Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I'm so sorry...I can't imagine that.
Thanks doG. From an atheist, that means the world. From a theist, just an insult.
BTW: I saw this and wondered, "What the hell is he talking about?" Then I went back a page to the bottom, then "Oohhh."
rmfr
I will say this. You need to check your definition of sexism. My belief, which I will instill in my children until the day I die, is that man and woman are equal. I am not a sexist. I have no “issues with women” as some have suggested. I am in a fruitful marriage with a woman who would take no issue with what I have said, and only becomes embarrassed when I praise her for everything she does for us.
Unlike some of you Beta Males have pretended to suggest, it is not sexism to imply that a woman needs a man or a man needs a woman. It is a relationship of equality. the virtue signaling of saying that a “woman doesn’t need a man” or men aren’t necessary to help make a good decision, that’s BS. The majority of people who are in a relationship knows they are better people because the person they are with. That is not disputable. We marry people because they bring out the best in us. My point was men and women are fundamentally different, and biologically complimented each other needs. It is not sexist to say a woman is not as strong as a man. It is not sexist to say a woman becomes a better person when she had the support of a man, just as it is not sexist to say a man is better off when he is has the support of his woman.
I am thankful I don’t live in Canada and fear the Us becomes the same. I am not embarrassed to say I will fight until death for the success of my wife and children, and wife is not embarrassed to say she needs me to support her. Y’all clowning with your “sexist” comments. Makes me sick.
SomeBODIEShero, you wrote, “It is not sexist to say a woman becomes a better person when she had the support of a man, just as it is not sexist to say a man is better off when he is has the support of his woman.”
You just don’t even get that by saying, “she has the support of *A* man...” and “he has the support of *HIS* woman” you demonstrate, beyond doubt, the profound difference you find between the value of men vs women.
What I find so flabbergasting about folks like you is how, despite the obvious, you deny it.
@cyber
I don’t for a second deny that there are differences in values between men and woman. I am not denying it not ashamed. In fact I celebrate it. I am not ashamed to admit that I, as a man, have shortcomings that a woman compliments. What is the issue?
Are you trying to say that men and women are the same?? Where is the empirical evidence to support such a claim? I truly don’t understand why you are in disagreement. Are you saying science doesn’t recognize a difference between man and woman?? I’m surprised. Please show empirical evidence.
Nobody's Hero
Don't know how to read? Try reading this post by Sheldon. If you still do not see how you are a sexist Religious Absolutist then you are completely lost in your RSTD.
Yes. Men and Woman are the same in that they are equal. If you cannot figure that out, then again, you are completely lost in your RSTD.
God Damnit! You ______ ____ ___ ________ Religious Absolutist. Read this post by Sheldon. Try going r e a l s l o w since your Reading Comprehension skills seem to be lacking.
rmfr
Cyber said "the value of" not "the values of," did you misread this on purpose to avoid addressing the obvious bigotry in your post that Cyber highlighted.
NB That was a rhetorical question btw.
@ SBh
Read the following s l o w l y.....I am in a fruitful marriage with a woman who would take no issue with what I have said, and only becomes embarrassed when I praise her for everything she does for us.
So you have expressed an opinion for her? What of her private reservations? Do you know? For sure?
and It is not sexist to say a woman becomes a better person when she had the support of a man, just as it is not sexist to say a man is better off when he is has the support of his woman.
Do you see where your dull sexist thinking is exposed in both sentences?
If we can call it thinking. More like you have been watching re-runs of Bewitched and itch to play out the role of Darren every day.
Your irrational clinging to a sense of superior innate male decision making and 'leadership' is quite sickening.
As to abortion. I am male. It is not my business what any woman decides to do with her body, I am not qualified to have an opinion.
And that is the difference between us...you have only religion to explain why it should be anyone's business but the female in question.
@old man
Lol I have no idea why you are arguing with what I have said. It is like you are just looking for any tiny micro aggression because you are afraid to agree with me. I do not think for my wife, but I do know what she thinks. I know how she is feeling in a given moment simply by watching her body language. I understand how she feels because we communicate. Idk, didn’t realizing saying my wife would agree with me was sexist.
Let me educate you on something. When I married my wife, we made a promise to each other. That we would no longer be ‘me’ and ‘you’ but ‘us’. We make decisions totally and completely together. I have nothing that she doesn’t also have. Stop nit picking my pronouns because there is nothing there do you to find. You point out I said “a man” and “his woman”. This does not show anything except you desperately trying to find something...
As for abortion, that is the weakest argument against abortion I have ever heard. Why is that the fathers opinion is never considered, even tho he is half of the problem? What if the father didn’t want an abortion? So he has no say because she has to carry it for 9 months? Big deal.
Okay..are you a millionaire? Why should you be able to vote to tax the rich? Are you a gun owner? If not, who are you to decide whether gun owners should have to give up their guns. Since when did we not have the right to vote on every issue? In order to have a better society, we need voices from both sides. sounds like you are trying to silence mine...
And again you attack me for being religious, even tho I have not Once used religion to justify my opinion. So, eh, kinda makes your whole comment feel slimy.
@SBH
Gosh, what a sad little rant.
Your language is indicative of your thought processes in several instances on these forums.It has been highlighted in almost every reply to your posts. It is entirely amusing to see you wriggle and twist to try and deny what you have actually said. It is a bit like the body language you claim to understand. It is revealing of the inner thought processes.
Good luck. I predict you will be coming a painful cropper with that kind of complacence.
If what you say is true you have a "perfect relationship". That doesn't apply to a very large percentage of the rest of the world. Until it does the female bears children. Carries them in her body. Therefore it is her choice what do with her body at any time.
If you cannot understand a simple proposition like that you are in a world of hurt.
Consider, a rapist of a 12 year old..does he have rights over the child of the rape? A say over education? What if the child as she matures has problems should that rapist have parental rights..even custody? More greys, than black and whites in that patriarchal worldview you espouse.
Your blind assumption of "male responsibility" is a cover for patriarchy and has no place in a civilised society.
No answer needed as this is just a mindless rant designed to take attention away from your obvious obnoxious stance on any woman's right of bodily sovereignty.
I have no need to attack you for being religious, indeed I did not "attack" you for it. If I had you would still be reeling.
I must admit after reading your various comments I have had to wash my eyes out after reading them and understanding what you really mean by them. I suggest you stop writing on this particular thread or you will induce wholesale vomiting at your self satisfied overweening arrogance.
(edit spelling and grammar)
@SomeBODIEShero
We voted representatives that voted in supreme court justices, those scotus justices did Roe v Wade, and the conclusion is the conclusion, been around for quite a long while now, (approaching 50 years!) It was argued, all sides were considered. Now people are constantly trying undermine the supreme law of the land, states making it all but impossible to get an abortion etc.
Now you can vote in new people that will eventually overturn the original supreme court finding, and there have been multiple opportunities to do so in the last 45+ years (when republicans controlled enough to get their own scotus judges in (even though judges are supposed to be impartial to parties), yet it has never happened. This of course is explained really because for republicans its a free 1 issue vote they can dangle in front of their voters, a golden goose that lays golden eggs of free votes year after year even though they never actually overturn it. They do not want to kill their "free vote laying golden goose."
A lot of people voted for trump/pence even though they thought trump is a lying narcissistic rich idiot simply because they thought this was it, roe v wade was going to get overturned, still has not happened 2.5 years later, even with 2 of those years republicans controlled all branches of the government.
An additional note: gun rights activist + pro life activist are particularly amusing to me in their deep deep multi aspect hypocrisy that they are seemingly completely unaware of.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Nobody's Hero: "Let me educate you on something."
I seriously doubt you could ever any such thing, boy, what a wanger.
rmfr
Nobody's Hero: "Why is that the fathers opinion is never considered, even tho he is half of the problem?"
The man is the WHOLE problem!
The woman's body, her COMPLETE AUTONOMOUS RIGHT to dictate how it is to be used. Period. Exclamation Point!
rmfr
That's a lie.
sexism
noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Duly checked, and your comment that: women NEED a man to stop them making bad decisions, is clearly sexist.
So you're fine with women having complete autonomy over their reproductive cycle then? Including seeking the termination of a pregnancy for any reason?
Or do you think a man's body can be used against his will to preserve the life of one of his children?
That remark is sexist by definition.
YES it really is, unless you think straight men and women are better than gay women or gay men? Which of course is bigoted nonsense.
As are most Canadians I'd imagine. I see you're adding xenophobia to your growing list of bigotry.
I'm glad at least we were able to reciprocate the nausea your bigoted sexism has induced in many of us. The difference of course is that we are not trying to insist everyone lives according to our opinions, whereas you clearly are.
I would never tell anyone they should have an abortion if they don't want one.
Nobody's Hero: "You need to check your definition of sexism. I am not a sexist."
***the whole post actually***
Religious Absolutists prove they are Religious Absolutist by (highlighting [♥ ⇒ ] the ones you proved with this post):
Here is a list of how one can spot a Religious Absolutist and they only need match just ONE:
Hang around a bit longer. I think there are a couple you have missed, RELIGIOUS ABSOLUTIST!
And here are my definitions, just so you can know you are what you say you are not.
RSTD (Religious Stigmata Traumatized Disorder). Still working on getting WWW site updated.
Then carry your sorry Religious Absolutist sexist self to a religious site where they will applaudingly ovate your sexism such as https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/. This one operates under the name of history's most atrocious and heinous genocidal maniac to ever exist.
rmfr
@ SomeBODIEShero
WHY do you think murder is wrong? You still haven't said. Can you offer any cogent reason, or just unevidenced vapid rhetoric like it's a sin?
Surely asserting something is wrong as a standard for society to adhere to, which paraphrased is what you claimed, is a claim that has to be underpinned by some cogent reason or explanation, and that you can demonstrate some evidence to support?
Otherwise it's pretty meaningless.
Nobody's Hero: "I am thankful I don’t live in Canada"
Does this not fall under racism?
Another forum rule.
RELIGIOUS ABSOLUTISTS have created the greatest violence, destruction, injury, death, bigotry, harm, immorality, intolerance, wickedness, and abuse to the human species than any other cause. The main problem is not religious fundamentalism, but the fundamentals of religion. Religion’s loose version of “morality,” has NO place in a civilized society. In fact, religion has NO place in any society.
Damn boy, you really pushing it. Bigot, Sexist, Racist, …
rmfr
What is that term again...happens a lot on here...terrorists do it to planes...damn, can't remember...
Maybe this thread should be aborted. :P
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/abortion-2?page=3#comm...
It occurs to me I may never get an answer to the question linked above.
So I'll open the question up to all theists, and atheists come to that. We often see threads started to proclaim the moral ascendancy of one religion or another, but the claims are seldom justified with cogent reasons, compelling argument, or objective evidence.
So a good starting point is to take examples of behaviours pretty much everyone accepts as wrong, like murder and ask WHY people think these are immoral acts?
For instance those opposed to women having the choice to abort a pregnancy often use the word murder, and the argument then centres around the definition of human and whether, or at what point, a developing foetus should be considered human and be protected.
But I would like to go back a step first, and ask people why they think murder is immoral. Or indeed if they think murder is always immoral, and if not, then under what circumstances anyone might consider murder to be morally acceptable and why?
It'll be a change from the tedious exchanges of rhetoric and name calling which arguments about abortion always seem to provoke anyway.
I for one am glad you did this...I have been wondering about why you challenge theists with this question, for awhile now.
I think that murder among our species can be both immoral and moral...depending on your view of human morality. Other than societies black and white, good or bad moral standards portrayed in legal statutes and precedents within a civilized environment, there is also the layered complexity and moral fluidity as defined by our species well being. Within our society it is wrong to murder someone. But that same murder if it was Hitler after the holocaust began, would be justified. I would forward, that morality does not hinge on what is good or bad, but actually hinges on how successful the survival of the species is, and the challenges it faces.
That's what my few neurons think...right or wrong, as it may sound.
@ Sheldon
Re "Abortion" i.e the termination of an unwanted human pregnancy.
I am certain you mean this in your post: Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
- Note the "unlawful" in the definition. This presupposes a society with laws and codes of societal conduct. Murder can only be defined within those boundaries.
- Next we have the condition of "premeditated". Did one plan or consider this killing before the event?
- Lastly we have the condition : killing of one human being by another
So, without ( uniformly religiously inspired) laws against termination in a lawful society there can be no charge of "murder".
Without "premeditation" of the termination there can be no charge of murder. i.e in a case where a young rape victim downs a whole bottle of gin ( or similar readily available abortifact) on discovery of her pregnancy and does in fact abort..is that a chargeable offence? One has to prove premeditation in each case.
Lastly the condition of "Human Being": is it a blastocyst? A beating heart? The Chinese definition for an independent child ? One who has achieved the age of enfranchisement?
Theists are hopelessly confused and emotional about all these legal definitions. When it can be simply put in a better society e.g:
A female is responsible, and is the only one capable of making decisions for her own body at all times
Make laws around that principle and you will have a just ( and then lawful) definition of "abortion". We can do way with the term 'abortion' and it will be "manslaughter", "murder", or a woman's business at all other times....
(Edit: tags)
I have made this point more than once of course. However I wanted to examine the question of why theists think murder is immoral, rather than whether abortion is or can be classed as murder. As murder is a legal term primarily, and I wanted to examine the reasoning behind the claim murder is immoral.
Of course both arguments feed directly into how one would view abortion. The term murder has always struck me as ludicrous hyperbolic rhetoric in that context, but for now I'd like to know why theists think murder is immoral?
It seems to me an almost universally accepted moral truth should produce a broad consensus. I'm fairly curious therefore to hear theists like somebodieshero explain why they think murder is immoral, as he made the claim, but just made unexplained or unevidenced assertions that went something like this:
Abortion is murder, murder is a sin, sin is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong, simple
Simple it is to be sure, but why is murder wrong beyond the vapid claim it's a sin? He talked of a standard that society needs, well many people like myself don't believe in sin, it's not a universally held truth, so we need to examine why murder is wrong to see if there is an objective standard. Or if one can be reached.
@ Sheldon
Once again we share an agreement.
"why is murder wrong beyond the vapid claim it's a sin?"
I wanted to highlight the reality that 'murder' is not a 'sin', it is a man made legal term.
If murder was a 'sin' the Abrahamic god(s) would be doing extreme time in the hell they themselves devised.
If the directive was "Thou Shalt Not Kill" then once again the Abrahamic God(s)are guilty of many billions deaths since it bothered to promulgate that bit of "law".
I find that theists find that a very difficult path to argue .
@everybody
“Why is murder wrong?”
I admit this is a difficult question to answer. If I take away my belief that morality is objective, it is hard for me to provide a reason as to why murder is wrong, outside the legal definition.
But we have agreed, at least in this progressive nation, that murder IS wrong. Illegal in fact. So when we discuss abortion, I think the underlining point is we need to figure out when a “blastocyst” becomes an individual human.
Why do I (not as a theist but as human being) think murder is wrong? Very simply because it is an infringement on another’s autonomy. This is where the crux of the abortion debate comes in, because both sides disagree on when that autonomy begins. I am saying (with no religious reasoning) that life happens at conception. This is because scientifically, as soon as the sperm and ovum meet in a romantic dance, an entirely new human is formed. Although I appreciate the efforts of the woman who carries the child, the child is an entirely different being. That being has a unique genetic code. Where do you draw the line?
@Somebody'sZero Re: Just a few general observations regarding a brief scanning of a few of your posts
Oh, my-oh-my... What have we here?... Hmmmm.... Well now... Let's seeeeee......
Okay, as you may or may not have noticed, I have not really been participating in this thread. Primarily because I believe that beating a dead horse is pretty much an exercise in futility. And with this particular topic of Abortion, there really isn't much left of the poor ol' nag to beat anyway. To put it as simply as I possibly can: Woman's body, woman's choice. Ain't all that complicated. Still, with the way this thread was growing so quickly, my damned curiosity finally got the better of me and I figured I would just scan through here real quick to see what all the fuss was about. (And to get the "New Posts" indicator off my screen for this thread. I'm O.C.D. like that.) Anyway, as a result of my scanning, I must say that a few of your posts stood out quite brightly in a particular fashion. "How," you might ask?.... Ummm... Hmmm.... Oh, golly gee.... Not exactly sure how to put this... *shrugging shoulders*... Aw, what the hell? I'll give it a shot....
Have you ever encountered dudes who give off a very distinct "douche-bag" type vibe? You know the type... Always have to be in control. Egotistical. Micro-managers. Never wrong about anything. Oh, and the best part, they are incredibly misogynistic, chauvinistic, and believe women should "learn their place" in society and leave it to the men to make all the "important decisions". Yeah, personally, I have known many such guys like that in my life. Which - I suppose - is why I am able to recognize the signs so easily.... *approaching to whisper in ear*...(and, hey, just between you and me, i doubt i would take the time to stop and piss on guys like that if they were on fire. know what i mean?)... *playfully poking ribs with elbow*... *chuckle*... *stepping back*... So, uh, anyway, didn't mean to get off track like that. But, yeah, I don't know about you, but if I actually believed in heaven and hell and all that type of nonsense, I would say fucktards like that would deserve a special place in hell. Just a personal opinion, though. Then again, now that I think about it, guys like that would actually more than likely end up in heaven with their beloved Sky Daddy, because they ARE - after all - following in His footsteps. You know, "Like Father, like son." Oh, well... *heavy sigh*... And then there ar-... *looking confused for a moment*...
Oh, damn! I'm sorry, dude. I was going to tell you about your posts, wasn't I? That's right. Shit. My bad, man. Got distracted by something I read, I suppose. Uh, well, shoot. Now I can't remember what it was I was going to say.... *scratching head*... Aw, hell, my memory sucks!... *throwing hands up in exasperation*... Guess I'll just have to wait and tell you later... Oh, nice talking with you, by the way... *thumbs up*...
Not even remotely true, there are countless examples from the death penalty, to wars the US has fought that show this claim is just plain wrong. Also you are now contradicting yourself as you said above you can't explain why murder is wrong, so your claim it is wrong is meaningless.
So you think all infringements of another's autonomy are wrong then? So jailing someone is wrong, laws are wrong, telling someone they can't have an abortion is wrong, ect etc...You're not making much sense.
What a risible lie. Science makes no such claim, that's a breathtakingly dishonest claim. Can this fertilised egg experience emotional trauma, feel physical pain, make autonomous decisions, live other than a symbiotic existence in the body of another human, is it in any way sentient or self aware?
So nothing in your objection to murder encompasses either empathy for the victim, or those emotionally attached to the victim, or objects to suffering in any way?
This of course is exactly what I suspected from a theistic mindset that has relinquished it's autonomy to moral reasoning, in favour of blind adherence to a bronze age superstition whose benchmark for morality endorse slavery, rapine, murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, sex trafficking women prisoners, and human sacrifices involving children, to name but a few.
It's a blastocyst, or a foetus, calling it a child is the kind of dishonest rhetoric I was talking about the anti-choicers resorting to in every debate on abortion.
Your shit is coated in that "unique genetic code," one assumes you draw the line the "other side" of protesting against flushing it down the toilet? Also your finger and toenail clippings, your hair, and the bit's of skin you shed relentlessly every second of every day of your life.
Do you really think a haircut, or scratching your arse is mass murder? I don't say immoral as you can't explain why murder is immoral, just that murder removes autonomy, and since your definition of human is a unique genetic code, then this would of course make a haircut genocide. Your reasoning here seems to have hit a reef, so to speak. This will happen of course when we abandon reason and derive "morals" from blindly ripping off parts of archaic superstition.
NB I can't help but note that none of those acts, despite satisfying your objections to termination of a foetus, involve suffering? If only we could work out where your reasoning is going astray?
...*standing on sideline cheering and waving pom-poms*... GO, SHELDON! GO, SHELDON! GO, SHELDON! GO!... *blasting sound of air horn*...
Just to add a bit more fuel to Sheldon's excellent post:
What about identical twins? A twin may not develop until as much as 4 days after initial "sperm entering egg" moment. What identical triplets or quadruplets? Rare to be sure, but how does that work in a "as soon as sperm enters egg that = a full human." Should anyone that aborts a child with the day after pill be charged with murdering a human, but since there is a remote chance that it could of been quadruplet twins a few days later they should be charged with murdering 4 people for taking the day after pill?
The popularized line by pro life folk of "at the moment of conception" (They really mean the moment the sperm successfully enters the egg) is rife with many many issues, it is actually a fairly blurry line, and no matter what anyone says, a pinhead size clump of cells with dna from 2 parents = human is false. There is plenty of potential to develop into a full human, but a human at this point it most certainly is not held up by facts/reality, only unsubstantiated opinion.
I could come up with countless hypotheticals that only make this problem of "conception = human* worse and worse.
The whole situation is ridiculous and filled with countless flaws, why? Because the notion that a fertilized egg = a full human is patently ridiculous. A silly idea that has no bearing on reality. Now, this does not mean that a fertilized egg is nothing special? Of course not, that is a potential human being, a potential offspring of parents, these zygote, blastocyst should have rights and should be protected and cherished, but should they have a right that supersedes a full human female's right to her own body? Well that is a matter of opinion. But forcing that opinion on the mother is abominable. And worse still the forcing only occurs to vulnerable women that do not have the funds/freedom to simply travel to where abortion is available, the very same women that may not even have access to advanced reliable birth control methods?
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Pages