If life begins at conception, are doctors creating a human soul when they perform in vitro fertilization? If so, then are fertilized eggs that are discarded human beings? If not, are embryos that get implanted and brought to term soulless after being born?
If the embryo is alive, yet it's not human, how could it's death by whatever means be considered a sin?
If a woman miscarries, should she be investigated for any possible complicity in the death? Perhaps by consuming alcohol or participating in strenuous exercise?
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists estimates that over 80 percent of miscarriages occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, although they also say the numbers are likely considerably higher as many happen so early in the term that the woman was unaware that she was pregnant in the first place. So could a woman be held liable for the death of an embryo she was unaware that she was carrying?
Also,even though the nervous system is one of the first things to begin to form in an embryo, and at least in the case of the brain, continues well after birth, an embryo less than six weeks old has not yet begun to develop a brain, and by extension thoughts or feelings, how will it know if it goes to heaven or not? How can it even care? Even later, as the embryo at 13 weeks is less than the size of a pea pod, the brain would be about the size of a pea in that pod. What could it possibly be conscious of? It may show some reaction to stimuli, but then so will an earthworm. Does this indicate conscious life? Or the existence of a soul?
Whoever is promulgating this lunacy really appears to have not thought it through. But then, this whole discussion is meant to sway emotion, and not rational thought.
As a favorite YouTuber, Alan Melikdjanian AKA Captain Disillusion says: "Love with your heart, for everything else use your brain!"
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
June 15, 2019
March 2, 2018
"Good" Christians
I was having a discussion the other day with a colleague I
have known and done business with for many years. A guy I thought I knew fairly
well. Our conversations in the past, I guess, had never really ventured into
politics, as what transpired frankly surprised me. My friend has never made any
attempt to hide his Born-Again Christian beliefs, but to his credit, has never
tried any serious attempt to proselytize. In fact, I’m not even sure he knows
that I am an atheist.
Our conversation turned to the current situation at the
border with Mexico and that’s when stuff got weird. First he started into the
old rant about how broke the country was, and therefore could not afford to
care for all these children. Okaaay, but doesn’t your Bible tell us to care for
others that are unable to care for themselves?* Not, apparently, when those
others should not be here in the first place!
His solution is that we should finish the wall that would
shut down the border. Apparently we have enough money for this. When I pointed
out that the existing wall has not yet even slowed the immigration, he
exclaimed that illegals should be “shot on sight!” No exceptions. Man, woman or
child. No mercy. That, by God would fix the problem!
Frankly, I was stunned to silence, which I suppose led him
to think he had won the discussion by the force of his wit. Far from it, what
left me speechless was that this man considers himself a devout Christian.
Further, that it was obvious that this opinion could not be his alone, but was
likely shared by his Pastor and the other members of his church. I have no idea
which church this man attends or the size of its congregation, but I wonder how
many others out there share those views? How can these people possibly consider
themselves to be Christians? I may be an atheist, but I was raised in a
Christian family, attended church until my teens, and have likely read more of
the Bible than most. Nowhere in it do I recall any discussion of borders with
guard towers and machine guns murdering any that dare try to cross.
*1 John 3:17-18
But whoever has the world's goods,
and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the
love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with
tongue, but in deed and truth.
March 13, 2013
On "War"
I was watching an interview Obama had with George Stephanopolis wherein GS was asking about the discovery that China was allegedly supporting a surge in hacking and internet based intrusions into American businesses, government agencies and individuals. The PLA (Peoples' Liberation Army) evidently has an entire division dedicated to this process.
George asked the Pres if he thought this meant we were in a "cyber war" with China. Obama, to his credit, declined to call it a "war" but stressed that it could not be allowed to continue.
This post is not about that.
Rather, it got me thinking about the overuse of the term itself. We use the term war so often that it has lost all meaning. No matter what your viewpoint, it seems that anyone that has the temerity to oppose or even attempt to modify it has declared "war" on it.
For example: Every fall, we see from Christians a resurgence of their claim that there is a "War on Christmas!"* Completely disregarding the fact that unless one lives in a cave on a remote island somewhere beyond the reach of flotsam from the developed world, one is going to find some reference to the Christian holiday. Of course, to be even handed, some Christians cite the commercialization of the holiday as one of the battles going on to destroy the "true meaning" of the holiday. whatever the rationale, it does not meet the definition of a "war."
We hear once again of, "class warfare." What exactly does this mean? Are the poor lopping off heads a la 1789 France? Are the oligarchy sending in troops to enslave the lower classes? I think we are long overdue for a re-think of what it means to be successful, and that there has to be some kind of social restructuring but that discussion still doesn't meet the definition of a "war."
Please, people! Stop overusing this freaking word. If you say "war" use the term correctly. It is NOT a debate, no matter how heated, on any subject unless it involves machine guns.
*We won't even get into the whole "War on Christianity" thing. That deserves a post of its own on the Christian persecution complex.
George asked the Pres if he thought this meant we were in a "cyber war" with China. Obama, to his credit, declined to call it a "war" but stressed that it could not be allowed to continue.
This post is not about that.
Rather, it got me thinking about the overuse of the term itself. We use the term war so often that it has lost all meaning. No matter what your viewpoint, it seems that anyone that has the temerity to oppose or even attempt to modify it has declared "war" on it.
For example: Every fall, we see from Christians a resurgence of their claim that there is a "War on Christmas!"* Completely disregarding the fact that unless one lives in a cave on a remote island somewhere beyond the reach of flotsam from the developed world, one is going to find some reference to the Christian holiday. Of course, to be even handed, some Christians cite the commercialization of the holiday as one of the battles going on to destroy the "true meaning" of the holiday. whatever the rationale, it does not meet the definition of a "war."
We hear once again of, "class warfare." What exactly does this mean? Are the poor lopping off heads a la 1789 France? Are the oligarchy sending in troops to enslave the lower classes? I think we are long overdue for a re-think of what it means to be successful, and that there has to be some kind of social restructuring but that discussion still doesn't meet the definition of a "war."
Please, people! Stop overusing this freaking word. If you say "war" use the term correctly. It is NOT a debate, no matter how heated, on any subject unless it involves machine guns.
*We won't even get into the whole "War on Christianity" thing. That deserves a post of its own on the Christian persecution complex.
September 8, 2011
I know why they do it...
But for the life of my I don't know how they do it.
What, you ask?
Deny science. That's what. The fundagelical belief system that has its followers believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Evolution never happened, and further is some sort of secular/satanic lie to try to destroy Christian faith.
We won't even go into climate change again.
If xtians would only allow themselves to examine, and understand the science behind the claims, but they won't. Or can't.
For example: We know the earth is somewhere around 4.5 billion years old. How do we know this? Because of our understanding of quantum mechanics. One does not need to understand the science, only to know that others do, and if one wanted, they could do as well. It's the area of physics that describes the behavior of atoms and nuclei. The very field that has given us the foundations for development of transistors, nuclear reactors, and lasers. Without a solid understanding of this science, there would be no computers or TVs. Modern jet aircraft would be impossible. Even the control systems that make modern autos would have never been invented.
With our understanding of quantum mechanics, we can date rocks and meteorites based on measurements of the decay of unstable uranium and thorium in them using a technique similar to carbon 14 dating. Since World War 2 and the first atomic bomb, we have increased our understanding of the decay of radioactive nuclei and decreased the uncertainty about the age of the Earth.
Denying the science behind this is akin to denying that cell phones exist.
I get that for a lot of xtians, to accept these facts is denying central tenets of their faith. Which in turn brings down a towering house of cards, by allowing the light of reason to invade other central themes buried in deep dark cracks in their brains. Once you start questioning religion, it can become a slippery slope. Where does one stop? Therefore: the questioning cannot even begin.
A normally rational, thinking person suddenly becomes blind to the absurdity of his belief system.
How do they do it?
For more on this, check out this excellent post by Jim Kakalios on Jennifer Ouellette's Cocktail Party Physics blog
What, you ask?
Deny science. That's what. The fundagelical belief system that has its followers believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Evolution never happened, and further is some sort of secular/satanic lie to try to destroy Christian faith.
We won't even go into climate change again.
If xtians would only allow themselves to examine, and understand the science behind the claims, but they won't. Or can't.
For example: We know the earth is somewhere around 4.5 billion years old. How do we know this? Because of our understanding of quantum mechanics. One does not need to understand the science, only to know that others do, and if one wanted, they could do as well. It's the area of physics that describes the behavior of atoms and nuclei. The very field that has given us the foundations for development of transistors, nuclear reactors, and lasers. Without a solid understanding of this science, there would be no computers or TVs. Modern jet aircraft would be impossible. Even the control systems that make modern autos would have never been invented.
With our understanding of quantum mechanics, we can date rocks and meteorites based on measurements of the decay of unstable uranium and thorium in them using a technique similar to carbon 14 dating. Since World War 2 and the first atomic bomb, we have increased our understanding of the decay of radioactive nuclei and decreased the uncertainty about the age of the Earth.
Denying the science behind this is akin to denying that cell phones exist.
I get that for a lot of xtians, to accept these facts is denying central tenets of their faith. Which in turn brings down a towering house of cards, by allowing the light of reason to invade other central themes buried in deep dark cracks in their brains. Once you start questioning religion, it can become a slippery slope. Where does one stop? Therefore: the questioning cannot even begin.
A normally rational, thinking person suddenly becomes blind to the absurdity of his belief system.
How do they do it?
For more on this, check out this excellent post by Jim Kakalios on Jennifer Ouellette's Cocktail Party Physics blog
June 15, 2011
June 11, 2011
"Freedoms"
It seems not a day goes by that I hear some teabagger lamenting the loss of or potential threat to their "freedoms". So what exactly are we talking about. They didn't seem to mind when Shrub & Congress passed the Patriot Act, which effectively removed our Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Nope, barely a peep out of 'em. If you have nothing to hide, why should you care? When the TSA gropes 'em and requires proper papers before we can travel, mild grumbles, but hey! It's worth it if we can be "safe". So what freedoms have we lost the they miss so fervently?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)