Waste ALL the time!

Just when I thought that religious blogs quit talking about their accounts with random generic atheists, I was knocked right on my ass by this awesome article written by an esteemed member of the blog's staff - he seems to have ingested the least of the Kool Aid, as it's pretty apparent the rest of the staff got to it before he did.

No matter, let's start.

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard atheists characterize Christians as “wasting” their lives. Some mean it as a pejorative, others are quite sincere about it, but in every case there is some kind of concern about Christians reaching the end of their lives and discovering it was all such a waste.

Uh oh. This a problem. People having different opinions about what one should do with his time. Serious stuff indeed. Let's play this from a different angle. Could the generic, caricatured atheists you describe have animosity towards a religion that says quite clearly that the only worthwhile way through life is through their particular brand of God? What happens to the person that's had 150 Pascal's Wagers thrown in his face, and doesn't want to sit through a 151st? I guess it doesn't work that way, right?

By and large atheists of this sort have a desire to draw the Christian away from his or her faith and into a perspective that will not waste this supposedly one and only life. So there are two thoughts I have had with respect to this notion that I wish to share. And instead of speaking broadly for Christians everywhere, which obviously I cannot do, I will speak for myself.

Good job at singling yourself out, but you forgot a crucial point of the conversation, when you single out the opposition and clearly refute statements made, not simply bunching up shit you've heard and dismissing it as "LOL crazy stuff atheists say". For these purposes, let's assume you're talking to me, as I think most religious practice is a colossal waste of time and resources on this planet.

On the one hand, presumably as I am lying on my deathbed, exactly how do I come to the realization that it was all such a waste? Suppose I am lying on a hospital bed, perhaps overrun with cancer and death just a matter of hours away. I have lived my life according to my convictions of Christ’s redeeming grace, committed to a local church whom I have been lovingly devoted to and who has surrounded me in a warm community of support, edification, opportunity, and guidance. I have engaged my passions in learning and understanding, from theology to philosophy to science, through both self-reflection and discourse. I have pursued my appetite for reading, from captivating novels to academic textbooks. I have experienced family and friendship; I have experienced love and being loved, forgiving and being forgiven. I have known the rewards of success and the lessons of failure. I have loved those who hate me and served those who love me. And in every circumstance I have seen God’s providential hand and (even if not consistently) praised God for it all. I have known the God of all creation and have been known by him, through which I have had a scope of vision that transcends the limits of my self, humankind, or the place in history that my existence occupied. I have seen with reverential awe the breathtaking beauty and interconnected realities of God’s handiwork.

So you're saying you've had the most fulfilling life ever, and you're about to die due to some terminal illness (trollgod), and you look at your life thinking there isn't anything wrong with any of it because dammit, YOU FELT GOD.

Yes, that's perfectly fine. If you manage to make it through life not being a complete shithead, then perhaps you've done pretty well for yourself indeed. The fact you believe in a magic deity doesn't mean your entire life is a waste - that would be a claim so ridiculous it would break my crazy crap-o-meter, and that thing's made in Germany.

However, and that's with a capital H, that doesn't mean that you haven't devoted a lot of your life to nonsense. You don't operate in a vacuum, and your actions have consequences, not to mention the ideals that you subscribe to. Having reasoned discourse is fine and all, but at some point you have to realize you belong to an organization that has so much blood on its hands and disenfranchises so many people it should be charged with crimes against humanity.

At what point do you consider turning homosexuals into second-class citizens as part of God's awesome grace? What about supporting an organization that defecates on the Constitution, all the while asks its constituency to fully fund the operation through government subsidies? How about an organization that has COUNTLESS charlatans who continuously drain the pockets of those gullible enough to actually trade their cow in for magic beans? Can you sit there with a straight face and say no time was wasted when the religion you subscribe to has a very vocal majority who believe literally that dinosaurs walked with man, men lived to be 900, snakes could talk, the sun came after light, and someday fire and brimstone will rain down from the sky because Whoa-oh, we've been bad, and God is pissed.

...Nope, I don't understand how joining up with those ideals can be interpreted as a waste of time.

It sucks that you're going to die, and it seems you've been a pretty decent person, but you did have one hell of a ridiculous belief system.

And yet somehow, as I lay here dying, I am supposed to realize this was a waste?

If you recall that your life is all tits and champagne, it's hard to see where exactly your thinking is faulty. "My life is awesome" and "I believe in nonsense" don't necessarily have any bearing on each other.

Exactly what might I have otherwise had or done? If I had not these Christ-centered convictions, would I have had friendships? But I had these. Would I have been able to enjoy great learning? Would I have had a rewarding career in a field I love? Would I have explored the halls of knowledge or the wonders of the cosmos? But I had these, too. Would I have loved and helped my fellow man? Would I have gained an understanding and appreciation for the views of others that differ from mine? But I have had and done all this—and much more. Given the sort of people that this expressed concern comes from, perhaps the waste they speak of is a life that was without an abiding wonder and intellectual curiosity about the natural world around us which we have explored and sought to understand through a web of scientific disciplines. But as someone with a profound appreciation and respect for such things, having consumed countless hours learning about cosmological and biological discoveries, my life was not lived without scientific wonder and curiosity. I could go on but at the end of the day I must confess that it escapes me just how I should realize my life was wasted.

I can play the what-if game too!

If I hadn't eaten that Taco Bell, would I have had to rush to the bathroom? If I had wheels, would I be a wagon?

You seem like you've had a very fulfilling life, and I applaud you for that. Hope you reach the stars with that can-do attitude. But excuse me if I point out that presupposing the existence of a magical being that has so many character flaws he would be written out of the first season of a Chilean soap opera is a waste of time. Would you have shared the same bonds and had the same interactions with your fellow Christians if you hadn't been you?

That question is simply stupid. It's like asking what would steak be like if it was a shoelace. Again you're making a caricature of the atheists you've spoken to, and created arguments that aren't actually there. No one's saying your entire life is a waste - just the part that you devote to worshiping and talking to your imaginary friend to make things better in your life magically. Just because you made friends in his fan club doesn't make the action of talking to him any less absurd.

On the other hand, what is it about lying at death’s door that is supposed to clue me in to it all being a waste? Granting the atheist his or her view that this life is the only one I have, that when I die there is nothing left but non-existence as my body decomposes in the ground, how am I supposed to realize this was all a waste? While I am yet alive but dying, there is nothing that would indicate that this life was the only one I had; in other words, I have not crossed the threshold of death yet so there is not anything that indicates those atheists were right. The irony which seems lost on them, however, is that even if they are right I will never know it—because as a dead and decomposing corpse I would not realize anything. On the atheist’s view, a corpse does not engage in acts of cognition.

You don't realize anything after you die - you answered your own question. The realization comes before you die, hence the entire conversation - which hopefully happens between two living individuals.

And by the way, there is NOTHING indicating that this life is the only one you have? The fact that all brain function ceases (the thing in your head that makes you, you) isn't a good indicator that hey, maybe this is it?

...Or perhaps you think that because you haven't yet died, the chances of there being and afterlife and not are 50/50?

The only thing ironic thing here is you talking about you being too dead to care to realize anything, and faulting atheists for trying to point that out to you before you actually die, all the while believing that your consciousness (a product of your physical body) will get transported to a place where you can spend ALL the time with the imaginary friend you've been talking to this whole time.

See guys, told you he was real!

Let's waste some more time and brain cells.

Indeed, as I lay there dying I would not realize it was all a waste, for by the grace of God I did everything I desired to do. When you live the life that you want to, according to the values and passions you have, how is that a waste? Perhaps the things I value and desire to do is uninteresting or tedious to you, but what has that to do with me? For example, if I love to study God’s word and you do not, just how is that a waste for me?

Different people have different opinions on what is worthwhile in life. In my opinion, listening to country music is a waste of time. It's not necessarily a waste from your perspective, but I can certainly let you know what I think on the subject, and if you so desire, you can tell me to kindly fuck off and leave you to your Garth Brooks. I'm really not sure who exactly this is aimed towards.

You also write as if you practice your religion in a vacuum, and that your religion is completely benign. If your beliefs led to demonstrable acts of malice, prejudice and persecution, would you consider that worthy of your time, or would you brush it off and don the rose colored glasses you've been wearing for this entire conversation in regards to your life?

If the atheist is right, if this life is the one and only life I have and I lived it according to what I value and desire to do, after which nothing but black non-existence awaits me, then my life was neither wasted nor could I realize anything about it. That’s the sheer irony of all this. About the only thing the atheist could say is that I did not live the one and only life I have according to that atheist’s values and desires—but so what? If I did that, then I would be wasting my life.

Nothing like a fucking Pascal's Wager to round out the day.

You're essentially saying if I believed in nonsense, then died, I didn't waste any time because I BELIEVED it, and couldn't spend my time doing anything else - perhaps something more rooted to reality. Nothing is ever a waste of time and resources if it makes you happy and coincides with your values, right?

Consider this example:

Tim lived in the city and had an amazing intellect and loved to solve problems. He had a knack for working under pressure and came up with creative solutions for complex scenarios. Tim also spoke to his pet rock 5 times a day and spent most of his time and money writing love notes to it and constructing costumes for plays he held weekly for himself and his rock.

To most people, this would be ridiculous and a waste of time and resources, especially for a person of natural talent. This is how I view religion - you keep talking to that pet rock and putting on plays, all the while trying to convince everyone else you're not crazy because you hear the rock talking back.

Although I appreciate the concern that such atheists have, I do have to point out the incoherence of it. Given their view, and especially their disdain for people shoving values down their throats that are not theirs, it quite literally makes no sense for them to suggest that I am wasting my life in any way. Thus their concern is misplaced and unintelligible at any rate. If you want to know whether or not Christians are wasting their lives, then ask them if they are living it according to their values and passions.

And do try being a little more self-consistent; if you are right, then my corpse would be incapable of realizing it.

So one who doesn't subscribe to your belief system cannot have an opinion that differs from yours because you live life by YOUR VALUES DAMMIT. Well have you considered that people aren't coming from your values, but another set that may or may not be more suitable for an accurate interpretation of reality? Since you promote discussion and discourse, what about discussing the reasons behind someone calling an action a waste of time, rather than brushing off the argument as "CORPSES DONT THINK, STUPID"?

And where are you getting the notion that a life can't be a waste simply because someone lived life the way they wanted?


I hope there isn't a part 2. Sequels usually aren't as good as the first, and there isn't much to go on for a next round. Should I get a bunch of atheist friends to now congratulate me while I delete all the comments that I don't like?

Refuting tired anti-gay marriage arguments....yet again.

As a self-proclaimed glutton for punishment, I periodically read up on current issues in the religious blogosphere. A particular favorite of mine would have to be The Aristophrenium- a Christian apologetics site in which one-sided arguments are beaten to death with laughable reasoning.

The latest issue to get the "dead horse" treatment is gay marriage. Not being content with one radically derailed blogpost, the staff at the Aristophrenium have taken it upon themselves to write about it again and again. Personally, I figured they'd be too busy arguing whether the talking snake in Genesis was actually real or not to write another article, but lo and behold, I was wrong.

A lovingly titled Marriage: more than "equality of love" was posted by Mathew. I'll give you a few minutes to read it over before I start tearing into this shit sandwich of an argument.


...


Ready?



Alright, let's begin.

In the advertisement, we are introduced to the twin brothers, David and Paul. David is married, Paul is not. The brothers relate to the audience how the two of them used to share and do so much with each other during their growing up. But now, or so we’re told, they cannot share in the experience of marriage. See, Paul is gay and speaks fondly of his homosexual partner whom he can’t legally marry.

Cue the emotional rhetoric.

David: “So why are we different now? I can get married, and Paul can’t. Who you love should have nothing to do with that.”

Paul: “Yeah. It shouldn’t matter.”

Ignoring the fact that Paul can indeed marry with the same restrictions as what his brother David can (sounds equal to me!), do you see the presumption that’s made?

The argument is: Paul and David can marry with the same restrictions, therefore they are equal. While on its face that may seem like a coherent line of reasoning, thinking about it for more than 5 seconds will yield a drastically different answer.

Replace the word "gay" or "homosexual" with "black", and you'll have the basis for marriage restriction in America 150 years ago. Under Mathew's reasoning, these restrictions would qualify as "equal rights".
*********************************************************************************************

Marriage is not, as the vast majority of gay “marriage” advocates often spout, a social construct or even a religious institution. Marriage, in all its forms and in all known cultures across the world and throughout history, predates both governmental and religious regulation and has always been about the uniting of the sexes⁴. That being the case, the best that governments and religious institutions can do is describe, or recognize, natural marriage, but they are never capable of prescribing what marriage is.

So what exactly is natural marriage, and how is it different than, say, procreation and child rearing? And why is this at all important in a legal matter, which necessarily has to do with governmental institutions? It seems Mathew's going a bit off topic here and putting forth a notion he hasn't explained or defined in any context. The link he gave to cite the "uniting of the sexes" phrase was a quote from an anti-gay book entitled "Marriage on Trial", in which the author vaguely claims that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, anywhere in the world. What he fails to note is the stigma surrounding homosexual union and its effect on that society, as well at what relevance ancient tradition has to do with the issue at hand.

Also, if a governing institution amends its policies on who can legally marry who, how is that NOT prescribing what marriage is?
*********************************************************************************************

Marriage is public. It is public because marriage impacts how society is shaped and how society views marriage impacts the health and prosperity of that society. In the words of promiment natural marriage proponent Dr Jennifer Roback Morse, “The essential public purpose of marriage is to associate mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.”⁶ Marriages are the seedbed for families and it is the family unit that utlimately builds our societies. That’s the core obligation of marriage: parental responsibility to all children resulting from the union.

So taking that argument to its logical conclusion, heterosexual couples who can't, or don't wish to produce offspring shouldn't be allowed to marry. Right?
*********************************************************************************************

Love in marriage is important, but it is at best a property that individuals bring into or cultivate within the marital union, not a property only obtained by marriage. Therefore, on the viewpoint of social conservatives like myself, marriage has a critical societal function of which the love between the spouses in marital union only serves. While Paul may sincerely love his same-sex partner, their romantic love cannot contribute in the same manner to society as the romantic love of a man and woman can. Period. But not being able to legally marry does not prevent Paul and his partner from continuing to love each other.

So because Paul can't contribute in the same way to society (biological children, I'm assuming) as a heterosexual couple can, same-sex marriage should be illegal. Got it.

A few questions to that:

1. What about those couples who are infertile?
2. What about those couples who are fertile, but don't want children?
3. If the couples in (1) and (2) get legal incentives and rights for simply being together in a lifelong and legally binding commitment, why shouldn't Paul and his consenting adult partner?
*********************************************************************************************

So family is the real purpose of marriage. While it is now common place to have other types of family variations (such as single-parent families, step-parent families, biological co-habitating parent familes, etc.) studies show that children from families where their biological parents are married perform better on just about every measurable indicator⁷.

That doesn't make any sense, and it's obvious that Mathew hasn't read the material he cited. Let me elaborate:

While it is true that being married with biological parents does show notable improvement in the indicators of the study (school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, difficulty finding employment), children of same sex couples were no better or worse off than children of divorced heterosexual couples.

If Mathew is deriving his argument straight from indicators of a child's well-being, anything less than the optimal situation should be illegal. So out goes divorce, out goes single family households, and out go economically poor households, because they all score lower than than those households with two biological parents.

In addition, here is what it states in its conclusion:

This being said, most children not living with married, biological parents grow up without serious problems. In individual situations, marriage may or may not make children better off, depending on whether the marriage is “healthy” and stable. Marriage may also be a proxy for other parental characteristics that are associated with relationship stability and positive child outcomes. The legal basis and public support involved in the institution of marriage help to create the most likely conditions for the development of factors that children need most to thrive—consistent, stable, loving attention from two parents who cooperate and who have sufficient resources and support from two extended families, two sets of friends, and society. Marriage is not a guarantee of these conditions, however, and these conditions exist in other family circumstances, but they are less likely to.

What happened, Mathew? Did you forget to read the entire article before you made the decision that it agreed with your rant and cited it anyway?

The fact is, stigmas and views of marriage are changing. In a survey in which married couples were asked "What Makes Marriage Work?", children came 8th, after good sex, sharing chores, adequate income, and a nice house - and only 41 percent of those respondents mentioned children at all, a 24 percent decrease since 1990.
*********************************************************************************************

A marriage license is not a license to love; if anything, it is a license of parental obligation. And it’s this obligation that the gay “marriage” lobby constantly shy away from.

Swing and a miss!

A marriage license is a document issued by the state allowing a couple to marry. That's it. It's not inherently about family, child rearing ,or any other stretch you want to attempt to make homosexuals the bad guys. Married couples don't have to have kids - in fact, a growing percentage don't want to - so what's the issue with having a same-sex couple marry?
*********************************************************************************************

Like it or not, there is a very natural and objective difference between the romantic love of heterosexual couples and the romantic love of homosexual couples: one sexual act lends itself towards procreation; the other cannot. One couple combines complementary genders (also important for the healthy development of children⁸); the other comprises members of the same gender (which intentionally deprives any children involved of at least one of the biological parents). To argue that the heterosexual and homosexual couple are the same really borders on the preposterous and ignores sound scientific data.

First off, no one's saying they're the same in every aspect. There are differences between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - real ones, like social stigmas and pressures. These have to be taken into account. Since procreation isn't necessary for marriage or vice versa (as evidenced by my previous arguments and sources), a truly objective view would be to regard marriage itself as a legally binding institution between two consenting adults.
*********************************************************************************************

Further, if the conservative position on marriage is that it is fundamentally a public institution wherein the highest social obligation is that it bonds fathers and mothers to their children and to each other, gay “marriage” advocates have done little – if not next to nothing – to allay these concerns.

So what? If someone has a view that isn't based on sound reasoning, and not open for change via rational arguments, then who cares what they think? Is it the "gay marriage advocate's" fault that the conservative's views are in contrast with demonstrable reality? At what point does accountability come through in evaluating one's position on a particular issue?
*********************************************************************************************

Australian Marriage Equality‘s advertisement is testament to that fact. What’s more, if the gay “marriage” lobby truly desire to alter the definition of marriage, then the burden of proof rests squarely on their shoulders to demonstrate how such a redefinition will not harm society but benefit it.

That's all?

I can name 5 ways off the top of my head right now, and I'm not even part of the "gay marriage lobby".

1. State revenue will increase (legal ceremonies, administrative costs)
   
2. Local revenue will increase (personal and religious ceremonies, receptions, etc.)
3. Increase the number of children adopted.
   
4. Encourages individuals to give up high-risk sexual lifestyles
5. Introduces financial incentives for lifelong commitment between partners, strengthening the economy.

Also, if gay marriage becomes legal, it isn't actually hurting anyone. Straight people will be allowed to marry just as they did for hundreds of years - nothing changes on that end.
*********************************************************************************************

Further, pronouncing defenders of natural marriage as religious bigots and / or homophobes is not only intellectually dishonest but incredibly disengenuous and a veiled attempt of silencing debate. The claim that marriage ought only consider whom you love is equally unfounded and is no more than the West’s skewed romanticization of the marital institution.

I wouldn't go so far as to call you a bigot, but you are definitely misguided and you let confirmation bias lead you. You have tunnel vision regarding this issue, and it seems like you won't see the other side of the coin, no matter how clearly it's shown to you. To treat gays as a threat of your way of life is a bit laughable, but I can see how it can get you out of your comfort zone.

By the way, a tagline doesn't have to outline the entire issue. Has it ever occurred to you that what Australia Marriage Equality was hoping to do was show one facet of the issue, and try to sway the opinions of those that perhaps haven't thought of it in such a light? There are plenty of proponents that don't use emotions of love as an argument, so I'm not sure what you're arguing.
*********************************************************************************************

If, as a group, as a whole and by nature, the natural marital union create families, it is in society’s best interests to protect, promote and strengthen the age-old institution of man-woman marriage. And if children do best in households where their biological parents are married to each other, it therefore stands to reason that marriage should hold a unique value in society.

I just explained to you that procreation isn't necessary for a fruitful marriage, and just because children do best in one household doesn't mean you should outlaw all other kinds of households right off the bat, especially if children aren't a primary factor in that household.
*********************************************************************************************

Marriage – all things being equal – is a child-centered institution while, in contrast, the concept of gay “marriage” would be an adult-centered institution by necessity.

Marriage is not a child-centered institution. Raising children is a child-centered institution. You can't use the terms interchangeably, since one doesn't necessitate the other. Also, why would an adult-centered institution necessarily be a bad thing? By definition, a childless marriage would be an adult-centered institution, and last I checked, those were fully legal.
*********************************************************************************************

It continues to mystify me that there are segments within our society that would seek to redefine marriage which, as it stands, provides the best environment for the rearing of the next generation. Natural marriage, therefore, is healthy for all members of society. Whether you are gay or straight, it is in the individual’s best interests (and their social duty as members of society) not to define marriage to be anything other than the life-long, sexually-exclusive union of one man and one woman.

You still haven't defined what "natural marriage" is. How is one married by nature, and since homosexuality happens in nature, why is this not applicable to same-sex couples?

So after all this, I fail to see where your arguments can stand. I urge you to reply to my questions and comments and tell me where my line of reasoning is faulty, or reconsider your position. I have the sneaking suspicion, perhaps, that you will just ignore all that was said and regurgitate your arguments sometime in the near future when you read an article that doesn't fall in line with your doctrine.

Recognize futility, exercise humility.

Greetings, friends.

I'd like to start this off by posing a simple, yet strikingly uncommon question to those reading:

"What goals and ideals are important for progression of the human race?"

As a preface, I'll let you know that I don't intend to answer this question, as there can be countless explanations as to what, if anything is most important to the human condition in general. I will, however, add what I think to be an important contribution in determining what methodology to use in answering questions such as the one I've mentioned.

Let's start off with a scenario.

Civilization A consists of people that employ ideals that are based on emotion. They are led mainly by superstition, persuaded by authority and are heavily rooted in tradition. Their main goal is to retain their way of life and live with the knowledge that all life's questions have already been answered by an ultimate source.

Civilization B consists of people that employ ideals that are based on demonstrable results, and empirical evidence. They are led mainly by logic, the scientific method, and a genuine thirst for knowledge. Although they are prone to errors frequently,they learn from their mistakes, as their main goal is to learn as much about their surroundings as possible, and accept that not all in the universe is known, or perhaps even knowable, but that should not impede one from trying. In fact, it only serves to strengthen curiosity.


Let's examine this a bit further:

In our hypothetical situation, Civ. A yearns to maintain the status quo, while Civ. B strives to learn more than previous generations, standing on the shoulders of giants in order to do so. Why is this an important distinction, and what does it have to do with employing ideals that help progress the human race?

Quite simply, if you think you have all the answers, you stop searching. This is intellectual stagnation. If you honestly believe that there is nothing more to be learned about the universe, no intellectual progression can be made. The very notion of adopting superstitious and unverifiable belief is futile, because by definition, you'd have no way of actually backing it up or testing it.

Applying these scenarios to the real world, we realize that humans are a mixed bunch. There are extremes on either side of the spectrum, but most fall in a bell curve consisting of a mixture between Civ. A and Civ. B. It's a breath of fresh air that most people in industrialized countries don't resort to incantations as a first resort to life threatening situations, but it's also a bit unsettling to see superstition promoted with fervor, with dissenting opinions labeled as disrespectful.

It is important that we recognize these traits in ourselves and have the ability to analyze our beliefs in such a way that they are readily demonstrable in reality. Testing the only way to distinguish fact from fiction consistently, and it is equally important to know that no belief, idea, or claim is above question. The human brain thrives on stimulation - so much so that it will hallucinate in times of sensory depravation. It's a machine that needs a constant supply of fuel to run optimally. If we as a society don't harness the resources and drive to answer the interesting and mystifying questions in the universe, we are quite literally wasting the most important aspect of our physical evolution.

One of the more interesting facts about our quest for knowledge via the scientific method is the more we find out about the universe, the less we realize we know. Using Carl Sagan's terminology, we are an inconceivably small part of the universe, floating around on a pale blue dot, in a system of other dots, around a star that is one of hundreds of billions, in a galaxy of hundreds of billions in the universe. To make claims of ultimate knowledge on such a grand scale when there is so much to be learned is not only futile, but arrogant.

Learning our place in the universe can be ultimately humbling, as we are in a time where we can observe other planets from afar, measure the distance between stars, and ask questions, but aren't in a position to physically travel there in any reaosnable time frame. We are in a period where we recognize how large our environment is, but are powerless as of yet to do anything about exploring that environment.

The religious and superstitious people of the world claim to answer to a higher power, and I can appreciate that. I honestly think that we as a species must hold some connection to something larger than ourselves to keep our motivation in life to a maximum. What I propose, however, is that we replace the unverifiable with the real. We can toss the magical for something that is awe-inspiring and demonstrable. Those searching for answers need not turn to religious doctrine, they simply need to adopt the mindset that we don't know all the answers yet, but we should work to one day have them. The sooner we realize that we are a fragile species and abandon the wishful thinking and fears associated with religious claims of the afterlife, we can break barriers between cultures and share a common bond and goal, and yes, it is ironic that it is only after we recognize how alone we are in our environment can we unify.

We must question the status quo and analyze where benefits can be established. And most importantly, we must observe reality on its terms, and be able to change our thoughts and theories when new evidence is presented. This way, not only will the potential of society not be wasted to trivial or mundane tasks, but people will have the methods in place to learn from their mistakes and take responsibility for their thoughts and actions.

An open letter to theists

In regards to religion, my stance is relatively strong, but not at all immovable or impervious to persuasion. Having said this, I have come across a subject within the realm of belief that I observe to be inconsistent with the actions and ideologies of those who abide by it.

To present this issue, I have a single question to ask to theists (preferably those who believe in a personal God). The question is derived from a discussion I've had with the authors of the blog "Aristophrenium".

They weren't kind enough to give me an answer at all, so I hope to get some sort of response from a similarly level-headed theist regarding this matter.

Here it is:

"How do you determine what is real and what is not real?"


I suspect this will give me more insight into the matter, and will accurately illustrate exactly where our point of disagreement is.


Thanks,
-Freddy

Refuting some more pro-life talking points.

Hello again!

The Aristophrenium has written an article in direct response to my comments on the matter of "How to Respond to Empty Pro-Choice Rhetoric"

Aristophrenium Article

It seems like I'm wasting my time making these articles, as they just go round and round ad infinitum. I wish I had the literary ability to make all my rebuttals terse, unfortunately I have a knack of trying to be as transparent as possible, which leads to a text wall-type scenario.

Although it is written by one of the more astute and well-versed members of the site, "ryft", it still suffers from the same weak assertions and assumptions that plagued the first article. This will be my last reply on this matter, as the dialogue quickly turns into an exercise in futility and I don't care about it that much to continually rebut arguments I don't find coherent.

The article's text is in bold, my replies are non-bold.

1.a. “Pro-choice is not pro-abortion or pro-death.”

I’m willing to concede that “pro-death” is rhetorical flourish intended to make a strong statement, but the term “pro-abortion” simply reflects accurately the state of affairs, because it is not ‘choice’ in itself that is advocated but a very specific choice: abortion. Through information, advocacy and access to abortion services, what they advocate is the woman’s right to access abortion, pressure governments to change laws and policies that restrict access to abortion, condemn political or social barriers to abortion, etc.The context of ‘choice’ which Tavarish presents is likewise abortion. When elective abortions were illegal, women did have choices. But the so-called ‘pro-choice’ sector was not at all satisfied, because they wanted a very specific choice: abortion. The paper trail history of their fight is not without a wealth of evidence for this.

So your argument that pro-choice is somehow lacking because it strives to provide more choices for the woman, rather than omitting ones you find morally abhorrent? Do you not understand that choice is also realized in whether or not the mother wants to opt out of the pregnancy?

Pro-choice is necessarily presenting all the options available, not necessarily pushing abortion. Though the topic can get hung up on this issue, the actual term refers to allowing the woman to come to an informed decision with all of her options open. I am pro-choice, but I think the abortion rate should be reduced and limits should be put on the time frame in which elective abortions are to occur.

Pro-abortion is simply what they are, and it makes very little sense why they should be so opposed to the term. Since they view abortion as simply a specific medical procedure and the unborn as just an astonishing collection of biological matter, they have no real reason to shy away from labelling themselves ‘pro-abortion’.

I thought this was a discussion between me and you, not between you and a caricature of what you think pro-choicers hold as a common ideology. I have never illustrated abortion as simple, or that the unborn is simply "biological matter".

Their side does not think abortion is morally wrong. Our side does.

I find it morally wrong, but I don't impose my ideology on those who don't share it. That's what "your" side does - but I digress.

Why are they so willing to concede to our side the moral high ground, by protesting that the term ‘pro-abortion’ is injurious? Why do they in one breath characterize the unborn as a biological clump, while in the next breath claim that the decision to have an abortion is one that is difficult and distressing for a woman to make? (The existence of this dissonance makes very little sense when looked at from their own frame of reference. On the Christian view, their dissonance actually makes a lot of sense, in that their inconsistency proves that their God-given conscience is still functioning as it was designed to; on some level which they are loath to acknowledge, they actually know better.)

Whoa there. I don't claim a moral high ground, as the name of the game is relativism. What may be moral to me may be immoral to another - so let's make that clear. Your assertion that somehow a dissonance occurs in the "pro-choice, anti-abortion" camp and that individuals with such ideology necessarily borrow from a Christian worldview is so ridiculously cheap that it doesn't command a response. However, being the glutton for punishment that I am, I'll entertain it just like any other self-refuting claim some theists put forth when trying to spread their personal feelings as gospel to the rest of us.

Agreeing that a woman should have all the choices available to her doesn't mean that I agree with all the choices that are presented. By your reasoning, a person who agrees with certain legislation (example: healthcare reform) will necessarily need to agree with everything proposed by that legislation. This does not follow. Dissonance isn't a product of borrowed ideology, or subconscious load-bearing guilt, it's the product of a functioning mind that places values based on life experience and societal norms and takes every claim and tenet on its own merit, rather than just blindly accepting things under the umbrella of general ideological banter.

1.b. “It’s for the woman’s right to choose what she does with her body.”

And the pro-life view does not dispute that. However, we happen to go one step further by stating that in civilized society, grounded in moral sense and the rule of law, her right “to choose what she does with her body” is no longer unfettered when that choice directly affects another human being. No one disputes that her unborn child is inside her body. Let’s not construct straw-filled canards over that point. But there is something else that is beyond dispute: it’s in her body, but it isn’t her body.

When you said straw filled canards, I got a mental image of a stuffed duck and it made me giggle.

Back on topic.

Let's try to understand your point here. The unborn fetus is entirely dependent on the mother (it cannot survive outside the mother's body and cannot develop any other way), resides inside her body alone for the entire gestation period, she is solely responsible for its development, safeguarding and nourishment, yet somehow she is detached from it.

What you're essentially describing is that if for some reason, the mother gets pregnant, it's tough titties for her, as she has no control over what goes on next. She has absolutely no say in the matter, because it's an independent entity growing in her, simply taking up residence in her body until it's ready to be born - all of which she must endure, as her rights are voided. Does that make any sense?

If life is of such intrinsic importance, why not condemn those who take antibiotics and kill thousands of bacteria? Conversely, they are actually independent entities and can have the ability to reside outside our bodies, but tend to set up shop inside from time to time. Why not let a developing organism, with its own unique DNA flourish, as the woman is merely a vessel? It's because the organisms that depend necessarily on us for their vitals have no rights and how we deal with them is ultimately up to our discretion. Simply put, you can't assign rights to something that isn't an independent entity yet, especially in this regard.

Now, I know what you're thinking - you place value on human life above all others, so let's repeat a question I've been asking for a while now. This is an excerpt from my last comment on this topic:

"By the way, you never answered the question of when the fetus is alive and when it dies. If a fetus develops without a brain, at what point is that fetus dead? When was it alive? If the mother knew beforehand that the baby would develop without a brain, would elective abortion be appropriate? "

So, let's hear it.

When a woman makes choices about her own body that jeopardizes or harms her child, she is morally and sometimes criminally liable for that and the child can be removed from her care and placed somewhere safe. How much greater is her culpability when the health and safety of that child is entirely dependent on her, such that it cannot be removed and placed somewhere safe when her choices endanger the child? It is in her body, yes, but it isn’t her body. Her freedom to choose what to do with her body stops at her body, when those choices come up against another human body.

Here's where you're getting a bit off track here. A woman doing something with her own body (like using drugs or alcohol) that puts her child in a dangerous environment can have that child taken away, as the child is not dependent on the mother alone. There's a bit of difference here. When the mother is carrying the unborn, she cannot delegate this responsibility.

Her decisions ALONE influence the fetus, but they remain her decisions, since the entity isn't independent of the womb yet. Do you understand? Only she is accountable for bringing that fetus to term. The fetus has no rights until it is ex-utero.

It is plainly evident that my argument against elective abortions is a moral one, which renders his rebuttal on a legal point remarkably irrelevant. He might raise the point about to whom protected rights are extended, but that has nothing to do with what is morally right or morally wrong. As demonstrated by the Dred Scott decision in 1857 by the U.S. Supreme Court (which ruled that blacks “had no rights” that anyone was bound to respect), what is moral and to whom rights extend are two different questions.

And how is slavery relevant to our discussion? Please realize that we, as a civilized society, have changing values, striving to promote freedom and social advancement rather a certain ideology, because people are vastly different. I'd like to also remind you that we don't live in 1857 and the situation in the country is such that not only embraces black individuals and culture, but the President of the United States is of African-American descent. This is a digression, but please realize that society changes, and the values within that society changes. Would you like me to quote you Bible verses in which slavery is morally just and permitted? Let's not get off on a tangent here.

Morality is relative. You can say you operate by a higher, absolute standard, but that still does nothing to address the issue at hand, nor demonstrate the truth of your assertions.

If we decide that blacks have no rights, does that mean it is moral to kill them? Legal, certainly, and yet still immoral. Ergo, because we know that to whom rights extend can be an immoral decision, that angle is simply irrelevant for responding to a moral argument like above. It’s not about who has rights, but about what is moral.

Killing blacks is moral if you believe it to be moral, the same way that killing infidels is a moral action justified by some believing in the Qur'an. People will find justifications for just about anything if you give them enough drive and indoctrination. If the issue is solely moral, I don't understand why you're so up in arms about it and trying to push your beliefs down others' throats. Recognize that not everyone thinks the way you do and there is no objective "ought to", there is just a "can" and "can't", which has a far greater effect within society.

3.a. “Abortion is a multi-faceted issue …”

The pro-life view recognizes that as well. One would have to be frightfully ignorant to think that is a contested point. No pro-life advocate pretends that abortion is an issue with only a single facet. Even elective abortion is multi-faceted. And morally wrong.

You effectively said "Abortion is not a black and white issue, but abortion is obviously black"

Good job.

3.b. “… [insofar] as morality is relative and heavily dependent on the society administering it. What you think is wrong may not be so for [someone else].”

Tavarish is simply assuming the truth of his moral view in this response to my moral argument. If all it takes to defeat your opponent’s argument is to simply assume the truth of your own view, then I can defeat his argument by assuming the truth of my view. It either works both ways or it does not work at all. Insofar as the Special Pleading fallacy indicates that it works both ways, his tactic here was quite inept.

So let's get this straight. You proclaim that this is a moral issue, knowing well that I don't wish to take a moral approach on the grounds that different people views morality differently, then say that my view is invalid because I recognize this? I don't operate under religious guidelines, and neither do a lot of women that legislation dealing with this issue would directly affect. You say it isn't a legal issue, but would be in favor of banning such an action based on your moral criteria. Tell me now, who's assuming the truth of their view in order to further their point? I don't assume the truth of my moral view, as this isn't a moral issue - it's a legal one dealing with human rights. I have my own moral qualms with it, but they are IRRELEVANT.

He is certainly free to reject any of the premises of my argument, but he should not be so foolish as to think that rejecting a premise establishes its falsehood. An argument is said to be valid when the conclusion follows logically from the premises, such that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, and an argument is said to be sound when it is valid and the premises are true. My argument is self-evidently valid, so the question is whether or not it is sound. In order to claim that it is unsound, Tavarish would shoulder the burden of proving that at least one of its premises is false, which is not done by simply presupposing it to be. The burden of proof takes more work than that.

Here's your argument.

1. The deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong.
2. Elective abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human.
3. Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong.

#1 isn't always true - example: In times of war and self defense, killing is not only justified, it is necessary.
Stemming from that, the rest does not follow. If this has anything to do with moral absolutes, you have the burden of proof in demonstrating that these things actually exist objectively. In addition, you have to demonstrate exactly how moral absolutes apply in this particular situation, especially to someone who does not share your ideology.

However, me granting your premises for the sake of argument doesn't mean that you can shift the burden of proof. You still have all your work ahead of you if you want to weigh the truth value of a "right" and "wrong" action that affects everyone necessarily and absolutely.

3.c. “Telling people what they must do according to your ideology is pandering and imposing a belief system.”

What Tavarish doesn’t appear to recognize is that his comment here turns around and roundly bites the pro-choice side, too, for they engage in precisely the same advocacy and lobbying activities that the pro-life side does. They advocate the pro-choice agenda in reproductive health clinics, public school curriculum where they can, the highest courts in the land, and lobbying for legislation domestically and internationally. As a matter of fact, they are actually far more guilty of the above charge than the pro-life side is, which is constantly playing catch-up.

Are you serious? Since when are more options grounds for pushing an agenda? You want to keep the child with respect to your religious background? Fine, go ahead. No one's stopping you. They're just not stopping anyone who views the matter differently and may reach a different conclusion within similar situational framework.

Let's not mince words. The pro-life movement is riding the coattails of religious doctrine and political influence and actively suppressing a woman's choice in the matter, while pro-choice advocates a woman's right to choose what she does with her body on the premise that she is ultimately responsible for the consequences, morally, physically, and legally - whatever the outcome may be.

Name one pro-life campaign or organization that isn't backed by a religious, right-wing organization.

Banning something doesn't magically make the problem go away, no matter how many scare tactic campaigns you throw at it.It just makes it more dangerous to obtain, relying on questionable methods for its acquisition. Be realistic.

I also notice you're using the Tu quoque fallacy here and not addressing the actual issue I presented.

4. “I don’t agree with the methods and actions of abortion. I find it needless. But I won’t condemn someone else for their decision to have it done …”

This is biographical detail that is quite irrelevant, aside from Tavarish telling us a bit about himself. I have no idea why this is even a point for us to address. When it comes to the moral question about abortion, why should anyone care what Tavarish happens to think or not do, etc.? It is entirely irrelevant.

This is to run a parallel between my view and your view, and to illustrate clearly where we differ, since it is a dialogue. I would think that my views in this matter are at least somewhat relevant to this dialogue and backs up the fact that this issue is far from black and white, right or wrong, especially since you so clearly demonstrated your moral standings in the previous paragraphs. Though I agree - to the issue as a whole, my views are irrelevant.

5.a. “People will have abortions. You can’t stop it.”

People will commit rape. You can’t stop it. And so therefore… what? I mean, just where exactly is this line of reasoning supposed to go? If we cannot stop people from doing X, then we should legislate their freedom to do X? Or might this perhaps be a case where the Special Pleading fallacy gets invoked?

You actually made my point for me with that somewhat broken analogy. "People will commit rape" doesn't mean that we should make rape legal. It means that rape, like abortion is a problem that will not go away just because we can outlaw it.

The most effective method of abortion prevention is to educate the public about contraception and to outline ALL of their options in case a pregnancy does happen. The key here is not to limit the scope of the issue, as an individual that feels trapped will often act irrationally and do things that may harm themselves, such as get a "back alley" abortion and risk their own lives without knowing what other options there are out there.

Just as the rape case you presented, we must take measures to prevent it and safeguard against it. The only way to do this is a more educated and more well-prepared public. However, the action of rape and abortion is certainly not a good analogy - one is an elective procedure terminating a pregnancy, and the other is the act of forced sex and submission of an unwilling person.

5.b. “Banning it will only make women resort to questionable means for these procedures.”

First of all, I am not aware of anyone who is calling for a ban on all abortions entirely. The dominant call is for banning all elective abortions; if we banned all abortions but those for reasons of rape, incest, the health of the mother or the health of the unborn, that would ban an incredible 93% of all abortions.

Banning most abortions wouldn't make the issue disappear. I think that's the fundamental issue you're not considering. Making something illegal will not stop people from doing it, it just creates bigger problems for those that do. If the basis on which to ban abortion is moral, what ground do the lawmakers have to impose their morality on those who aren't asking for it?

Third, if this is a veiled attempt by Tavarish to suggest that making abortions illegal would throw us back to a time when “back alley abortions” posed a dangerous health risk to women who require an abortion, it is an extraordinary failure: (i) if a woman required an abortion for some reason due to rape, incest, her own health or that of her unborn, that would be a legal abortion in our scenario, performed by qualified medical doctors; (ii) the dangerous health risk to women formerly experienced was not due to abortions being illegal but rather the tools and techniques that were available at that time (e.g., the medical use of penicillin in the forties, the vacuum aspiration method introduced in the sixties, etc.). One has to go back to the pre-penicillin era in order to find the significant rates of death due to abortions. From the 1950s until Roe v. Wade, there were exponentially fewer maternal deaths due to illegal and legal abortions. The dots are not difficult to connect.

So we've established the fact that you granted elective abortion to be justifiable in a certain context (rape, incest, medical emergency), the question separating the action from being moral or immoral is intent. This is sort of a case in which you want to have your cake and eat it too, in which you try to argue to absolute moral stance of something, only to say that there are exceptions to such an endeavor.

While I do agree that this is a multifaceted issue, I don't agree that putting a ban on abortions that don't have a certain qualifier is effective at all. The only thing that will happen as a result when you assign legality to abortion in case of rape and incest is the increase of alleged rapes and incestuous situations. Like I've said before, women will continue to get abortions, whether you find it morally repugnant or not.

5.c. “Making an appeal to emotion doesn’t work …”

Actually, it works very well. But it is not rational, nor is it what our argument does.

When you refer to "our" argument, I will assume you mean the pro-life point of view. Let's try to look at this realistically. Pro-life advocates are the ones showing videos intended to shock and scare those into believing their ideology, as evidenced by the video posted in the previous article, where they show a montage of rather humorous aborted fetuses being prodded with tweezers next to quarters.

Pro-life advocates are the ones funding Crisis Pregnancy centers, which have the exact same aim - to scare those contemplating abortion into conforming to a certain ideology.

I agree is it's irrational, but it's exactly what advocates on your side do.

If I've misunderstood your use of the word "our", please elaborate.

5.d. “The best method to reduce abortions is an outline of the options available to women who don’t wish to keep the pregnancy.”

And we can see how effective that has been at reducing abortions.

Actually, we can. The countries that offer programs which outline all the choices that pregnant women have, rather than prohibiting certain decisions, are among those with the least abortions, despite having the highest sexually active adolescent population.

->Abortion rate chart <-

Consider a far more effective method: ban all abortions except for those related to rape, incest, the health of the mother or that of her unborn; according to the Guttmacher Institute, those comprise only 7% of all abortions.

We're brought back to the same broken point that you tried to assume earlier. It's fine if it falls into the criteria that you presented, but morally abhorrent in any other context. Not only that, you attempt to put forth that banning an action solves the problem that the action creates.

For example, smoking weed is illegal in most of the country, however, that does not stop people from doing it on a daily basis. What exactly are you trying to accomplish by banning 93% of abortions? Will that get rid of 93% of the problem?

Answering "reasonable" Creationism

I'll give a bit of background info on who I am and what I do in my spare time to illustrate where I'm coming from.

In a nutshell, I'm a 23 year old college student who holds no religious beliefs and heavily researches debating styles, rhetoric, and arguments - particularly about religious topics and certain conspiracy theories. I am persuaded by evidence, preferably empirical and verifiable, but am not above changing my mind on any given topic if new or more accurate evidence is presented, contrary to my original view. I hold no underlying dogma over my decisions, I just seek to plant the seeds of healthy doubt into those who care to listen.


A topic that has been absolutely beaten to death on the internet is creationism. Whether it's Young Earth Creationism (YEC) or Ancient Earth Creationism (AEC), the main tenet is to mix religious doctrine with scientific discovery and make an internally consistent view of life and universal origins. I've been having a conversation (one-sided commentary is more like it) with Duane, from The Aristophrenium, a blog in which Christian apologetics strive to find grounding in their belief in Christ.

I'd like to point out some things here before I start addressing points.

1. I don't care what they believe in.
2. Rejecting the claim that God exists is not the same as a positive claim that God does not exist.
3. Atheism is not a world view and has no doctrine, it is simply the lack of belief in God or gods.

I posted a comment that wasn't deemed suitable by moderators, and perhaps it was a bit off topic, but these questions bear repeating, perhaps in a context of their own.

I wrote it as a response to Duane's take on the Mt. St. Helens eruption over two decades ago - he used it as a launching point for the "reasonableness" of an explanation of Noah's Flood and the act of "witnessing" to people, or proselytizing.

For that, click here (You can see a few of my comments)

Duane's Article on Aristophrenium



A further clarification: Duane, the author of the article, is a Young Earth Creationist. He has not made his personal beliefs transparent, but YECs typically believe that the Bible is a literal and accurate account of what historically took place, at least as far as Genesis is concerned. The Earth, in their view, is around 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and macroevolution - or evolution on a large scale (speciation), never occurred, as beings were created in their current states. Noah's flood actually happened, people lived with dinosaurs, and lots of other things fill this particular religious doctrine with a lot of claims to account for, not to mention problems with inconsistency.

If this is not Duane's perspective, then I apologize and I'll ask him to discuss what his views actually are.


On to the argument!


My denied comment was:

"You gave me a link of answer in genesis - something that's not exactly foreign to me. It's like that whole site strives to build up false dichotomies, make bald faced assertions and tells people that what they believe can be rationalized into a historic event.

Creationism has thus far failed to provide any relevant applications for its use, other than proselytization and preaching to the choir.

Are there any sciences that would benefit from the theories presented by creationism?

How about any peer reviewed papers by distinguished and consistently unbiased sources in favor of creationism?

Are there any theories that can be put forth in creationism that first define God, demonstrate that he exists, then demonstrate that these claims are necessarily dependent of the actions of such a deity, all with credible, verifiable evidence?

Let's all put on our "biblical glasses" - and ignore evidence to the contrary. AiG ranks up there with the "Miracles of the Quran" page and creation myths.

It saddens me that intelligent people would willingly commit to such nonsense."



I admit, it was a bit off topic, but it does contain some questions that are relevant to the discussion:

1. Are there any sciences that would benefit from the theories presented by creationism?

Clarification: Let's, for a second, grant the false dichotomy of evolution v. creation and say that evolution is absolute bunk and is a religious belief, and all the other stuff creationists usually say to further their point across. What would the applications be to a creation-based science system?

Within evolution, we have a multitude of biological disciplines, medical innovations, cosmological theories, and numerous other examples stemming from one underlying theory. (note theory is not an assumption or assertion, it is heavily based in facts and evidence and is falsifiable)


2. Are there any theories that can be put forth in creationism that first define God, demonstrate that he exists, then demonstrate that these claims are necessarily dependent of the actions of such a deity, all with credible, verifiable evidence?

Clarification: In order for you to make a claim that a God did something, you must first define such a God, then demonstrate (not assume) with credible evidence that he exists. After all, why would you make a claim regarding an entity that may not exist? The entire thing has to be internally consistent for the theory to work.



In addition, I'll address some new points Duane brought up in light of the original conversation.

Here's his reply, my text is in bold. :

"“The ideal of the coolly rational scientific observer, completely independent, free of all preconceived theories, prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments, doing investigations and coming to dispassionate, unbiased conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science (and, indeed, most scientists) as a simplistic myth.” - Professor John Lennox, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, Oxford University."

Yes, as humans, we hold biases, but that does not mean we can't form conclusions that are unbiased to the highest possible degree. Disinterestedness is a key factor in peer review, a main tenet of distinguishing fact from fantasy. A fully unbiased person is practically impossible, but that doesn't mean they can't be impartial to a certain topic.

"Just to demonstrate how misinformed Tavarish's position is on this (and there are plenty of examples like this), consider what Charles Darwin wrote in his journal while exploring the Santa Cruz river as part of his journey on the Beagle, which later included the now famous stopover at the Galapagos Islands.

"The river, though it has so little power in transporting even inconsiderable fragments, yet in the lapse of ages might produce by its gradual erosion an effect of which it is difficult to judge the amount." - link"

And once again we link to a creationist site and not a peer reviewed paper or scholarly article on the subject by an impartial source. With a slogan like "Biblical. Accurate. Certain.", they sure have science as their top priority here.

(As an aside, science is a lot of things: descriptive, predictive, reliable - but it is never certain. When a site says that they are absolutely certain of what they say from a scientific standpoint, it's time to take them with a grain of salt, even more so when the first part of the slogan has to do with religious doctrine. )

"Darwin saw the river and he applied a uniformitarian geological interpretation to what he saw. Where did he get such an idea? Are such facts so plain from a cursory observation of the rocks and the river? No, it was Lyell's uniformitarian influence. How do I know that? Because Darwin was reading Lyell's book while on the Beagle. "

Yes, Darwin read Lyell's book on the HMS Beagle, and was influenced by him heavily in his geological studies.


"Referring to his voyage on the Beagle (1831–1836), [Darwin] wrote, “I had brought with me the first volume of Lyell’s Principles of Geology, which I studied attentively; and this book was of the highest service to me in many ways. The very first place which I examined, namely St. Jago in the Cape Verde islands, showed me clearly the wonderful superiority of Lyell’s manner of treating geology, compared with that of any other author whose works I had with me or ever afterwards read.” - link"

And another creationist site. This is turning into a bit of a pattern here.

"In fact the second volume of Lyell's work, published after the Beagle left England, was sent on to Darwin in Montevideo."

Yup, Darwin was a big fan.

"As Marc has already pointed out, evidence does not interpret itself. Uniformitarianism was Darwin's framework for understanding everything he saw on that voyage, including his biological observations. Evolution by the slow and gradual process of natural selection is nothing more than uniformitarianism applied to biology."

You haven't demonstrated a damn thing. You take the fact that Darwin was wrong (whoa, shocker!) about the forming of a landmass and apply it to his theory of evolution by natural selection. Uniformitarianism, by the way, is simply put, how the " present is the key to the past".

First, the valley was formed by local glacial flooding. Here's a link to an article published and peer reviewed in a scientific journal:

-> CHARLES DARWIN AND THE OLDEST GLACIAL EVENTS
IN PATAGONIA: THE ERRATIC BLOCKS OF THE RÍO
SANTA CRUZ VALLEY <-


Second, Darwin was wrong about lots of things. His theory of evolution was incomplete and he knew nothing of DNA and the human genome.

Here's a list of his errors:

-> Darwin's Mistakes <-


If you had read the text of Darwin's work instead of quote mining, you would have understood they had to turn back due to the speed of the water. They never found the source, turning back before finding the glacial lake at the foot of the mountain.

Here's a link to the text, unabridged:

->Voyage of the Beagle <-


However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that evolution by means of natural selection is the most important construct in the natural sciences. Without this understanding, we would not have the knowledge of the world we possess today. It is backed up by mountains upon mountains of evidence, and gives the most accurate description of how life changed on this planet.

Within the study of evolutionary biology, there are plenty of controversies - whether it happened gradually or suddenly (punctuated equilibrium), morphology of certain structures, and what defines a species - but there is no controversy as to if it actually occurred or not. That's my gripe with creationists, particularly of the Young Earth variety. They will ignore an overwhelming amount of evidence, then still have the audacity to say that nothing of the sort occurred because their holy book told them it was so. It reminds me of the guy arguing with a donkey on Family Guy about if Kevin Bacon was in Footloose or not.

-> This is what it's like debating with a young earth creationist <-


A few more, for the road (My replies are in bold):

"Thomas Kuhn documents in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, that a conclusion-first approach is in fact the way ALL science works, and has always worked throughout history! Moreover, Steve Austin's floating log mat model was demonstrated to be accurate as a result of the Mount St. Helens eruption. Why doesn't that count?"

Duane's referring to me saying that science isn't necessarily dogmatic in its approach. It is quite funny to me that he can't understand the difference between constructing/testing a hypothesis from a conclusion first and rationalizing information to fit a conclusion. One is scientific, the other is not.

Also, about Steve Austin (not the wrestler):

-> Rebuttal to Steve Austin's claims on Mt. St. Helens <-


"Oh yes, ridiculing creationists. That totally helps your argument. Many AiG staff (and staff from similar ministries) hold respectable qualifications in geology and other sciences. So exactly what is it about the qualifications of people like Dr John Whitmore, Dr Graeme Mortimer, Dr Steve Austin, Dr Andrew Snelling, Dr Emil Silvestru or Dr John Morris (to name a few), that make them unqualified as an authority to publish on this topic?"

Qualification doesn't mean they're not batshit insane and hold some weird beliefs. Isaac Newton practiced alchemy, but it doesn't detract from his work in the theory of gravitation. Any scientist by himself is not a qualified authority to make a practical and definitive conclusion. The theory must pass the rigors of peer review and come out unscathed. Scientists don't just publish articles and go on their way, it must be put to the test continuously to ensure it is the most accurate description of the world around us.



One last one, I promise:

"In fact in a 2003 lecture I listened to by Steve Austin he reported that the sign at Yellowstone that glorified the uniformitarian understanding of this area has now been removed. The sign said something like; "...the forest you see there today is only the latest chapter in a remarkable story. Buried within the rock layers ... are 27 distinct layers of fossil forest that flourished 50 million years ago." A Scientific America magazine article in 1960 claimed it was proof positive of millions of years of multiple forest growth.

And then Mount St. Helens explodes and produces a multi-layer forest on the bottom of Spirit Lake in one day! No wonder they removed the sign. To quote Steve Austin, "What we saw at Mount St. Helens impacted the study of Yellowstone National Park."

That is, unless Creationists stole the sign in denial? ;) "

I offer this:

-> Review of the ICR and Steve Austin's lectures <-


-> Rebuttal of Austin's Claims regarding Coal Beds <-

A response to Aristophrenium's Adam on "How to Respond to Empty Pro-Choice Rhetoric"

The entire exchange:

How to Respond to Empty Pro-Choice Rhetoric


His comments are numbered and bolded:

1. "Potential? This whole argument is about what the unborn IS. Not that one day it may become president. How is value ascribed that way? So far all you have done is disagree with our points and provided very little in response."

I outlined exactly what I think the unborn is, and provided reasons for thinking in this manner. It is not an independent entity and has no "human rights" until it leaves the womb and is responsible for its own physical development. It isn't hard to understand.



2. "Your “proof” that the unborn has no rights, is not valuable, is not a person etc, is that it receives its nourishment from its mother. How does the source of nourishment determine what it is?"

First, I never said it wasn't valuable - quite the contrary. I said the potential to become human is important and should weigh heavily on an abortion decision.

Second, it's not only nourishment from the mother. The unborn is nearly 100% dependent on the mother ALONE to guide its development from a fetus into a full grown child. This is a bit different than the simple "nourishment" that you make it out to be. The mother and unborn undergo physiological changes, and have a special physical relationship that no other person can replicate. She absolutely has to take this responsibility if the child is carried to term - she can't delegate her responsibilities. That's why it isn't a person yet - it's not responsible for its development and vital physical functions and depends NECESSARILY on its mother for nearly everything.



3. "You claim it is parasitic. And yet in this same conversation you claim that a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes. Make up your mind."

First, the relationship is parasitic by definition in some aspects.
Second, how would those two cancel each other out? I don't see how having a parasitic relationship can prevent a person from doing something about it.



4. "Is it a parasite or is it part of her body?"

Let me make this clear for you, since you seem to construct false dichotomies around pretty often.

An unborn child is not a parasite. The relationship that the unborn child holds with its mother, however, can be parasitic in some aspects, such as the transfer of vitamins and hydration. Ever wonder why pregnant women are "eating for two"?

I'm not calling a fetus a ringworm, so let's get off the soapbox for a minute.



5. "We have demonstrated that the baby defends itself from its mothers T-cell attacks and has a distinct genetic human DNA code which you seem to agree with. So drop the “her body” rubbish."

And I came back to that same argument with the fact that differences in DNA don't change the fact that the unborn necessarily depends on the mother for all its vital life components and developments in utero. The unborn is an extension of her own physical systems, and this is physically demonstrable. I really don't understand how you can think an unborn child isn't part of a woman - I'd urge you to actually ask a pregnant woman about her experiences before spouting nonsense.



6. "HOW it happens is morally irrelevant to WHAT happens; the termination of a human life by an outside agency."

First, it's not termination of human life. It's the termination of what could be a human life. Difference.
Second, are you trying to make the point that punching an unwilling pregnant woman in the stomach is the same as a pregnant woman that makes a decision to get an abortion? Seriously?



7."After all, you said in an earlier comment that intention is irrelevant. “What does intention have to do with anything?” For the law to identify it as murder or manslaughter, it has to recognise the quality known as personhood and ascribe it to the unborn."

Don't quote mine. I said intention is irrelevant as to the nature of the unborn in regards to the pregnancy. This was a direct result of Mathew's question: "do zygotes, blastocysts and foetuses set out to harm their mothers?"

This is 180 degrees removed from an attacker that does harm to the mother and unborn by force, against her will.

Also, fetal homicide is already law in many states - which don't necessarily grant human rights to in utero fetuses, but recognize the potential for human life. It doesn't necessarily need to recognize the unborn as a seperate entity.



8. "You say this does not happen until it becomes its own “entity” apart from its mother. So therefore, under your worldview, no instance of the termination of the unborn can be considered murder or manslaughter, if you are going to be consistent."

Why are you just repeating yourself? I addressed this already in the last post.

See here:"The potential for the unborn to live should be weighed, but in relation to the mother's physical and mental well being, not necessarily a premeditated act of murder. It doesn't make it any less malicious in the least however."



9. "Further, this points to an inconsistency in the law, not my argument; that selective abortions are ok, but forced miscarriages are not."

It's actually funny that you can't see a difference between selective abortion and forced miscarriage. Funny in a disturbing way.



10. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Where do you get your medical data on the brain development and subsequent emotion and pain processing of the unborn?

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/brain-development-in-fetus.html



11. "The brain and spinal cord begin to form at week 3 and structure has been established by week 5; Well before most abortions are performed."

And the nervous system comes together in week 23, and only after that can the brain regulate body functions. Rudimentary concepts such as emotions or dreams are formed in week 27.




12. "So how can anyone say that there is no brain function, emotions or even a soul present. Hence my demolition analogy."

Your definition analogy still fails in the same way. I never said anything about brain activity, I said emotion, and I outlined the reasons why. In the first trimester, when most abortions are performed, the nervous system isn't even fully developed and the brain isn't even capable of developing neurons at that point.



13. "You completely missed my point. It was an analogy. "

And you missed the point of my analogy.



14. "My point is you don’t know for sure. So why kill what may be an innocent, human person with thoughts, feelings and emotions. You can’t know for sure. So why take the chance?"

First, this sounds like a weird Pascal's wager.

Second, I just gave you specific examples of how you can know what facets of physical development the unborn undergoes. It's not an unknown unknown. It's quite a studied topic. Here's a compilation of the studies performed:

http://primal-page.com/mf3-7.htm



15. "For starters it showed you a first trimester unborn human; what you thought only looked human in the third trimester."

And this isn't news to me, and nowhere did I say it ONLY resembles a child late in the pregnancy.




16. "And reality is not a “scare tactic”.Clearly if someone hasn’t seen the end result then they haven’t weighed all the options in the issue. Even a picture of what it looks like and how it moves etc would be beneficial in “weighing” up all the options. "

It is when you propagandize your views with added shock value to a public who doesn't necessarily like seeing a bloody fetus. Not to mention twisting the words of a civil rights leader and throwing in religious overtones. It's not educational or informational. It plays on emotions instead of facts and testimony. This is by the same types of people that hand out brochures of dead babies on college campuses and public parks trying to shove their ideology down everyone else's throat.

Perhaps they should make the woman wear her aborted fetus as a necklace, because after all, reality isn't a scare tactic.

You want to change the world? Find a pregnant woman that wants to abort and tell her you'll adopt her child and give it the home it deserves. Then do that a few times over. It would be a hell of a lot more change than watching videos of tiny baby parts next to quarters.