and have only been strengthened in my faith.
It is fair to say since you plan to “keep seeking,” you are decidedly not an atheist, but an agnostic, so this article doesn’t even relate to you. That is why we have been able to have such fruitful exchanges with very little false attributions about one another. I appreciate and enjoy our debates and respect you for your sincerity.