Liberty Counsel’s Aggressive Tactics
Thursday June 3, 2004
The Christian Right is not simply a bunch of people sitting around in their living rooms planning the next public protest - they are also lawyers fighting in the courts in order to promote their narrow agenda via the law. One of the most prominent and vociferous legal groups is the Liberty Counsel, based in Florida.
The Orlando Sentinel reports on Mathew Staver and his law group, the Liberty Counsel,:
His group is spearheading fights in California, New York and Massachusetts, crafting appeals that could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. He is also working to roll back other rights for gays, overturn Roe v. Wade and ensure that Christians can freely evangelize in public schools. ... He fought to force two mentally retarded Florida women to give birth to children of rapists; supported "Choose Life" license plates; opposed gay adoptions and fought to retain "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Staver, who attends First Baptist Church of Orlando, does have a very conservative agenda, including that Christians should pull their children from public schools, where he says religious freedoms aren't protected. And he believes that even in cases of rape and incest, abortion should be banned. .. Staver threatened to sue a library in Jacksonville because it gave children certificates for completing Harry Potter's "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry," a collection of books. Staver accused the library of promoting witchcraft.
"They certainly don't stand for freedom because they engage in a Talibanish-like approach," said Lance Block, an attorney who fought Staver over the fate of a mentally retarded woman who was impregnated while in a Miami-area group home. "They're trying to force mentally retarded women to have babies. There's nothing free about that."
Staver is commended by others for not engaging in the same sort of hateful rhetoric as many others, but that’s not exactly a glowing recommendation, now is it? Even if it isn’t the slightest bit hateful, the sort of society that he must envision for America (judging by the cases described above) would be a truly dark and atrocious place to live (unless you are a white Christian male, I would presume).
Read More:
Comments
I’m curious if the Orlando Sentinel feels the same way about the ACLU’s tactics for trying to remove God from the public forum as they do about the Liberty Counsel. Their approach to removing God is no less “Talabanish”. Just because you’re removing religion doesn’t make the motive “clean”.
Mr. Cline, since when does choosing life make society a “dark place”? On the contrary, a society that allows, and dare I say promotes, the killing of unborn babies is already a “dark place”.
Care to cite any examples of your claims?
Because they only want people to choose live on their terms rather than on the terms of the pepople who have to live those lives.
Mr. Cline, you wrote, “Even if it isn’t the slightest bit hateful, the sort of society that he [Staver] must envision for America (judging by the cases described above) would be a truly dark and atrocious place to live (unless you are a white Christian male, I would presume)”. Do you “presume” the same for a black Christian male or female, or an Asian Christian male or female, or a Hispanic Christian male or female, or any male or female who is a Christian? This world is “dark and atrocious” enough as it is with all the people who don’t value human life (senseless shootings/murder, innocent people killed by drunk drivers or by people under the influence of drugs, gang activity, rapes, beatings, cheating, stealing, etc., etc.). There needs to be some value system in place to maintain some kind of order in the world.
You also stated, “The Christian Right is not simply a bunch of people sitting around in their living rooms planning the next public protest - they are also lawyers fighting in the courts in order to promote their narrow agenda via the law.” Aren’t those who are at the other end of the spectrum (those who oppose the “Christian Right”) doing the very same thing? Aren’t atheists and homosexuals taking their agendas to court and fighting to promote their ideals?
For most I would expect it to be atrocious, though some may be happy.
Why do you assume there has to be just one value system?
They aren’t fighting to impose religious doctrines and assumptions on a secular nation. That, however, is the raison d’être for Christian Nationalism.
The kind of world it would be would the the kind of world the founding father’s envisioned, one where, as in those days, Christians were free to worship as they pleased, when and where they wanted to, and where adhering to God’s commandments would be the goal. That is still the goal of every bible believing Christian, and there are still a lot of us.
We believe everybody should be able to live as he/she wants, but we do not condone the agenda’s of atheists, homosexuals, abortionists, etc.
Feel free to demonstrate that Christians today lack the same religious freedom as everyone else.
It’s curious, though, that you only seem to care about the religious freedom of Christians.
So, equal religious liberty for everyone is not your goal, the goal of the Liberty Counsel, or the goal of “bible believing Chritians”?
You don’t have to condone anyone’s agenda to let them have the same liberty you demand for yourself. Or do you believe that the only people who should be free are the ones who agree with you?
Legislated christianity will NEVER work! The Focus on the Family, Liberty Counsel, Baptist Convention, Christian Coaltion have turned me off! All these organization “think” “they” know what is correct for everyone and will sue or promote through tax free churches to make the rest of “We The People” see it their way; or else. This is demogogary at it’s worst! How dare you claim to know what is best for America based upon your interpretations of the Bible!
Mr Cline… you stated that Christians only want people to choose life on our terms and not on the terms of those living that life. When we abort a child aren’t we determining the life of that child on our terms. What “Pro Choice” people say, on the surface seems good, but in reality it’s just hypocritical double-talk. Not only is it murder in the sight of God, but it goes directly against our own Constitution, that we are to protect the rights of those that cannot protect themselves. Who’s protecting the life of the unborn child? That, my friend, is the essence of true love, and a noble cause in my opinion. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” Isaiah 5:20
I make no such claims about Christians generally.
A person who aborts a pregnancy (only pregnancies are aborted, per the definition of the term) makes a decision about who does and does not have access to their body and organs. The only a person who can legitimately make such a decision is the one who is pregnant.
Prove it.
Do show in the Constitution where it gives the government the authority to tell citizens that they must provide access to their body and organs to anyone else.
Mr Cline… when did I ever suggest that the Constitution gives the gov’t. the right to access a persons body or organs? You’re the one that says doctors should have the right to go into a woman’s body and perform an abortion. I’m simply stating that I believe we have the responsibility to protect the life of the unborn child. I’m assuming that you’re referring to the unborn child as an organ?? Don’t get me wrong… I don’t want to come across as being the Judge… God judges all men. The fact is that sin always seeks to express itself and then excuse itself due to the depravity of the human heart. “For we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” I only hope there will be some who will read this and turn from their sins and turn to the only One who can forgive sins, the Son of God, Jesus Christ. When we die and our souls slip into eternity, it’s all that will really matter.
The government would require this authority in order to have the authority to force a woman to remain pregnant.
In order for doctors to have this right, it is necessary that they be given permission to do so by whomever has authority over the use of and access to the woman’s body and organs. Who do you believe has that authority: the state or the woman?
I know, but if you are going to do so by making abortion a crime, you can only do so by asserting that the state has the authority to force a woman to give a fetus access to her body and organs against her will.
Of course not. I’m referring to the woman’s organs: uterus, liver, kidneys, heart, etc. All of these are used to sustain a pregnancy and keep a fetus alive.
This is why it’s not enough to simply assert that a fetus has a “right to life.” I have a right to life, but I don’t necessarily have a right to absolutely anything that would keep me alive. If I had a terminal disease and yours was the only kidney in the world that would keep me alive, do I have a right to your kidney? Does the state have the authority to force you to turn over one of your kidneys?
No — and I’m not just stating that as an opinion (as in, “it’s my opinion that I have no such right and the state has no such authority”) but also as a matter of objective law: courts have consistently rejected the idea that the state has anything remotely approaching such authority. If you disagree and think that I should have this right and the state should have this authority, you’ll have to make an argument for why — but note that simply saying “Austin has a right to life” wouldn’t be that argument.
However, if you agree with me here, then you agree that having a right to life doesn’t mean that one has a right to absolutely anything that would sustain life. This means that saying that a fetus has a “right to life” does not entail that a fetus also has a right to access a woman’s body and organs against her will. An entirely separate argument has to be made for that position.
With this you imply that you have only been making a religious argument all along, which ultimately undermines your position because if the only argument you have against abortion is a religious one then you just don’t have a valid argument for making abortion a violation of criminal law.
Mr. Cline… the problem that you create when you make “personal view” philisophical arguments is that you create a slippery slope with no absolutes. If you’re suggesting that the unborn child does not have the right to access the mother’s organs, than why not make the same argument for the infant after it has exited the mother’s womb? Why do you think mother’s abandon their babies right after they’re born, we no longer promote the sanctity of human life in this country. The problem is over 98% of abortions performed in this country are nothing more than a form of birth control and the counselors aren’t telling these women the guilt that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives. And yes, the primary reason I am replying on this website is in hope that some will be released from their guilt by turning to Jesus Christ. The fact is that the only way people will turn from their sins is to have their hearts and minds transformed by the work of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God. “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. That’s TRUE love and one that would hopefully cause a mother to be willing to make some sacrifices for the life of her child.
And have I made such an argument?
I do: the state cannot force a woman to keep a child she does not want. If she does not want it, she can give it up for adoption.
Abandoning a baby in a manner which ensures that the baby has access to what it needs is legal in many states and is a good thing.
What’s wrong with controlling who and what has access to one’s body and organs?
Not everyone lives with guilt for the rest of their lives.
Then stop, because that isn’t a legitimate use for this site. If you continue with such a purpose, your comments will be deleted.
It’s your site… you have that right. I’m just trying to express my beliefs just like you. By the way, you are yet to answer the question… who is responsible for protecting the rights of the unborn child? If the child were able to speak and defend itself in a court of law, I’m sure the ruling in Roe v Wade would have been much different. Again I ask you, who is responsible for defending the rights of the helpless. I believe it is the mother’s and hopefully many mothers will read this in the future and it will have saved many lives. And that is a possibility that hopefully you will not argue against.
No, you’re not. You specifically admitted that you’re trying to convert people. This site does not exist as a vehicle for your proselytization efforts.
You have yet to demonstrate that it has any rights — and specifically a right to use the body and organs of the woman. If such a right does not exist, then of course no one is “responsible” for “protecting” them.
I never said I was trying to convert people… I don’t have the power to do that. Of course when we have a strong belief about something, as you do, we hope that by expressing our beliefs that others will be convinced. That’s the whole purpose of expressing our beliefs. Otherwise I would question whether you really believe what you say you believe. You need to touch up on your Constitutional rights… the question is not whether the unborn child has constitutional rights. Everyone knows that every human being has a right to life under the Constitution. The controversy has been whether the unborn child is a viable human being. I was just waiting to see how long it would take us to reach this point.
That’s what trying “turn” people “to Jesus Christ” ultimately is.
Speak for yourself; don’t assume that everyone else expresses their ideas solely to get others to agree.
Just because I believe something doesn’t mean that I want everyone to always believe all the exact same things I do. Only very insecure people adopt such an attitude.
Once again, speak for yourself — you’re the one who needs a refresher on Constitutional rights because none of them apply to a fetus.
Moreover, you are evading the question of whether a fetus has a right to access or use the body and organs of a woman.
No, they don’t, because no such right is mentioned.
No, because as I already pointed out a right to life does not necessarily imply a right to everything that might sustain life. So even if the fetus has a right to life, that would not justify criminalizing abortion. For that, you would need to establish a right to use the body and organs of the woman. I’m quite confident you can’t do that, though, which would explain why you’ve ignored that.
By the same token, it is theoretically possible for the fetus to not have a right to life but still have a right to access and use of the woman’s body and organs. Both are logically and legally distinct; one does not imply or exclude the other and both must be established independently. A right to life, however, is unnecessary if one is trying to argue that abortion should be a crime.
Anti-choice activists spend all their time on this irrelevancy, though, because it’s emotionally appealing. Admitting that what they ultimately want is to deny a woman the authority to control who or what gets to use her body and organs not only isn’t emotionally appealing, but would be counter-productive because so many people — or at least all those not inveterate misogynists — would immediately reject it.
You mean, the point of something that is ultimately irrelevant? No time at all is required — in my experience, anti-choice activists spend an inordinate amount of time on irrelevancies.
I stand corrected… our right to life is stated in our country’s original governing document, the Declaration of Independence. The people, government or Constitution never had the right to take away that right, therefore making the Roe v Wade an illegal ruling under the guidelines of our original document. Unfortunately we had judges that overstepped their authoritative bounds, by becoming their own authority. As I stated before I only hope women will read this and be willing to defend the rights of their unborn children by considering other options other than abortion. Good night and thank you for allowing me to debate.
That document has no legal standing or authority in the courts, you know.
Funny, but I don’t remember reading in RvW the statement that some person has no right to life. Care to share any quotes?
Even if such quotes do exist in the decision, though, the fact that the DoI has no legal standing or authority means that your conclusion is wrong. The DoI provides absolutely no “guidelines” for the nation’s laws or legal decisions. Guidelines come from the Constitution, which is the founding document for our government. Legal decisions are only legal/illegal based on whether they conform with the standards established by the Constitution. Whether they agree with the DoI or not is irrelevant.
Weren’t you going to brush up on Constitutional law, or something?
Since judges are not bound in any sense by the DoI, they do not overstep any of their authority when they ignore or contradict the DoI.
Thank you for providing such a wonderful example of all the intellectual seriousness and substance that lies behind the anti-choice position. I believe that you have truly demonstrated the best that can be found.
Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which until then, was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others. The decision was predicated primarily on the Ninth Amendment, which protects a persons right to privacy. Should the Supreme Court have ruled against our interpretation of the abortion laws based on a persons right to privacy?? Lets let the readers decide. Again as I have stated before the right to life of the unborn child has been unjustifiably taken away. Just because a group of judges makes a ruling doesn’t make it right. That was the whole intention behind the Declaration of Independence, to prevent an opinionated misinterpretation of the Constitution. The only difference between you and I Mr. Cline is that you don’t want your life to be governed by any absolutes. You believe that everyone is entitled to their own set of values and to live their lives accordingly. I believe the definition of that is anarchy. I think I’m doing pretty good for a high school graduate… again we’ll let the readers decide. Check Mate!!!
Abortion continues to be limited by law in various ways in different states.
It was also predicated on previous decisions, themselves based on a right to privacy, which held that people have a right to information about birth control, a right to contraceptive devices, and a right to not be sterilized by the state.
Tell me, do you disagree with those decisions and if so, on what basis exactly? I’d like to see you explain, in detail, where the legal reasoning in those decisions went wrong and how they should have been decided.
Insofar as a person’s right to privacy encompasses a right to make decisions about what does and does not have with their body and organs, legalized abortion is the only situation consistent with a right to privacy.
Stating it doesn’t make it so. Unless and until you can demonstrate that a fetus has a right to access to a woman’s body and organs, simply repeating “the fetus has a right to life” won’t justify criminalizing abortion. If a fetus has a right to life but not a right to use a woman’s body against her will, you can’t criminalize abortion. Curious that you persist in ignoring this point.
True, but you still have to construct a legal argument to counter theirs. Thus far, you haven’t even tried.
1. The DoI was written before the Constitution; ergo it couldn’t have been written with the intention of preventing any sort of interpretation or misinterpretation of the Constitution.
2. The DoI has no legal standing and thus is not a constraint on how to interpret the Constitution.
3. The DoI actually states what it’s intention is; the Constitution is of course not mentioned.
Prove it. That’s a pretty dramatic claim to make about a person you don’t know and have never met — and I’m confident that it’s not a conclusion which can legitimately be reached through any comments I’ve addressed to you here.
Well, what you believe here is false. Anarchy is, quite simply, a social or political system in which there is no government. Anarchy can exist without everyone having their own set of values; everyone can have their own set of values under a system that isn’t anarchy.
I don’t, sorry.
Do you find that an easier standard to deal with than simply measuring your claims against facts, law, history, and reason?
You’re the one failing to allow fact, history and reason as a part of this debate. First, anarchy is NOT simply a social or political system where there is no government… look it up. The Bible is a major part of our history, allow me to quote from it. Taking the life of an unborn child requires artificial intervention, while allowing a woman to reach full term in pregnancy can be accomplished by the mother quite simply keeping herself alive. Let’s reason together… shall we. Also if you will take the time to see why our founding fathers established the DoI, you’ll find that my statement is accurate. They formulated the Declaration based on their opinion of the British government, not wanting the same things to occur in the newly formed government of the United States. I did not want to make this a battle over personal opinion or convictions, I was simply stating that an unborn child has a right to life and you have failed to demonstrate a valid or reasonable argument against that. Until you do that everything else you say is nothing more than a defense of your position. In my opinion the baby has every right to access life sustaining means as long as those means are natural. Artificial intervention should only be aloud to maintain life, not to take it. I believe that’s reasonable.
I did. Perhaps you should?
And how is this relevant?
Since the DoI was written before the Constitution, it wasn’t written to constrain interpretations of the Constitution. That’s just not a matter open for debate.
There was no “newly formed government of the United States” at the time the DoI was written. It would be a while before they constructed a government and the Constitution wasn’t even their first attempt. The DoI was their list of complaints against the British government, not a list of constraints on a government of theirs which didn’t exist.
That’s your personal opinion. First, you don’t even try to support it. Second, I already explained that even if what you say is true it isn’t enough to justify criminalizing abortion.
The burden is yours to prove your own claims, not mine to disprove them.
OK, prove it. Provide a legal argument to support your opinion.
Whether you believe it’s reasonable is far less important than whether you can demonstrate that it’s reasonable. You have, thus far, avoided construct any serious, substantive arguments for any of the claims you have made. Now would be a good time to start.
All of mankind knows the truth, we just supress it in our unrighteousness. The Bible is the Word of God and the only absolute truth that exists. If you believe it is irrelevant and not allow me to use it to support or establish my argument, than I’ve already spent too much time in this debate. I’m not arguing whether our secular laws allow for abortion, I’m asking people to consider whether it’s right or not. Of course, most people know the answer to that. My work is done here.
Prove it.
When it comes to discussing criminal law, the Bible is only relevant in a theocracy. Furthermore, I’ve already told you that you aren’t permitted to proselytize here.
What debate? Debates require that people advance actual arguments.=
Just to wade in…
You realise that argument could apply to anything? Like belief in crop circle-creating aliens or that animals talk to each other in perfect english when we’re not looking?
It can even be turned around on you to support atheism: In your heart, you know there is no God but you suppress that knowledge out of fear and weakness. Are you convinced by that? No? Then why should we be?
Even the bits that contradict the other bits? Even the bits that are utterly insane, like when Jesus tells you to hate your family?
If so, why do so many supposed Christians ignore so much of it in their daily lives? Why do so many take thought for the morrow, and support their families rather than hate them? It’s almost as if the Bible is full of ancient superstitious nonsense that is simply inappropriate for living a sensible and productive life as a human being.
The real issue is why do people call themselves “Christian”and claim to follow the Bible when they reject so much of what is clearly commanded in it?
The Bible can only provide support for an argument if the person you want to convince regards it as somehow authoritative.
If you’re talking to somebody who doesn’t accept the authority of the Bible, you need to either make a rational, secular argument that stands independently of any invisible support (thus making the Bible irrelevant) or make an argument for why you think the Bible should be considered authoritative. You seem incapable of doing either.
And you think the best way to do this is to refer to the Bible?? The big book of divinely-inspired child-murder and genocide? Some people’s priorities are very odd.
And back to the old “everybody really agrees with me, they’re just PRETENDING not to because they’re all dicks!” ploy. “My opinion is the one real position that all humans hold! WHY ARE THEY ALL PRETENDING TO DISAGREE WITH ME??!!!”
Not even worth bothering responding to.
You forget that this nation was founded on Christian principles.Child murder and genocide? What is your OPINION..since all opinions agree with you.. about nations warring against other nations?
Mr.Cline…since you believe that it’s OK to take the life of an unborn child, because it has access to the mother’s organs against her will, I’m anxious to know your position on the death penalty.
Prove it.
Mr Cline… I am awaiting your response to Dan’s question… we’re going to paint you into a corner even your college degree can’t get you out of and Hey Mark… chill out, if the Bible has NO authority there’s nothing for you to get worked up over… quite a response for someone who says its not even worth responding to.
The word “since” implies a connection. What’s the connection?
What do you mean “we”? I think I already saw the best you could offer, David, and that was rife with basic factual errors and fallacies. Dan isn’t starting out any better since he’s assuming the existence of a connection which he should have established right away.
Avoiding the question are we??? So what’s you position on the death penalty??? Don’t worry, I’ll make the connection. I don’t believe you’ll answer the question, honestly, and if you don’t than you will have lost all credibility… in my opinion. And this debate WILL be over.
Comment 30 by David. I’ll just repost the relevant point:
Still waiting.
And I obviously didn’t think your entire post wasn’t worth responding to, I specifically pointed out that your “everyone really agrees with me, they’re just lying when they say they don’t” position isn’t worth engaging.
I am dismissive of irrelevant questions.
You’ll have to do that now if you want the question to be treated as relevant.
The point is, Mark, if I’m speaking to someone that does not believe in the authority of the Bible than we will rarely be able to agree on most matters. You’ll just have to take it up with God when you stand before Him in judgment. The Bible has been proven over and over again as a legitimate part of our history, and Austin please don’t ask me to prove it when it has already been proven over years of research, it would take you and I more than a lifetime to go through it all over again. If you don’t see the relevancy in that, Mark, than we have no more to discuss. And Austin, you are very good at avoiding the question… you must have some close attorney friends. It’s the oldest trick in the book… I establish the connection so that you can build your argument. Once again, answer the question, and I assure you I will establish a more than relevant connection. Come on Austin… you have a lot of people in suspense.
You mean, I’m good and not wasting time on irrelevant questions. I have better and more important things to do than to deal with questions that are not relevant.
If you cannot establish that the question is relevant, you cannot give me a reason to answer it.
Hint: that the question is important to you isn’t a reason for me to care.
You act like this is automatically a reason to believe you.
Comment 35 by David.
Nice line in passive-aggressive threats, there. Your God will fuck me up if I don’t toe the line that it wants me to toe. And, of course, it’s always God’s self-appointed human (usually male) representatives that actually get to tell you where the line is. God itself isn’t available for discussion or negotiation.
Do you find that such threats work often in everyday situations?
And I shall repost what I said, yet again.
Of course we won’t be able to establish the relevancy because you won’t answer the question… typical stuff from people that want to live by THEIR OWN set of values… answer what you want to and chalk everything else up as being irrelevant. If that makes you feel better… but be assured of this- one day the Roe v Wade ruling WILL be overturned and the lives of the babies that were brutally taken from their NATURAL life support system will be vindicated and that day I look forward to.
If the question is relevant, then it doesn’t need an answer for the relevancy to be established.
I’m obviously not going to live by your values, since you can’t even explain how your questions are relevant to the subject matter at hand.
Why shouldn’t I treat a question as irrelevant when you refuse to explain why it is relevant?
Obviously some connection occurred to you in your mind, otherwise the question would never have occurred to you and you would never have asked it. So, if we generously assume that you’re a mentally competent adult with at least average reasoning skills, then you must already know what you think the relevancy is. Therefore, you are refusing to state it.
Thus far, you haven’t been able to offer a legal argument for that. Since you are clearly using the best reasoning that the anti-choice movement has to offer, then the only reason why RvW would be overturned is if the courts ignore the law.
That would be a dishonest way of going about things… rather like asking a question that has some alleged relevancy, but refusing to explain what it is and then stamping one’s feet petulantly when others won’t play along.
Mark, the only reason you would perceive the judgment of God as a “real” threat is if you believe God exists and that He has standards that He will judge by. The reason we believe that George Washington existed and we understand what he stood for is because of history books and the substantial evidence. If you choose to ignore the Bible as a vital part of history and the overwhelming evidence of its’ credibility that’s your perogative. If someone told me that one day I would stand before the great alien god of Mars in judgment, I assure you I would not see that as a legitimate threat, nor would I waste a moment of my time debating it because there’s not a shread of evidence to support that. Now as for you Austin, we both know that if you are in support of the death penalty, you would not only be a fish out of water, but most people would have a hard time believing that and if you are against the death penalty than of course establishing a credible and relevant argument would be quite simple. And that my viewing audience is why Austin refuses to answer the question. Having convictions and living by them is one thing, double standards is quite another.
Comment 40 by David
Ok, some vaguely coherent arguments. Are you suggesting that the historical evidence for your specific god of choice, and for that god’s particular preferences, is in the same league as that for the existence of George Washington? You realise we have material written by Washington in his own handwriting? We also have contemporary work referencing him, both by supporters and critics? You realise you can visit his grave, and his direct descendents? What exactly about your god of choice has similar evidential support?
Also, you’re keeping your references to the bible being reliable very vague. Specific claims need to be supported, not some vague notion of the bible in toto being reliable, even the bits that contradict the other bits.
This is where it gets tricky, as self-professed Christians can’t even agree on the specifics. That’s why we have so many conflicting sects.
The fact that self-professed Christians can’t agree on pretty much anything about their god isn’t an amazingly encouraging fact, and suggests that the Bible is an incoherent mess. The “big book of multiple choice”, as it’s been called. It makes no sense to state that the big book of multiple choice is reliable.
Right, but if there were sketchy historical records of people making those threats a few thousand years ago, and place names in those records corresponded to real places, you’d take it seriously?
Furthermore, and crucially, if you came to believe those threats were real, would you then submit to the will of the great alien god of Mars, no matter how vicious and anti-human its commands were? That’s the stance you appear to be taking here with reference to your god of choice.
You are making no distinction whatsoever between a specific theistic belief, ie believing in the existence of a specific god that makes certain terrifying threats, and slavish obedience to that god simply because of those threats.
Even if the god of the bible does exist, you’re still left with the genocide and child-murder that it approves of on the Old Testament, and the hideous, life-destroying and anti-human doctrines of salvation through faith alone and torture of the dead that it apparently supports in the New Testament.
In short, the god of the bible is a dick. It would not worth worshiping or obeying, if it did exist. The fact that you’re happy to pass on sinister second-hand threats from it to nonbelievers, who you haven’t even met and know nothing about, is as much testament to the depraved nature of your god as any hideous story from the Bible.
The fact that you are happy to worship and promote this god is sickening, and it remains sickening no matter how much you try to distract with pro-life argumentation.
Are you suggesting that the historical evidence for your specific god of choice, and for that god’s particular preferences, is in the same league as that for the existence of George Washington?
No what I’m saying is that there is even more evidence.
You realise we have material written by Washington in his own handwriting
Are you suggesting that if a person speaks and another person writes down what they hear, it loses all credibility? You may want to talk with a court stenographer.
In short, the god of the bible is a dick. It would not worth worshiping or obeying, if it did exist. The fact that you’re happy to pass on sinister second-hand threats from it to nonbelievers, who you haven’t even met and know nothing about, is as much testament to the depraved nature of your god as any hideous story from the Bible.
And I’m the hateful one… I’m just trying to protect the life of the helpless unborn child… where did all this come from?
would you then submit to the will of the great alien god of Mars, no matter how vicious and anti-human its commands were?
First prove that my God has viciuos and anti-human commands and second if we’re talking about the Almighty Creator, than I guess I would I would have no other choice but to submit to His authority or suffer the consequences.
Right, but if there were sketchy historical records of people making those threats a few thousand years ago, and place names in those records corresponded to real places, you’d take it seriously?
Again it would depend on the validity of the historical and material evidence.
This is where it gets tricky, as self-professed Christians can’t even agree on the specifics
Prove it.
Even if the god of the bible does exist, you’re still left with the genocide and child-murder that it approves of on the Old Testament, and the hideous, life-destroying and anti-human doctrines of salvation through faith alone and torture of the dead that it apparently supports in the New Testament.
Prove it.
You only “have” convictions you live by. Based on your behavior, I doubt your convictions include some basic intellectual or civil values.
“typical stuff from people that want to live by THEIR OWN set of values”
And that makes you different from us, how?
You only “have” convictions you live by. Based on your behavior, your convictions don’t include basic intellectual or civil values.
Am I missing something??? The only personal conviction that we have discussed up until this point is whether or not we have a responsibility to protect the life of the unborn child. Protecting the baby’s life includes both basic intellectual and civil values and unselfish I might add… in my opinion. Removing the child from its’ natural life support system when it has no way of defending itself because the mother decides she doesn’t want it is selfish and lacks basic intellectual and civil values… again in my opinion.
I do want to make a point here that I do realize there are situations when mothers are confused and under a lot of stress and sometimes they make the wrong decision and I certainly don’t want to minimize the depth of the agonizing decision they must make in a lot of cases. I do however want to help mothers to make the right decision in the future and provide hope for those that have made the wrong decision in the past (as I mentioned above). I believe the World will be a better place because of it. I don’t believe that anything I have asked to be considered up until this point can be seen as hateful or unreasonable. Please tell me where I’m going wrong.
Reply to Todd (44)
And that makes you different from us, how?
I believe in, and strive to live by, Biblical values.
Yes, you’re missing an explanation for why the question was relevant. Refusing to explain demonstrates a lack of some basic intellectual and civil values.
Whereas using state power to force a person to provide their body and organs for the use of others demonstrates just the sort of values you approve of: coercion, authoritarianism, etc.
I’ve offered quite a few corrections thus far.
“Why do you think mother’s abandon their babies right after they’re born, we no longer promote the sanctity of human life in this country”
Maybe because the same bunch of people who prevented her from having an abortion are the first to run a mile away when that same mother is then hit with horrendous medical bills and poverty….then it’s a lecture about “socialized medicine” and “personal responsibility”.
Funny that people who don’t acknowledge “natural selection” actually believe in it politically and economically.
Also,about the sanctity of human life…does that extend to criminals and (shock,horror), people outside of the USA?
“Am I missing something??? The only personal conviction that we have discussed up until this point is whether or not we have a responsibility to protect the life of the unborn child. Protecting the baby’s life includes both basic intellectual and civil values and unselfish I might add… in my opinion. Removing the child from its’ natural life support system when it has no way of defending itself because the mother decides she doesn’t want it is selfish and lacks basic intellectual and civil values… again in my opinion.”
How about helping out the mother and child with medical bills when she’s had the baby?
From what I’ve seen, they get all the pressure to have the baby and then get the “you’re on your own” treatment when the medical bills come through.
I’d love to see how many “pro-lifers” actually support healthcare reform…or are they just “pro-womb”?
I’ve offered quite a few corrections thus far.
I beg to differ.
Whereas using state power to force a person to provide their body and organs for the use of others demonstrates just the sort of values you approve of: coercion, authoritarianism, etc.
Please show me where I’ve suggested any of this. All I have stated is that I want mothers to consider whether it is right or wrong before they have the abortion.
Yes, you’re missing an explanation for why the question was relevant. Refusing to explain demonstrates a lack of some basic intellectual and civil values.
OK… since you REFUSE to answer the million dollar question, here’s my point. If you believe that it is ok for the mother to decide to take the life of the child because it is accessing her organs against her will, than certainly you would also be in support of a law that enables a woman to decide to have a rapist put to death that has accessed her organs against her will. Now although I agree there should be severe consequences for the rapist, I will also make the case that there is a major difference between the two cases. In the case of the rapist, the perpetrator has willfully and intentionally forced himself against the will of the woman (is that deserving of death?) In the case of the pregnancy, the unborn child is an innocent byproduct that has neither willfully nor intentionally forced itself upon the mother (is that deserving of death?)
Now I’m quite certain I know whether you are in support of the death penalty or not and that, Austin, is a double standard… in my opinion.
“Avoiding the question are we??? So what’s you position on the death penalty??? Don’t worry, I’ll make the connection. I don’t believe you’ll answer the question, honestly, and if you don’t than you will have lost all credibility… in my opinion. And this debate WILL be over.”
This sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
We’re not scared of god, we don’t believe he exists. We’re just scared of the authoritarian lunatics that kill and torture is his name.
Funny that in all these quotes from the DoI, all this talk of founding fathers and constitutions…and no talk of “freedom”.
I always thought there was a weird disconnect between the religious right and libertarians….
Failure to recognize correction is indeed part of the problem.
That’s what would happen if abortion is criminalized, which you implicitly proclaim by advocating that RvW be overturned.
I refuse to waste time with an irrelevant question; demonstrate that the question is relevant and I’ll address it.
Really? Please do explain the connection between cutting off unwanted access now and using execution as a punishment for unwanted access in the past. I don’t see the analogy you seem to think is there.
Speaking of rape, do you think that abortion in cases of rape should be legal or also criminalized?
Back to the subject, why don’t you suggest an analogy that more closely mimics what’s going on with pregnancy and abortion. A rapists isn’t using the woman’s organs to stay alive and isn’t currently using them when causing his death is being contemplated, both very important factors (when factors so important do not exist on both sides of the equation, the analogy fails and you’re guilty of a logical fallacy).
Fortunately, there is already a better analogy that has been extensively discussed in the abortion debates: you’re walking near a hospital when you’re kidnapped and rendered unconscious. When you awake, you find yourself hooked up to a person who needs to use your kidneys and blood system to clean their own. They’ll live if you stay hooked up for a few months; if you unhook yourself they’ll die. This person is completely innocent of your kidnaping and is, in fact, still unconscious. They won’t know if you walk away.
Do they deserve to die?
Is it murder if you unhook and walk away?
Should it be a crime for you to unhook and walk away? Should the state have the power to force you to remain?
I know that the situation is hardly likely, but as thought experiments go it’s a far better analogy than what you’re offering. It seems that you think it was a pretty clever idea, but it’s not. Really.
Hardly anyone who supports the death penalty supports it in cases of rape. So, regardless of whether I support the death penalty or not, the chances that I would answer “yes” to your question are almost nonexistent. Ergo, the question is unnecessary — you can reliably and reasonably assume that I don’t support the death penalty for rapists regardless of what I think about the death penalty generally.
So not only was your question irrelevant, but it was also completely unnecessary to make your argument.
Comment 42 by David
Evidence for what? That the big book of multiple choice is reliable? About what? To what are we comparing George Washington’s existence? You’re keeping it all nice and vague.
You’re just quote mining now. Ridiculously blatantly, too.
That was one of SEVERAL examples I gave of evidence that somebody called “George Washington” existed, including “work referencing him”, which could encompass a court stenographer’s work. You ignored the point I was making and picked one line out that you could make a specious non-argument against.
Also, you exclude the middle. Existing documents in a person’s handwriting can be considered stronger evidence of his existence than reportage, without reportage being considered totally worthless. I didn’t suggest that reportage was worthless and in fact clearly suggested the opposite. Is this Christian honesty?
You made sinister passive-aggressive threats of eternal torture to me personally on behalf of your absent deity. This is what you said:
We all know what that means. Don’t you dare act all wounded and surprised when somebody you threaten reacts in a less than obsequious and accommodating way. Even if you’re only threatening them on behalf of your god. Even if you think it’s for their own good. And I don’t have to be “hateful” to dislike sinister threats.
OK, how does that make God different to Mafia enforcer? You’re saying might makes right. Your behaviour is determined by whoever can threaten you with the worst consequences. That’s a hideous attitude, and when coupled with the idea that salvation is only through faith and not works, it is extremely corrosive to any idea of morality or good conduct.
Erm, are there not 38,000 sects of Christianity worldwide? Doesn’t sound like there’s much of a coherent message to me. Are you actually denying that there are different Christian sects who have sometimes bloody disagreements over doctrine? You really want me to prove the basic facts of the nature of religious belief and practice in the modern world to you? And yet you’re happy with believing you’re telepathically communicating with a magic zombie god?
As for genocide and child murder, and vicious and anti-human commands, I’ll refer you to the
Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, cruelty and violence section. I’ve already linked to a good analysis of the words of Jesus as presented in the Bible.
For some specific examples (references in the above link), genocide would be God’s extermination of nearly every man, woman and child in the world by means of a flood. I mean, every totalitarian dictator who ever lived would probably have LOVED the power to do that, but luckily they didn’t have access to that power. Your god DID have access, and he did exactly what the worst dictator would have done: Used it to kill everybody he didn’t like. “Pro-life”, indeed.
Child murder would be God sending bears to kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head. I say again, for making fun of a Prophet’s bald head. Where does this pro-life thing come from, again?
There’s much more in that link. Sure there are nice things in the Bible too, but you could go through Mein Kampf and just follow the nice bits. On the whole the Bible is a vile book and the God/Jesus character portrayed in it is reprehensible.
And anyway, I thought you said your work here was done…
Great points, Mr Barratt.
It’s amazing how quickly things like the Passover are forgotten….
Yep, rather than just kill Pharoah, god kills the first-born children instead. You’d think, being god, he wouldn’t need to resort to any of that anyway…
So let me get this straight. It’s OK to take the life of the unborn child that again is the innocent byproduct and neither willfully nor intentionally accesses the mother’s body for life support(which would also be a past event at birth), but it’s not OK to take the life of the rapist that has intentionally and willfully accessed the woman’s body against her will and not for life support..mind you. I think that’s what you’re saying, I just don’t believe it…and I’m the bad guy?
The latter is a form of punishment; the former is not. Ergo, I ask you: how are they analogous situations?
You don’t get to use a situation as an analogy when it’s not genuinely analogous to the original situation. You do know that, right?
But, just to establish the fact that I am answering your questions whereas you are avoiding mine: no, I don’t think that execution is a legitimate punishment for the crime of rape; yes, I do think that denying access to your body and organs should be legal even in cases where it leads to the death of whomever or whatever is using your body and organs. My answer is the same whether it’s a fetus or an adult using your body and organs.
Austin… somehow you’re missing the point. I’m done trying to convince you to have compassion for the helpless unborn child. Maybe I’ve impacted some readers… I sure hope so. I can’t force women to remain pregnant, abortions were being performed long before the Roe v Wade ruling. I just wanted to establish the point that taking the life of an innocent unborn child is wrong, no matter what we come up with to try to justify it. I just hope I’ve done a good job establishing that even if YOU don’t agree. Have a nice life
As opposed to your boundless respect for the autonomy of women?
By demonstrating to them the intellectual depths of anti-choice arguments.
So, you oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest.
In fact, since it’s wrong “no matter what,” you also must oppose abortion when performed to save the life or health of the mother.
You’ve established several things here… none of which were your intention, I’m sure.
One of those things, by the way, is that even after all your whining about my not answering your question, I did answer it while you left several unanswered. Such hypocrisy.
Right to life is a “pretend they are the same con. A fetus is not a child, anymore than water is wine. Christians never miss a chance to bully someone around morally - particularly when it furthers a racket.
So, you oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest.
Yes, I do and you do realize this represents a very small portion of the cases.
In fact, since it’s wrong “no matter what,” you also must oppose abortion when performed to save the life or health of the mother.
Again this represents a very small portion of the cases. And I’d only be able to answer those on a per case basis.
I did answer it while you left several unanswered.
I don’t have the time nor am I obligated to answer all of your questions.
Such hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy- an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction; insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have.
Austin please show me any place where I’ve demonstrated the least bit of hypocrisy and please refer to the definition above… I thought I’d go ahead and provide the definition, since you seem to be incapable of looking things up on your own.
First up. The Bible is an idiotic book for the simple minded. Got that out of the way.
As no theist has ever shown evidence of a God’s existence. There is no God.
I am Pro Choice. For the only person who should have that choice. The WOMAN involved.
I am against the death penalty. Because it is counter productive. No matter the crime, nor the country, the severity of the penalty up to and including death has never been a means of reducing nor stopping crime.
The U S A is the ONLY advanced country in the western world following this medieval barbaric custom, it also has the worse crime rate. I would add that the same country (U S A )doesn’t think twice about killing innocent people including BORN babies and children along with pregnant women, calling it collateral damage. Asian countries with the same standards as the U S A use the Death penalty for drug smuggling and it happens daily, hasn’t deterred nor reduced the incidence of a single crime.
Your childish threats of retribution by imaginary spacemen when we are dead causes no consternation to we unbelievers, as I am well into my eighties, had my share of wars, death, and destruction. I fear no devils.
So go back to your fairy stories, or alternatively, just show replicable, verifiable, factual, evidence for the existence of your imaginary “God”…..
Reply to John Hanks (59)
A fetus is not a child, anymore than water is wine.
Fetus, infant, baby, child, teenager, adult, senior citizen… all different stages of human life. None describes the other, but living human beings none the less.
particularly when it furthers a racket
Last time I checked the abortion profession was a multi-billion dollar industry.
You may want to move to another forum those are pretty weak arguments. Hostile arguments… I’ll grant you that.
Reply to Tom (61)
A lot of people have died over the last 2000 years… the Bible still stands.
Your entitled to your belief and opinion, I just happen to believe differently.
Er! Which Bible? There have been so many and even the first wasn’t compiled two thousand years a go. The Gita was long before that, still going, and just as stupid. The Koran 1,700 years, the longevity proves nothing. Indoctrination from the cradle perpetuates the beliefs of the simple minded.
If you were born in India you’d be no doubt Hindu mantrasising instead of fantasising. Unless you were from Kerala and been influenced by the English Missionaries.
The Bible is so full of mistakes and contradictions it is a wonder you even make reference. I give you the opening book Genesis. where “God” after the “Fall” makes the statement that Adam and Eve. “Will become like US.” There were others besides itself? He was talking to his own imaginary Gods.?
As I asked, you and others, Show me your PROOF for a Gods existence.
Reply to Mark (53)
Don’t you dare act all wounded and surprised when somebody you threaten reacts in a less than obsequious and accommodating way. Even if you’re only threatening them on behalf of your god. Even if you think it’s for their own good. And I don’t have to be “hateful” to dislike sinister threats.
You have every right to respond in that manner, especially if you believe that God does exist and He does have standards He will hold us accountable to. I just don’t know if I would bother responding if I believed the “so-called” threat concerned a non-existent being.
I believe that we will all stand before God and give an account and I believe it would be irresponsible on my part if I didn’t tell people. If you don’t believe it, let it go in one ear and out the other. I’m not forcing any one to believe what I believe. Just asking everyone to consider the evidence. There’s plenty of evidence provided in support of and against God’s existence… search it out and come to your own conclusion.
Why case by case? Why not oppose them all?
So you were a hypocrite when whining when I didn’t answer yours immediately. I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked.
You objected to my not answering a question immediately when you wouldn’t explain its relevance, now you’re suddenly out of “time” to answer mine.
So if it wouldn’t be murder to disconnect from an adult, it wouldn’t be murder to have an abortion.
Thank you, by the way, for lowering my opinion of Christians.
As I asked, you and others, Show me your PROOF for a Gods existence.
Who created the Universe?
I apologize for any disparaging remarks… that certainly was not my intent at the beginning of this discussion. I got caught up in the heat of the debate and I truly tried to avoid it. This has gone a lot further than I expected.
Signing off… for good.
Feel free to show that the universe was “created,” never mind by a “who.”
Disparaging remarks are not the only means by which one’s opinion of Christians might be lowered. There is also hypocrisy, deliberately playing games rather than straightforward and honest discussion (”we’re going to paint you into a corner even your college degree can’t get you out of”), intellectual dishonesty, etc.
Whatever happened to Dan? Couldn’t you instruct him to participate more, or has he left you to your own devices here?
#24: “My work is done here.”
Does your company know how you are representing them here?
You’ve got to concede one point to him Austin. He knows when he is licked.
I’m the one who asked for PROOF of a God, and got the standard question, in reply as they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Great debating skills Austin! Tom Edgar, Tom Hanks and Mark Barrat always a pleasure to read your posts as well. I was actually thinking about this issue last week and was wondering where I stood with this. Although both sides were said here, I favor Austin’s point of view only because I was already leaning towards there.But I will be reading up about this some more, anybody know of any good books?
David, good try but your arguments were lacking…substance.
Comment 65 by David.
That’s supposed to be a reply? Not really answering a single question or dealing with a single point I made? Weak, weak, weak. You’re a great example of Christianity, really. Keep it up, you’re a wonderful help to critics of your religion.
Threats of eternal torture are objectionable even in the absence of any reason to believe the threats are realistic. If the person making the threat genuinely believes it, they honestly think that the person being threatened is so corrupted and depraved that they deserve eternal torture, which is worth objecting to in and of itself.
The person being threatened doesn’t need to think the threat is realistic to respond negatively to the thoughts and judgements behind the threat. The whole point of these comment sections is to express and respond to opinions, and that’s a particularly nasty opinion.
Furthermore, threatening eternal torture is so extreme that it is the height of hypocrisy to whine when somebody responds negatively to those threats but stops well short of similarly extreme comments, as I have done.
Alternatively, the person making the threat could be under the impression that the person being threatenedis so weak-willed that they can be swayed merely be wild threats. That’s also objectionable.
It doesn’t help that your argument is a version of “why do atheists attack God when the don’t believe in him?” Of course we don’t believe in any gods, but there are lots of people who do, and their god belief informs their opinions and their actions, actions which affect people in general including atheists. So OF COURSE it’s reasonable for atheists to criticise religions, even though we don’t believe in any gods. That argument is just ridiculous.
Mark. I too would like to respond to David 65.
My post immediately before his asked for PROOF.
I was vaguely told to look for the ample evidence around. Now I am well into my eighties and I have been looking for these proofs for a very long time and that includes in most countries around this world.
I haven’t found a scintilla of verifiable evidence. My past friends have included an Imam, a Fundamentalist Christian Pastor, and many Christian, Hindu and Sikh friends. Not one was able to supply any evidence. I’ll bow to your self appraisal of superior knowledge and ask you once more.
Give me one single verifiable, replicable, piece of evidence. I don’t expect to receive a sensible reply.
” As I asked, you and others, Show me your PROOF for a Gods existence.
Who created the Universe?”
No-one did. But, following that logic…who created god?
Furthermore, did god create cancer and AIDS? Why doesn’t he create a cure?
Every bit of evidence found supports the evolutionary theory. Not one piece negates it.
This means it is the most plausible theory.
Creationism has not one scintilla of supporting evidence. This means it is is the most implausible hypothesis.
Neither are definitive. I don’t know how the
existence of the universe, solar system, and
the inhabitants came into being. To claim this knowledge would be to accrue to myself
the title of “All Knowing.”
Therein lies the difference. With all the supporting scientific validation for evolution
I, and anybody else cannot be certain about how we became.
Theists, without a smidgen of supporting evidence, point to a magical being nobody has ever seen, heard,or felt, outside a fevered,or drug induced imagination, or in schizoid episodes, claim this being waved a breath of air onto a pile of dust and started us off.
The big point is, with all the evidence I am still, along with all the intelligent scientists, looking for the last piece of the jig saw. Theists of all religious persuasions never looked. I don’t KNOW,but they do.
Comment 75 by Tom Edgar
Just a slight correction. It’s a mistake to compare evolution to “creationism”, as if creationism is a single clearly-defined thing.
We’re actually comparing evolution to myriad fanciful, mutually contradictory and internally inconsistent creation myths. There are even several Christian versions.
It’s better to talk about all the competing creationisms that are on offer. They all seem fantastic, they all have zero actual evidence for them in particular; any arguments that are ever offered, no matter how flawed they are, only ever point to some sort of vague generic “creationism” and can never make the crucial distinction between the creation myths with which we are presented.
Furthermore, the fact that there are so many and that they all serve the same functions in their respective religions regardless of the fact that, as a maximum, only one can be true is a good reason to think that they’re all false.
The same with your penultimate paragraph. It’s a mistake to say that theists “point to a magical being”, as if theists were one homogeneous group.
Different sects of theists with all sorts of mutually contradictory beliefs point to all sorts of different magical beings with mutually-contradictory attributes.
Arguing as if there’s only one, clearly defined “god” to consider, or only one, clearly defined “creationism” gives the theists far more credit than they deserve, and concedes far more than is necessary to concede.
They’ve had thousands of years to come up with a consensus about what exactly we’re supposed to be believing (ie what “god” is, does and wants), and they haven’t managed it, while the scientific method has made quantum leaps of understanding in all areas of inquiry in a fraction of the time.
That’s a very good indication of the ultimate uselessness of “faith” as a way of coming up with accurate answers, regardless of which version of “god” or “creationism” the person you’re arguing with at a particular time has happened to pull out of the hat to be their core beliefs.
Don’t let theists set the boundaries of the debate, because they’ll smuggle in all sorts of undemonstrated premises without even a twinge of shame.
Evolution theory and creation myths cannot be compared; evolution is a theory (it can be falsified; makes an erroneous prediction); creation myths are hypotheses (cannot be falsified; make no predictions).
We can be bogged down in pedantry. I often make allowances for the incorrect, to my way of thinking, statements of “Theists”.
Atheism started with the discovery of the first and subsequent pieces of the jig saw of life.
Theism claimed to have the whole damned jig saw,intact, right at the beginning.
Now the believer will only say. “God made the puzzle.”, and will blame the evolutionists for not having all the pieces.
I wonder why they still won’t answer the question…..”Proof?” No I don’t. I KNOW the answer. They haven’t any.
Comment 77 by AtheistGeophysicistBob
You just said evolution and creationism can’t be compared, and then proceeded to compare them.
Anyway, creation myths aren’t even really hypotheses. They’re much too vague and diffuse; the vague idea of “[insert god here] did it”, using a succession of bizarre ideas of gods, is used to explain some vague idea of “everything” or “how did we get here”.
Hypotheses need to be clear and specific, and creation myths are neither.
Comment 78 by Tom Edgar
Call it pedantry if you must, but claims made by religious theists tend to be based on so many incorrect and undemonstrated assumptions that the best way to show how worthless their arguments are is to challenge the underlying assumptions first and foremost.
I find that you shouldn’t make the kind of allowances you suggest in order to deal with the arguments themselves: it can always be taken to mean that you accept the undemonstrated premises which are often more significant than the actual arguments.
I think they’ve had enough allowances made for them for a long enough period of time. Now they aren’t able to kill us for daring to question them (well, in some places at least) I think we’re justified in asking for a bit of clarification of their ideas.
I like your jigsaw analogy, though.
Thanks, Mark Barratt (79). Compare and contrast are synonyms but, like many synonyms, there are slight differences in meaning. In the sciences, compare means discuss similarities and differences; contrast means discuss only differences. I did not compare evolution theory and the various creation hypotheses; I contrasted them.
Austin, if I amm wrong (and have been using this distinction in my work for about 50 years!), please correct me.
Mark, your definition is correct for a scientific hypothesis. Creation myths are not scientific, so I am using a dictionary definition “a mere assumption or guess” which, I believe, includes your “vague and diffuse”.
I refuse to be pedantic in analyzing the comments of others in our friendly discussions, otherwise I would attack “quantum leaps” from a quantum mechanical viewpoint in (76).
Comment 81 by AtheistGeophysicistBob
Well, since we’ve gone down the pedantry route now…
Re: compare and contrast. Well, to contrast is to compare in terms of differences. But I take your point, you contrasted them.
Re: hypothesis. Since we were talking specifically about science, ie evolution, the scientific definition is more appropriate. I doubt you were using the more general meaning of “theory” when describing evolution in comment 77.
Re: “quantum leaps”. I didn’t say “quantum leaps”, did I? I said “quantum leaps of understanding“. I think that’s clear enough now it’s back in context.
Regardless, the point I’m trying to make is not really that we should be pedantic.
Pedantry is the blowing out of proportion of minutiae at the expense of more important issues. What I’m saying is that the unquestioned assumptions behind a lot of common theistic arguments are large and important, and that those huge unquestioned assumptions should be challenged.
As I said above, some common assumptions (ie the common assumption that the theist in question’s god is the only one worth discussing, leading the theist to make no effort to deal with the sheer number of gods on offer) often make the actual arguments being advanced at the time look like minutiae in comparison, once the assumptions are challenged.
And it’s also important to remember how sneaky theists can be. When you’re dealing with opponents who often make
the most outrageous misrepresentations and out-of-context distortions of statements (and we’ve all seen that in the friendly discussions on this site) it’s a good idea to watch your back.
Mark Barratt (82). Thanks for the comments.I do not consider the distinction between compare and contrast as pedantic; it is pecision. In my work, precision is not only important, it is imperative.
I was talking about two different topics; one is scientific and the other mythology. I attempt to use terminology appropriate to each. Many scientific hypotheses begin as only assumptions, hunches, or guesses; unless they can be falsified, or they are modified in a way they can be falsified, they are eventually discarded. The creation myths cannot be falsified, but have not been discarded. Since the myths give no way of falsifying them, I cannot use the scientific definition of hypothesis for them. Both scientific hypotheses and theories have to be capable of being falsified.
Yes, you said “quantum leaps of understanding”. I am considering the use of “quantum leaps” as related to understanding. I have heard and read that statement before, but it is an incorrect analogy. I can tell you why, if you are interested.
Comment 83 AtheistGeophysicistBob
Thanks for your comments also. Well, we’ve wondered away completely from the point I was making, but we can still chat.
Sure the distinction between compare and contrast is important, but contrasting is a type of comparison (comparing in terms of differences), so as I understand it it’s incorrect to say that you weren’t comparing two things when you were contrasting them. But, as you say, the term contrast is more precise.
I agree with what you say in your second paragraph, I just don’t think it was clear in your original comment that you were using the scientific definition of “theory” but the non-scientific definition of “hypothesis”. and your description of hypothesis as “cannot be falsified; make no predictions” was also strange.
That’s not relevant to the point I was making in the post, anyway, which was that there’s no single, clearly defined thing called “creationism” and that we shouldn’t let theists get away with the undeclared assumption that there is in arguments about evolution.
I don’t actually think the term “quantum leap of understanding” is meant to be analogous to actual quantum leaps within atoms. In the vernacular it’s just used to mean a significant advance. I didn’t mean to suggest that understanding is quantised. The fact that the term is used with reference to understanding should, I think, make that clear.
Is there a better term that you think I should have used?
Thanks, Mark. I appreciate your comments. I agree completely with the point you were making in the post.
The statement “quantum leap” is in common use. I didn’t mean to pick on your use of it. It just doesn’t fit the analogy, in my opinion. A quantum leap is an incredibly short leap, as I am rather sure you know, from one eletron orbit to another. Also, the electron does not traverse the interval from one orbit to the next; it is in one orbit, leaps, and is in the next; nothing happens between the jump and its new location. Quantum leap in understanding implies a significant increase in understanding, and in most cases, much occurs leading to the increased understanding. I suspect you are quite familiar with quantum mechanics, but say it for others who may read this and are less familiar. For those that read this and are not failiar with quantum mechanics, a quantum leap probably does not make sense. Neils Bohr, one of the originators of quantum mechanics, said it doesn’t make sense; that if quantum mechanics makes sense to you, you don’t understand it!
I enjoyed our little discussion, Mark.
Me too, Bob.