Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Lucia Sex ed to children destroys their natural modesty

... and leads them to engage in risky sexual behaviours that will most likely result in abortion.



Also: Sex Education in NZ isn't working

32 comment(s):

Boganette said...

Hahaha. Sex Ed = Abortion.

Good God that is crazy.

I.M Fletcher said...

Boganette, I haven't even seen the youtube video above (I have dialup and it takes a long time to load) but even I can see the connection.

More sex education means that more kids are being 'educated' about sexual intercourse (who would never even have thought of it before) and having free condoms pushed on them by Family Planning: when those condoms fail, that equals more 'unwanted' pregnancy and abortion.

Not too hard to follow.

libertyscott said...

Planned parenthood is expanding in anticipation of socialised medicine? Sheesh I loathe Obama's health policy, but this is wingnut lunacy.

The Netherlands, which has comprehensive sex education and a very open and individual choice and respect (not shame based) attitude to sexuality, has an abortion rate one third of that of the United States see http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

Children who understand themselves, who are treated as rational beings can make rational choices about their bodies. Suppressing information, and surrounding them with shame is more likely for them to want to rebel and engage in poor informed sexual behaviour because they have been treated as "stupid" or "naive".

Why is ignorance a good thing?

MrTips said...

LibertyScott
The guttmacher institute is not an independent source for data. It is an arm of planned parenthood.

The Netherlands has a low abortion rate, but they code data differently. For example, an abortion can be codes as menstrual extraction, or chemical intervention and not abortion.

they are also losing their place as a low abortion rate country.

Finally, they are one country. England, America, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Russia, I could go on. they too have contraception pushed hard from the governmental level and their abortion rates are sky high - not to mention us.

The rule is: where contraception is placed under governmental control and promoted to teenagers, abortion rates rise. this has been the case over the last 45 years.

Boganette: taking the pill increases a womans risk of getting breat cancer by over 500%. ANd it can increase your risk of venous thromboembolism, ischemic events and other CV disease by over 300%. As a feminist, I would have thought you would be outraged.

ZenTiger said...

Why is ignorance a good thing?

I take exception to that statement. No one here is promoting ignorance as sex education.

Also, "shame based" sex education is playing to stereotypes that simply are not reflected on this blog. If anyone is playing to stereo-typical (and destructive) thinking, it is the Family Planning approach promoting sex as mere recreation.

Follow some of our links.

Matthew said...

Mr Tips, you are well informed on this; hardly seem to be ignorant, in any case.

One only has to read Steyn, for example, to see why abortion is simply lunacy and morally repugnant. The tiny West is trying its best to kill off as many of the next generation - intellectually that is suicide and clearly tell me the "west" does not want itself to exist anymore. They also want to voluntarily limit their fertility rate. No wonder the Muslims are growing in influence; at the end of it all it will be the Christians (who do reproduce and who are against abortion) and Muslims who are growing, not some tiny little foot note of history called "the liberal west".

libertyscott said...

MrTips: Have you a source for the evidence of how the data is coded differently?

I'd always keep contraception and abortion outside government control. That means people can pay commercial prices to access it all, but also charities that provide it would be free to do so - of course, the temporal limits of abortion would be an issue. I've always argued that abortion beyond a certain point should only be allowed to save the life of the mother.

Zen: I didn't think you were advocating ignorance, but what i have seen from those on the religious right in the States is to deliver one message about sex. Sex is risky and bad unless it is after you are married. Sex is recreational, denying that is denying nature, but it is also risky and something typically laden with much emotional baggage. Sadly it is most laden with the preconceived views of what other people think is good for others. Most people have agendas around it. Fortunately some of the views on this blog are beyond the appalling archaic shame based attitudes of sex that are part of our recent history.

Matthew: You don't own the reproductive abilities of other people, as much as you want to. Collectivist arguments against abortion are like those of the Nazis, concerned about ensuring the Aryan race thrives and is abundant. Croatian fascists thought the same when they banned abortion, and Ceausescu when he banned abortion and contraception. There are arguments against abortion, but demographics aren't one of them.

Most people want to control their fertility, because they want to own a home, ensure their kids have a good education and enjoy life. They also don't fear losing children through disease and accident. China is seeing it now with birth rates dropping.

The Muslim growth in influence is exagerrated. Pakistan is stagnant compared to India, and the largest Muslim country (Indonesia) has a lower population than the USA. Indeed, the Muslim world has demonstrated a distinct lack of capacity for much entrepreneurship that isn't linked to oil revenues, except Malaysia which is almost 50% non-Muslim.

What are you expecting, some grand war between religions for the final battle for who takes over the earth? Oh, you'll find that Christianity in the Western World is in decline, the point being that most remaining Christians do not identify as political Christians (as can be seen at the appalling performance of any Christian political parties).

Matthew said...

Oh dear Liberty, where do I start?

There are arguments against abortion, but demographics aren't one of them.

Demographics are a blunt fact of reality. If you have less babies, and the West, which is not Christian is doing just that, then you DIE OUT. Get it? DIE OUT. We all have 100% mortality, so whether its 70 years or 125 years, we all die. So if a society has less children, then it does die out. What part of less children and absolute mortality don't you get?

You don't own the reproductive abilities of other people, as much as you want to.

No I don't, but neither do you, and it seems to me you have chosen to give up even owning your own reproductive abilities: it is grotesque to call owning something when it is killing someone. At least I haven't.

Most people want to control their fertility, because they want to own a home, ensure their kids have a good education and enjoy life. They also don't fear losing children through disease and accident. China is seeing it now with birth rates dropping.

One fact of economics is that people have less babies, because it becomes more expensive. All you are doing is putting some sort of temporal comforts ahead of your civilisation's existence. How selfish is that? Anyway, go ahead and have you comforts: it just ensures that Western civilisation will die out. And one thing I can't wait for is for this ugly Western civilisation, which Christians are not even a part of, to cease to exist. And the sad thing is it wont even be run over by some foreign army, it will instead collectively ensure it has less children to raise in its socialist, secularist worldview. Who is going to defend your way of life once you die in the next 100 years? The incredible thing is you think "owning a home", "giving you kids a good education" and "enjoying life" are the peak of humanity's achivement. Well in fact all it does is ensure your civilisation's lack of longevity. If the West has no children to pass those values onto then all the West has achieved is a nice life for, say, max 125 years. You know a civilisation is in decline when even the people living in its juridiction can't even agree on the basics.
You arguments that banning abortion and notlowering the fertility rate are based on false assumptions: you think that banning something doesn't stop it? Don't you understand human nature? No, you don't.

(...continued)

Matthew said...

The Muslim growth in influence is exagerrated. Pakistan is stagnant compared to India, and the largest Muslim country (Indonesia) has a lower population than the USA. Indeed, the Muslim world has demonstrated a distinct lack of capacity for much entrepreneurship that isn't linked to oil revenues, except Malaysia which is almost 50% non-Muslim.

Let's get some other blunt facts out there: the top countries in the world for fertility are Muslim: think Mauritania, Afghanistan etc at around 6 births per woman. In 1970 the Muslim world comprised 15% of the worlds population and the West comprised 30%. Today the Muslim world comprises 20% of the world's population and the West comprises 20%. See the direction yet? In France today the fertility rate of all non-muslims is 1.8, while for Muslims it is 8.1. By 2027, 20% of France will be Muslim, while in around 40 years it will be majority Muslim. It's not hard to figure out why. Look at Britain: 30 years ago it had 80,000 Muslims, now it has 2.5 million; an increase of 3025% in 30 years (or 100% per year). If that rate is kept up then in 30 years time there will be 78.1 million Muslims in Britain: another majority Muslim country. Your "Western World" libertscott, is fast dissapearing before your eyes. Do you want me to give you the figures for Muslim population growth in the US? Societies that cannot have a birth rate of at least 2.11 will decline, while civilisations whose fertility rates are 1.9 or less have never managed to reverse that in all recorded human history , thereby ensuring their extinction. Welcome to New Zealand, Australia, Europe, Russia, North America as part of your own societies extinction. The non-Latino population in the United States has a fertility rate of 1.6; with the Latino immigrants, it reaches 2.11; which culture will survive in a country you clearly put a lot of hope in? It gets worse. A fertility rate of 1.3 or less is impossible to reverse because the people can't live long enough to reverse it as their economies will become top heavy with old people. Welcome Spain, Italy, Japan, and others with the rest of Western Europe heading the same way. In fact the entire European Union's fertility rate is 1.38, excluding the Muslims. What organisation at the UN has the biggest voting bloc? That's right, it's the Muslims. Do they see themselves as a political entity? Yes. Are they growing in number? Yes, Is the Western world declining in number? Yes. And you have the audacity to tell me Muslim growth in influence is exaggerated? Hard to believe that when in 100 years when there are too few Westerners left. Your "nice" liberal, inclusive, tolerant attitude goes out the window all of a sudden when you judge the world according your your worldview by calling Pakistan "stagnant". Shall I pass that onto my Pakistani colleague in Islamabad on Monday? Welcome to the rest of the planet: we all judge; so don't go kidding yourself that you are inclusive and join the club: that is how God made us: to find the truth; and it isn't your way or mine. You think in political terms by identifying countries like Indonesia and yet, the Muslim world, and Christians for that matter, see themselves first as citizens of other realities; one's you have not discovered, yet.

(...continued)

Matthew said...

What are you expecting, some grand war between religions for the final battle for who takes over the earth?

You said that, not me, and it tells me a lot about your ignorance of who Jesus is, and the worldview he espoused. The incredible thing is you think that is some ludicrous event that can be laughed at. As always, it is not a matter of what you think will happen, or even what I am expecting. Not only will the wheels of history roll on, but God's prophetic mandate will happen, whether you are around to see it in person or not. One only has to look at Isaiah's prophecies 700 years before Christ's birth predicting both his birth, death and resurrection to see who really is on control of the events of the future. Those prophecies are historical facts. One thing for sure: it isn't you, me, or either of our opinions that will give any indication of the future. I'm being blunt with you because pretty much nothing else is going to get through your sense that what is real today will always be there. Permanance is an illusion that the media foster, and you have accepted it.

Oh, you'll find that Christianity in the Western World is in decline, the point being that most remaining Christians do not identify as political Christians

Hahahahaha. Christianity, libertyscott, is not a "Western" religion. Never has been. Have you read "Eternity in their Hearts"? Have you even heard of the book? Thought not: go out and educate yourself. Christianity represents a worldview that has the world's biggest adherence to, and most of it is in the developing world. You know, all those countries where they don't have a nice house or a good education, or "enjoy life". Your worldview is so myopically western that you have reduced Christianity to some political movement in the shrinking west. Why would the world's biggest religion have anything in common with a western civilisation that cannot agree with itself and is doing its best to save the planet and have fewer children? Christianity is growing worldwide. Every 3 seconds there are 2 Christians added to their number, while every 4 seconds there is 1 non-religous/athiest/new-religionist added to their number. doesn't take too long to figure out who is growing in number. In fact Christianity is growing faster than any other worldview, which tells me its adherents have a far more optimistic view of the world.

Christianity is not some religious right that the media tells you exists in the US. It has as a worldview the greatest hope for every man, woman and child; it gives hope to the hopeless, love to the unloved (think of the 300 million "untouchables" in India), grace to those who find it too hard to try and be perfect, faith to those who find it hard to see what is left that is good in this world, the Son of God who dealt with humanity's sins, hatreds, lies once and for all at the Cross; it gives peace to those that seek God, assurance in the place of fear, acceptance where there is persecution. Jesus does more than love you, He has invented grace, the one word the world has not managed to sully or twist its meaning. There is nothing more you can do to to make God love you more, and there is nothing less you can do that would make God love you less. Seek Him while he may be found, don't turn your spirit away from the one who created you, instead accept His love in an open embrace. God bless you libertyscott.

libertyscott said...

Matthew: Part 1:

I don't "die out", I will die. I am not part of some grand collective. There is no such thing as society, just its individual members. If people choose not to reproduce then it is none of my business.

I'm not trying to own the reproductive abilities of others. Apparently you are. It is grotesque to call the removal of growing cells from a potential life that has no consciousness and no sentient qualities "killing" akin to murdering a baby. Once the foetus has a functioning brain, then we can start talking, but you grant moral equivalency to something that isn't what you claim it to be. It is a potential life, when it has a functioning brain it has rights, but they never override the right to life of the mother if that potential life threatens her life.

However, I suspect this opens up a Pandora's Box on its own.

MY civilisation's existence? NO. I do not exist to benefit "civilisation". Who are you to speak for "civilisation", when I could argue you hold beliefs I find grotesquely uncivilised and which now holds back humanity (albeit not as much as Islam)? You are NOT my leader, and I WILL be selfish. My life and my values are my first priority, otherwise I am a slave to others. How DARE you claim to be the saviour of civilisation?

Who has a socialist secularist worldview? I am sure you think the state should have a far bigger role than I do, and I doubt very much whether you'd abolish the welfare state, state health and education and privatise national parks. It's childish to claim your opponents are socialist, when you're probably as statist as any socialist.

The only way to secure life and humanity is through the embrace of reason and to have as the highest value life. You clearly reject reason since faith is what drives you, which is the antithesis of reason. You reject life since you are driven by what happens after life. Civilisation has only made enormous leaps forward during two periods: Ancient Greece/Rome, and the Enlightenment, both embracing the application of the mind. People can choose religion as a personal belief system, but government and humanity will only be driven forward when it embraces the mind, and embraces life.

libertyscott said...

PART 2: Pakistan IS stagnant, look at the economy. No country has static population growth rates. Japan had very high population growth in the 1930s, China today compared to China 30 years ago is quite different. However I understand your fear, but I don't think the answer is to breed.

Frankly, I'd rather focus on promoting freedom, secularism and reason throughout the world, than breed children I can't afford to look after. Of course breed away if you like. btw I do intend to have children when circumstances permit it.

PART 3: Matthew, Jesus was apparently a prophet who lived around 2000 years ago, who was butchered, and his followers believe his father was responsible for the butchery.

It is a ludicrous event, the future is not predestined. If it was then there is little point doing anything, if it isn't then God is a fairly impotent all powerful deity. Besides it is rather entertaining given Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God, with different prophets.

Please don't claim "historical facts" that don't have proof - like resurrection.

No I don't believe the earth will always be here. It is fairly well established that the Sun will swell up to be a red giant in about 5 billion years, boiling the oceans and destroying the atmosphere. The Bible didn't predict that because amazingly there was precious little science when the books selected for the Bible (don't forget the ones rejected for it) were written.

Sorry Matthew, I am an atheist. I am not a Christian because I have seen the acts of countless Christians spilling blood, embracing violence and wanting to initiate force against me and my loved ones. I have turned to science to explain the origins of the universe and life. I have found answers to ethics and morality in reason and in valuing life. I do not find a religion that worships sacrifice of a son for the acts of others, moral. I do not find a religion that is predicated on an attention seeking deity that demands you accept its love, or damns you to hell, moral. I cannot reconcile the all powerful and moral, permitting children to suffer horrible pain, torture and agony.

However, it is your fundamental right to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs you wish, as long as you do not use them to excuse initiating force or fraud against others. Funnily enough, I somehow don't believe you would respect the same for me. THAT is why I argue against you - because you want to initiate force, and because I do not believe your philosophical position can be defended through reason.

Now I'll quietly let myself out before the entire blog following throws stones at me :) (bearing in mind I have several Christian friends)

Lucia Maria said...

LibertyScott,

You don't need to leave. Any inappropriate stone throwing will be met with the overwhelming force of blog admin comment deletion.

XXX said...

> Please don't claim "historical facts" that don't have proof - like resurrection.

At least there were eye witnesses who written books about Jesus's death and resurrection. Unlike the claim by scientists about the first life happened by chance in some primordial soup some 3-4 billions years ago.

> I do not believe your philosophical position can be defended through reason.

Much more defensible than yours will ever be.

MrTips said...

LibertyScott

Sorry, i have only just noticed your question to me.
One source for my point earlier is here (it is the Dutch statistical year book for 2004):

http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/3C60B3E9-09E0-491F-87F2-99B8E54936A1/0/2004a3pub.pdf

On pg 87 of that doc you will find contraception and abortion stats. The note marked 1) indicates they have included menstrual regulations. Doctors in the Netherlands who perform abortions (97% of which belong to the abortion doctors union) are not required by law to report ALL menstrual based operations. They also recently tried to remove the 5-day waiting clause in the Dutch abortion law in which a woman MUST take 5-days to decide after the inital presentation. They lost.

Furthermore, you will see that the Dutch rate of contraception use in the last 18 years has risen, along with the rate of abortion. QED.

As for our philosophical stances, they have a reasoned base - you just haven't heard or read them. Not a criticism, just a fact.

Ozy Mandias said...

Liberty Scott.

Why is ignorance a good thing?

As people have already said nobody is talking about ignorance? Ignorance is what we are actually get at the moment.
Sex education needs to be balanced and thought through?? Why should Family Planning be funded by the government and other health providers not get a bean.

You talk about treating students with repect. Is that something being currently done through our sexuality education lessons?? From what I have seen a one sided point of view hardly treats students with respect.

Matthew said...

Matthew: Part 1:

I don't "die out", I will die. I am not part of some grand collective. There is no such thing as society, just its individual members. If people choose not to reproduce then it is none of my business.
This logic doesn’t check. If you, who are think it is OK to have less children, die, and other people who think like you die too, then you’re type of society/civilization etc will DIE OUT. If your statement that you are not part of some grand collective is true, then why are you trying to tell me that I am wrong? Furthermore, your statement that it is none of your business whether other people have children or not just means that you have no role, no influence, no relevance in the world around you. What a ridiculous position to state when in fact you are interacting with the world around you because it does matter to you.

I'm not trying to own the reproductive abilities of others. Apparently you are. It is grotesque to call the removal of growing cells from a potential life that has no consciousness and no sentient qualities "killing" akin to murdering a baby. Once the foetus has a functioning brain, then we can start talking, but you grant moral equivalency to something that isn't what you claim it to be. It is a potential life, when it has a functioning brain it has rights, but they never override the right to life of the mother if that potential life threatens her life.
Whoops, once “the foetus has a functioning brain” immediately shows your worldview up: which is we have a body and a mind/brain. Other worldviews, like Christianity, say we have a spirit, mind and body. And it is the spirit that is present at conception. You then impose your views on what constitutes a baby in the womb – another that is not you - regardless of whether that is in fact the truth or not. That is why a human being pre-birth has moral equivalency, because they have a spirit, and a developing body. Given their life, not your, is at stake in an abortion your opinion has no weight. Libertscott’s opinion vs life of human being: no contest. You really should check out Pam Reynold’s story.

Matthew said...

MY civilisation's existence? NO. I do not exist to benefit "civilisation". Who are you to speak for "civilisation", when I could argue you hold beliefs I find grotesquely uncivilised and which now holds back humanity (albeit not as much as Islam)? You are NOT my leader, and I WILL be selfish. My life and my values are my first priority, otherwise I am a slave to others. How DARE you claim to be the saviour of civilisation?
I am not the saviour of civilization!!! Jesus Christ is. And do you really want at your funeral the words “I WILL be selfish” read out as a summary of your life? Your selfishness, if replicated will tear this world apart, and you don’t care about that. No wonder the west is falling apart. Who wants to relate to people who don’t care about them. Who wants to spend time, give of themselves, show love, forgiveness and grace to someone who doesn’t care. And that’s the great irony, it is Jesus Christ who wants to, whether you care about him or not. And it is his followers who want to to, whether you care or not. Do you think that I can operate in some sort of super-controlling I have to have the world MY way? There is no way that is right, or even possible for me. Take me at my word or call me a liar. Your choice.

Who has a socialist secularist worldview? I am sure you think the state should have a far bigger role than I do, and I doubt very much whether you'd abolish the welfare state, state health and education and privatise national parks. It's childish to claim your opponents are socialist, when you're probably as statist as any socialist.
Oh dear, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. But in any case, I wouldn’t abolish social welfare, health, education but not exactly for the reasons that you think. In another sense, I would abolish them all. Christians are that way inclined I guess. Come and find out. Christianity is a worldview that is above the political environment of any generation, so this is why my answers seem so contradictory to you.

The only way to secure life and humanity is through the embrace of reason and to have as the highest value life. You clearly reject reason since faith is what drives you, which is the antithesis of reason. You reject life since you are driven by what happens after life. Civilisation has only made enormous leaps forward during two periods: Ancient Greece/Rome, and the Enlightenment, both embracing the application of the mind. People can choose religion as a personal belief system, but government and humanity will only be driven forward when it embraces the mind, and embraces life.

Matthew said...

Some more historical facts: Jesus did die on the cross, and he did rise again. The authorities could never produce the body. Furthermore, the disciples of Jesus were willing to go to their deaths and refused to recant his name. They were eye-witnesses of Jesus: can you really believe they would knowingly die for a lie; there is no logical way they would have been unaware of who Jesus was and what he achieved, because they were eye-witnesses. Therefore, there is no way they would not have been aware of the truth, and finally been willing to pay with their own lives because of it [the truth].Check the historical accuracy of the Bible from some academic sources before you go off on some tangent questioning the authenticity of it. This is the loic that brought me to Jesus Christ, yet it is faith at the same time. This simplistic “it’s either reason or faith” does not have the ability to represent the human conditions, unless you have convinced you have no spirit. It is simply insufficient to go with one or the other. Let’s look at Rome: on December 20, AD 107 Ignatius of Antoich, a Christian, was taken into the Flavian Amphitheatre (commonly known today as the Coliseum), and a trapdoor opened whereby the hunger-crazed lions were let into the arena. Ignatius patiently waited for his death, and duly he was set upon and killed. Hundreds dies this way, as do abortions kill human beings today, and you call that time a time where Civilisation (which apparently doesn’t exist because you said societies don’t exist a moment ago, but anyway) made an enormous leap? You clearly have placed mind above your spirit, and at the risk of really getting you angry you need to realize that path will lead you to a place of deep regret. God’s prayer, and mine (although I guess both are worth nothing to you) is that it won’t. Placing mind above spirit is what has caused all of humanity’s problems, caused innumerable griefs (I would know, I’ve experienced it myself) and led to selfishness. Do you have children? No need to tell me, but would you really want to tell them “I WILL be selfish”. Is that the crowning achievement of your life? With views like that, you will find that it will die out. No-one who is fundamentally selfish ever found someone else to take it onwards: it ends in extinction (through normal mortality).

Matthew said...

PART 2: Pakistan IS stagnant, look at the economy. No country has static population growth rates. Japan had very high population growth in the 1930s, China today compared to China 30 years ago is quite different. However I understand your fear, but I don't think the answer is to breed.

Frankly, I'd rather focus on promoting freedom, secularism and reason throughout the world, than breed children I can't afford to look after. Of course breed away if you like. btw I do intend to have children when circumstances permit it.

You simply can’t take the economy as the grand indicator of human happiness. It is more complex than that. As a person who has never voted for the socialist left, and for the last 5 general elections refused to vote for the right, that should surprise you.

PART 3: Matthew, Jesus was apparently a prophet who lived around 2000 years ago, who was butchered, and his followers believe his father was responsible for the butchery.

It is a ludicrous event, the future is not predestined. If it was then there is little point doing anything, if it isn't then God is a fairly impotent all powerful deity. Besides it is rather entertaining given Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God, with different prophets.

There is a subtle but important ability to hold two concepts in apparent contradiction to each other. God is all powerful, but he also respects human dignity, inasmuch he doesn’t force you to believe in him. I’ve watched people follow pure logic and reason to its end, and what do they arrive at: an inability to make a decision. Maybe you haven’t arrived there yet, but in life (which clearly you still have at least 60+ years given the average life expectancy for women in New Zealand) you will discover this to be true. For some issues. Watch out for them!
Look, Christianity is different to Islam and Judaism. Islam actually believes in a god that doesn’t exist, and it certainly isn’t God. Read the Qu’ran and the Bible and you’ll find they are two completely different worldviews. Judaism doesn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, even though the jewish prophets foretold his coming. Again, this is proof you have accepted lies from the media or internet of our age to support your belief system.

Please don't claim "historical facts" that don't have proof - like resurrection.
Please see my previous statements.

No I don't believe the earth will always be here. It is fairly well established that the Sun will swell up to be a red giant in about 5 billion years, boiling the oceans and destroying the atmosphere. The Bible didn't predict that because amazingly there was precious little science when the books selected for the Bible (don't forget the ones rejected for it) were written.
If science is so right, then explain why the MBR is detected coming to earth in all directions when the big bang emanated from a single point 14.7 billion years ago?

Matthew said...

Sorry Matthew, I am an atheist. I am not a Christian because I have seen the acts of countless Christians spilling blood, embracing violence and wanting to initiate force against me and my loved ones. I have turned to science to explain the origins of the universe and life. I have found answers to ethics and morality in reason and in valuing life. I do not find a religion that worships sacrifice of a son for the acts of others, moral. I do not find a religion that is predicated on an attention seeking deity that demands you accept its love, or damns you to hell, moral. I cannot reconcile the all powerful and moral, permitting children to suffer horrible pain, torture and agony.

However, it is your fundamental right to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs you wish, as long as you do not use them to excuse initiating force or fraud against others. Funnily enough, I somehow don't believe you would respect the same for me. THAT is why I argue against you - because you want to initiate force, and because I do not believe your philosophical position can be defended through reason.

The odd thing is, I would rather you persecute me for my faith, and make my physical life one of suffering. Indeed, if you used your beliefs to initiate “force or fraud” then I would be all the happier. The problem of evil, is, as I suggested earlier, due to God’s respect for the dignity of humanity. In saying that, I have been witness to him trying to stop me from doing something wrong, but it I possible through sheer willpower to ignore that and go ahead. There’s an interesting conumdrum around how an inifinte God makes himself known to you: a finite being. Think about it sometime.
It would be well worth rebutting my points than restating your beliefs. At the end of the day all I’m trying to do is show a worldview that is a blessing, not a curse. If any “Christian” is violent, or kills, then they do not know God, and have no relationship with him. Don’t mistake them for Christians. As this next week comes, listen to how many times you hear a person say “Jesus” or “God” in a derogatory sense. Why not Allah, or Buddha? It is because we live in a spiritual world as well as a world of thought and a world of the physical in front of our eyes. Don’t ignore the spiritual, it will only lead you to God if you investigate it.

ZenTiger said...

Sorry Matthew, I am an atheist. I am not a Christian because I have seen the acts of countless Christians spilling blood,

As if atheists are immune?

You are happy to assign murder and war to Christians, and yet you haven't seen fit to notice countless Christians in acts of countless charity?

Don't mistake you finding a supposedly better code of ethics to live by with an assumption that everyone will somehow abide by them because they are so reasonable, IMHO.

Angus said...

Good comments thread guys !

Liberty Scott offers the same reasonings which many secular-progressive "athiests" make.

I recommend Dalrymples article titled "What The New Atheists Don't See"

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html

Dalrymple is a non-believer himself, but the article is worthy of reading regardless of whether one is religious, atheistic or agnostic(such as myself)

I.M Fletcher said...

Sorry Matthew, I am an atheist. I am not a Christian because I have seen the acts of countless Christians spilling blood,

That must be one of the weirdest things I've seen someone write.
I know Christians have spilled innocent blood over the years, but compared to what Atheism and those who don't believe in God have spilled it is as nothing. And yes i am taking into account the Salem Witch Trials, all the Crusades, the Inquisition etc. Check out this article. He runs the numbers and does the math.

Snippett -

China under Mao Tse Tung, 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death 66.7 million people. Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million Cambodians. The Chinese at two different times in medieval history, somewhere in the vicinity of 35 million and 40 million people. Ladies and gentlemen, make note that these deaths were the result of organizations or points of view or ideologies that had left God out of the equation. None of these involve religion. And all but the very last actually assert atheism.


So -

It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.


Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn stated the following in relation to atheism:

Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.

Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

libertyscott said...

(tiptoes in) well I thought I should at least see what I provoked, from something that was simply about wanting young people given all the information they ask about sex.

XXX: Yep, there were eye witnesses to all sorts of things written in books over many years. Dragons and unicorns and all sorts of fantastic creatures. Simply saying you have more reason isn't an argument.

Mr Tips: Thank you, that is interesting. Although I am sure we differ on when abortion could be morally defensible.

Ozy Mandias: I wouldn't have the state fund any healthcare including Family Planning, or indeed abortion. Doesn't mean I'd ban it, I'd probably donate to it myself, but it would address what you raised.

Matthew I'll deal with separately (too big for one response).

Zen: Atheism is the absence of a supernatural belief. It is a strawman to attribute everyone without a set of beliefs to have anything else in common. Of course Christians have acted in charity, they have used their religion to justify charity and murder. Indeed, objectivists have used that philosophy to justify being for and against the war in Iraq. I think the really interesting point is why should people follow any system of ethics. I am arguing because it is rational, but notwithstanding that the state has to exist to deal with those who act irrationally. Some Christians argue people follow its system of ethics out of fear of the afterlife.

IM Fletcher: Same point as Zen. Atheism isn't a philosophy like Islam or Marxism-Leninism or fascism or capitalism or Christianity or the like. It is the absence of a belief in the supernatural. Beyond that one has to have other philosophical beliefs even if they are sadistic, which of course more than a few Christians gleefully took from the brutal parts of the Bible. No atheist who engaged in mass murder or those who argue for secular ethics is just atheist, they are atheist and Marxist-Leninist or atheist and objectivist or the like. Atheism gives me nothing. It's like saying I don't drink alcohol, it doesn't tell me what i should drink or eat.

I wouldn't institutionalise atheism (Albania did once), it's a nonsense, but a secular state is absolutely critical so that it is guided by reason, not personal belief systems.

libertyscott said...

Matthew (part 1): You missed the point. It is not my business to tell people to have children. It is their bodies, their lives, their money. That is all I am saying. I don't believe people should breed for reasons others than themselves, not because others say they should. Children shouldn't be brought up out of obligation, they should be brought up out of love of them.

You believe in a spirit, there is no objective evidence for this. There is for a body and brain. Fine for you, but don't expect laws to be made based on a belief, rather than a verifiable fact. Does this "spirit" get created once the egg is fertilised or is every sperm and egg sacred? Given you are basing this on anything but science, you can imagine my scepticism.

Given I probably would have been aborted had it been legal and free at the time, I don't think you can tell me the position I come from with an opinion on this. You no doubt think an anencephalic child should not be aborted, or one with harlequin's syndrome - despite the former being completely without consciousness and the latter most likely to suffer agonising death over several days after birth. You might want to dismiss these as extreme, but if you are going to grant spirit to them all, tell me how this manifests itself?

libertyscott said...

Matthew: (between 1 and 2). You quote a dictatorial period of Ancient Rome, I said Ancient Greece. So what? Quite irrelevant. Dictatorial Rome was a thieving brutalised city that collapsed due to its own contradictions.

I would assert that unless you put mind above spirit, you face doom. Abandon reason and you perish. Selfishness is NOT the warped definition you have of abusing others to get what you want, but pursuing the value of your life in mutual respect of others. Human benevolence is selfish because you give to others as it gives back to you. I reject the orgy of sacrifice you appear to worship. Jesus dying for the sins of others is an appalling story, what father sacrifices the one he loves so much for other people - it's a disgrace. People should be accountable for their own behaviour.

libertyscott said...

Matthew: (part 2) Don't understand the point about who you didn't vote for. (part 3) "I’ve watched people follow pure logic and reason to its end, and what do they arrive at: an inability to make a decision" I would argue they failed to follow reason to its end WITH the values they hold. Values are important, and they come from reason as well.

You can't evade that Judaism, Christianity and Islam have similar roots, and go off in different ways. Though I am curious as to why this all powerful god would let millions of people live and die exposed to a vast collection of religions, and only "present" itself once in Palestine 2000 or so years ago. It is rather peculiar, it's as if Christians didn't know the Far East ever existed - which of course they didn't until Marco Polo.

The absence of a body does not prove resurrection, countless bodies have never been found through history, doesn't mean people have been resurrected. To claim this is a proven fact based on the utterances in an old book is fanciful. It is simply faith that Jesus Christ was resurrected. I can respect understanding the difference between faith and fact.

Nobody in science ever claims to know everything, but funnily enough knowledge continues to build up over time. Only the deranged think the earth is flat and the centre of the universe, but it was once "knowledge" that got one persecuted by those leading a certain church. Only the simple and blind think the earth is a few thousand years old now, and in time the "intelligent design" quackery will fade into oblivion. The difference is scientists often concede they are wrong - Newtonian physics couldn't explain everything, neither can relativity, and quantum theory takes things another leap on in terms of knowing what we don't know. Onwards and upwards though, and always exciting it is.

libertyscott said...

Matthew (final): "The odd thing is, I would rather you persecute me for my faith, and make my physical life one of suffering" than what? That statement is rather psychologically disturbing.

"Indeed, if you used your beliefs to initiate “force or fraud” then I would be all the happier" No doubt, but that would be contradictory. Initiating force or fraud would mean I hold different beliefs to what I hold. It is like saying I wish as a vegetarian than you ate meat. One cannot be one and do the other.

"If any “Christian” is violent, or kills, then they do not know God, and have no relationship with him. Don’t mistake them for Christians." Well violence or killing in self defence is moral, but I take what you mean. However, you understand it is easy to see a history littered with "Christians" who spilled blood gleefully. The Bible in fact glorifies many reported examples of brutality as well. This gives rise to some of the scepticism I hold.

I think people say "Jesus" or "God" in exclamation because we live in historically Judeo-Christian communities. It is different in communities with other religious heritages. Though I'd happily cry out "Lenin" instead.

Indeed, Matthew if you believe in the non-initiation of force, as a Christian, then we are a long way in parallel in terms of a system of ethics.

Finally. Thank you for the debate. It does somewhat fire me up, but I do think it is helpful and useful to discuss what underpins different points of view. As such, it provides a basis for understanding why two people think so differently about abortion.

and ty for the blog for letting me have my say. I always appreciate it, and I am glad that 99% of the time people play the thought not the man in here :)

ZenTiger said...

Zen: Atheism is the absence of a supernatural belief. It is a strawman to attribute everyone without a set of beliefs to have anything else in common.

Atheism does not mean an absence of beliefs though. It is just as much a strawman to suggest an absence of a belief in God somehow makes people more "reasonable", or rational.

Equally, I place great importance on the blend of both faith and reason. Having faith does not preclude reason.

I'll come back to your point when I have time and see if I can expand on mine a little better.

Lucia Maria said...

LS,

I'm happy for people to let loose, as you and Matthew both have.

However, there are a number of inaccuracies and errors in your understanding of Christianity in general, even down to the historical (ie, Christians have never believed the earth was flat, nor persecuted those who didn't).

There are a couple of things I'd love to address ... but, have to teach Maths to my 8yo now, and make sure my 12yo does his.

Maybe tonight.

libertyscott said...

Lucia: Ty. Yes priorities. Yes, indeed I have just read a little and it appears while some talked of a flat earth others talked of a round one (disc or sphere who knows) and that this wasn't really a big deal. Fair point.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.