Word wrote:Phytotron wrote:I think atheists are angry about the things [the Pope] didn't say.
Huh?
For example, 'everyone should use condomes', 'abortions are awesome', 'god and creation is a lie' etc.
Huh? I almost never pay attention to what that massive fraud says, and certainly wouldn't expect him to say any of those things—so why should I be angry about it? I don't determine what is moral or true by what some religious charlatan does or doesn't say (although you seem to think that's the way "the atheists" do it, defining their beliefs in the negative against what the Pope says, continuing to operate under these ridiculous stereotypes and caricatures you have).
And, not incidentally, very many religious folks (including some more sensible Catholics) also support the right to abortion; it's not just your "the atheists." This should be obvious by simple demographics. Americans are at present roughly 50-50 pro-choice versus anti-choice. You surely don't think 50% of Americans are atheists, do you?
And the word is
condom, plural condomes. No
e. And on that subject...
Word wrote:If you don't want children, there are still condoms and pills and lots of other stuff.
OK, soooo....
1) Are you advocating those methods of birth control? If not, why did you effectively do just that by offering them up as valid alternatives to abortion? (Which is fallacious anyway, since contraception is used as prevention, abortion after the fact—sometimes precisely because contraception has been ineffective. And, before you say it, the "abortion as birth control" is a myth.)
2) You are aware your Pope has now conceded condom use for male prostitutes and women with HIV, yes? So, now that he's made that concession, it's all over, isn't it? (As if the continual concessions in the face of modernity that the Catholic Church has been rolling out for decades hadn't already undermined it.) And, by the way, would it be moral for a woman to deliberately contract HIV so she can use a condom?
Phytotron wrote:For a long time church was the best (and at times the only) employer of artists and scientists (see
this list), and there were no tensions until scientists and artists probed into subjects that seemed to contradict the church's doctrine of that time (Galilei). From the church's point of view, science was suddenly anti-religious (although the inventions of new weapons could have been called anti-religious as well).
(I should have said 'shouldn't be
viewed as anti-religious' to be more clear).
You know, we discussed the first point before, but I guess once again you chose to ignore it. As for the rest, well, that's the religiosos' hang-up and they need to get the hell over it. If a true believer insists on continuing to believe in supernatural nonsense in the face of science and reason, then that's on the believer and they need to keep that to themselves and keep it out of the public, and especially the civic, sphere. Anyway, related:
Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science and Faith, where he expresses a view that tends more toward the notion of the
Non-overlapping magisteria. I tend to lean more toward the views of those in the "criticisms" section of that wikipedia entry, though not entirely—sort of a blend, I suppose...'nuther subject.
sinewav wrote:Just to be clear, atheists don't think abortions are "awesome." We think abortions are horrible, horrible things that should be avoided whenever possible.
I may not think it's "awesome," but I don't think it's always horrible or avoided whenever possible (and in fact think it's often a good first choice). I also don't agree (to skip ahead to a later post) that it always or necessarily results in suffering or permanent "scarring" for the woman, especially when it's early, and especially if she hasn't had abusive religious guilt pounded into her all her life. More women agonize more greatly over giving up an actual child for adoption, that continues to live on in the world somewhere, than over having had an abortion (an important point, for obvious reasons). Abortion is often the best option, not as a regrettable "least of evils," but as a positive choice for that individual's or family's life (don't forget, it's not only young, single women who have unintended pregnancies). And there should be
no restrictions whatsoever on receiving one. Yes, I do support "abortion on demand," including for minors without parental notification (even against parental disapproval).
Word wrote:I just think children shouldn't be treated like a disease.
You're right, they shouldn't, but we're not talking about children. We're talking about non-viable fetuses or often even earlier stages of development (embryo, zygote, blastocyst).
And I can't even give an adequately thorough review here on Catholicism's (and evangelicals') negative and demeaning view of life. Claims about "valuing the sanctity of life" have no credibility when coming from these wicked ideologies. Christians tell real, living children that they are
dead and destined to Hell until they believe as Christians do. Nine million actual, live, thinking, feeling children die every year before reaching the age of five. Parents lose their born, existing children to all manner of deaths, and the church says, "welp, that's God's mysterious plan, suck it up."
I could go on and on about this culture of death inherent to Christianity and Catholicism especially, but I can't write a book here. Anti-abortionists who base that view on Christianity do not—do not—believe in the sanctity or dignity of life. "Pro-life from conception until birth."
Sam Harris and
Christopher Hitchens (yep, going straight for the obvious names) on this subject, each briefly, which I'm sure you'll ignore out of prejudice and in favor of snippets cut out of context from some anti-atheist Catholic website you like.
Word wrote:@Cody: babies don't have a choice.
It's not a baby.
If you were the baby that was going to be aborted, do you really think...
There is no "you" yet, let alone any thinking.
And you think rape victims must kill their children...
No, rape victims shouldn't be forced against their will by fascistic, patriarchal religious fanatics to continue that pregnancy and give birth to those eventual children.
And that leads to one other crucial point here: the choice and availability of having an abortion is a fundamental woman's rights issue. Outlawing abortions (legally or by religious doctrine)—that is, forcing women to carry a pregnancy, bring it to term, give birth, and anything that may follow—is sexual slavery. Period.
