tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post4966157012006169699..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-81634796442963395372015-07-09T12:36:38.686-07:002015-07-09T12:36:38.686-07:00Yes, I made a mistake. Nowhere in the original co...Yes, I made a mistake. Nowhere in the <i>original</i> constitution, as approved by the congress, was there any mention of God. That's the point I was making. It was a thoroughly secular document. It was the fanaticism of religious people that began the slide down that slippery slope toward institutionalizing religious beliefs in government. That was exactly what the founders meant to avoid. That was one of the biggest types of oppression in the governments of Europe that we were trying to get away from. Freedom of religion <i>requires</i> that we not impose any religious standards. This is what people like you don't seem to understand.<br /><br />As for changing the topic, it was you who led us off into a series of sideline discussions. You never even tried to answer the central question that I posed: What freedom have you lost due to this decision? What can you not do today that you could a month ago? Instead of answering, you post links to articles that may be interesting, but don't specifically address the topic at hand. Or you pose questions of your own, out of the blue. And then when I try to respond to those things, you tell me <i>I'm changing the subject ???</i> Sheesh!.<br /><br />The fact of the matter is that you don't ever directly answer my questions. What does the bible count as people? I gave you clear evidence that they didn't count fetuses or newborns (OK- it's one month), and your reply is 1) a fetus can jump for joy inside the womb, and 2) counts of fighting men didn't include newborns either. A three-month fetus can't possibly jump for joy. Even if it had consciousness (which it doesn't) it doesn't have the physical development to jump around at that early stage. And a count of warriors is not the same as a count of population. So, I'd say you are groping for some counter-argument, but failing to provide adequate answers.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-6536716886164765612015-07-09T11:58:39.946-07:002015-07-09T11:58:39.946-07:00no matter what your book of superstitious nonsense...<i>no matter what your book of superstitious nonsense says</i><br /><br />But that's exactly what we're discussing here. You made the claim that "The [B]ible doesn't count infants as persons until a few months after birth." Since we're now talking about what The Bible actually does have to say on the subject, it is necessary for me to refer to actual scripture. You may not care what it has to say or agree with it, but you have no right to say The Bible says something that it clearly does not. <br /><br /><i>That's because many of them were not expected to survive.</i><br /><br />And just what does that have to do with whether a newborn is a person or not? I can make a count of death row inmates, none of whom are expected to long survive, or of a hospice center, where the same statistic applies. Does that mean these people are not persons?<br /><br /><i>worming and squirming</i><br /><br /><b>???????</b><br /><br />I'm not "worming and squirming" in the least. I am confidently and boldly <i>declaring</i> my beliefs. Rest assured that nothing I've written here has caused me the smallest bit of discomfort. The only squirming I can see in this specific conversation is all on your side, in your attempts to change the subject, toss out red herrings right and left, and close down dialog with loaded language ("superstitious"). You started this whole thread out with the false claim that the US Constitution did not mention God, then you moved on to inventing alternate histories out of thin air ("if past generations of Catholic scientists were alive today, they'd all be atheists"), and now you've decided to tell a person who spends a minimum of an hour a day reading The Bible what it supposedly says!<br /><br />As Papalinton would say, "Sheesh!"planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-46457863053539958262015-07-09T08:23:14.268-07:002015-07-09T08:23:14.268-07:00Your worming and squirming doesn't avoid the f...Your worming and squirming doesn't avoid the fact that a fetus is not a person.<br /><br />A three-month fetus is not a person, regardless of your superstitious beliefs. No three-month fetus experiences joy, no matter what your book of superstitious nonsense says.<br /><br />And it wasn't different times and places where they had different penalties for killing - I told you about one single time and place where they had different penalties for killing a person and killing a fetus. And don't even try to conflate a count of population with a count of fighting men. It was the population count where they excluded newborn infants. That's because many of them were not expected to survive.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-33708262845208830122015-07-09T06:14:28.849-07:002015-07-09T06:14:28.849-07:00But Jesus was always a person, according to your d...<i>But Jesus was always a person, according to your dogma.</i><br /><br />Correct, He is the Second <i>Person</i> of the Holy Trinity. But... and this gets to my question about when does human life begin, He wasn't a <i>human being</i> until the Annunciation. And your objection doesn't even mention John, who in that passage is most definitely a person in the third month of pregnancy. (A "growth of the body of the mother" cannot experience joy - only a living person can.)<br /><br />Your other two points say nothing about whether a fetus is a human life or not. Heck, throughout history, there have been differing penalties for killing even <i>adults</i> under differing circumstances, let alone preborn people. And as for census data, once again, that's a matter of who you're trying to count. In David's census of Israel in the Book of Samuel, they only counted military age males. ("In Israel there were eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand." (2 Samuel 24:9)) That doesn't mean that David thought 60 year old grandfathers or 10 year old girls weren't human beings. They just weren't people he was interesting in counting.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-13593237938250725722015-07-08T21:07:23.818-07:002015-07-08T21:07:23.818-07:00But Jesus was always a person, according to your d...But Jesus was always a person, according to your dogma. He didn't have to wait for a fetus to be delivered.<br /><br />Exodus says that the punishment for murder is death, but there is a lesser punishment for destroying a fetus (21-22).<br /><br />Numbers 3:15 is an example of not counting newborn infants as part of the population.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-27203831186486469782015-07-08T19:07:25.894-07:002015-07-08T19:07:25.894-07:00The bible doesn't count infants as persons unt...<i>The bible doesn't count infants as persons until a few months after birth.</i><br /><br />You need to actually read your Bible before making stupid statements like that - specifically Luke 1:39-44.<br /><br />In those days [i.e., immediately after the Annunciation, so she is only a few days pregnant at most] Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? <b>For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.</b><br /><br />Leaped for joy? At only three months in the womb? Well, that places personhood in the Bible to at least the first trimester. But wait, why did John leap for joy? Because he sensed the presence of Jesus in Mary's womb - <i>who is at most one week into her own pregnancy</i>!<br /><br />So no, contrary to your ridiculous statement, the Bible acknowledges the humanity of a fetus at the very earliest stages of pregnancy.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-20448608888877226022015-07-07T20:34:31.894-07:002015-07-07T20:34:31.894-07:00Life is a continuum. It has no beginning point. ...Life is a continuum. It has no beginning point. The fertilization of an egg is simply one milestone in the development of life, but it is neither a necessary nor sufficient step in the making of a human being.<br /><br />Personhood is a different question. Certainly a living thing that has no consciousness cannot be said to be a person. US law has always defined personhood as beginning at the time of birth. The bible doesn't count infants as persons until a few months after birth. Before birth, the fetus is a growth of the body of the mother that can <i>potentially</i> become a separate person, but it is not separate as long as it remains attached to the mother.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-87355591091604267162015-07-07T19:56:17.691-07:002015-07-07T19:56:17.691-07:00Just curious - when do you say that human life beg...Just curious - when do you say that human life begins?planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-58681521516937689312015-07-07T08:52:50.958-07:002015-07-07T08:52:50.958-07:00Right. Your church dogma places higher value on f...Right. Your church dogma places higher value on formless flesh than on living, breathing people.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-22892375193664806102015-07-07T08:41:07.602-07:002015-07-07T08:41:07.602-07:00You know, I'm in a good mood this morning, so ...You know, I'm in a good mood this morning, so I'll make it even easier for you, and answer both my question and yours simultaneously.<br /><br />Murder and theft are declared to be sinful by the Church. But it is <i>in accordance with dogma</i> that they are. So murder is not somehow "in conflict" with dogma, but its condemnation is rather a consequence of dogma. Same deal with theft, or adultery, or idolatry, or lying, or dishonoring one's parents... or engaging in stem cell research. <br /><br />Why the last item on the list? Because the Church affirms the humanity and personhood of all human life, from conception to death. She therefore adamantly opposes all infanticide, murder, abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia. Stem cell research is predicated upon the destruction of viable human embryos, which are living human beings, <b>and is therefore murder</b>. As the US Conference of Catholic Bishops stated (referring to stem cell research), "Once we cross the fundamental moral line that prevents us from treating any fellow human being as a mere object of research, there is no stopping point. The only moral stance that affirms the human dignity of all of us is to reject the first step down this path." "Doctor" Mengele would have <i>loved</i> to conduct such research.<br /><br />So, see? No conflict with dogma. None whatsoever.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-61841794210824253802015-07-07T08:07:28.281-07:002015-07-07T08:07:28.281-07:00Oh, no. You can't answer a question by asking ...Oh, no. You can't answer a question by asking different question, and thus sidetracking the conversation to a different issue. You first. I was curious as to which church dogma stem cell research is supposed to be in conflict with, as you claimed it to be. I can't think of any. Do you even know what the word "dogma" means?<br /><br />I'll even make it easy for you. For Catholics, Church dogma is succinctly summarized in the Nicene Creed. Everything the Church has ever taught can be found in its lines, either explicitly or by inference. In fact, <i>The Catechism of the Catholic Church</i> is actually structured along the lines of the Creed, with various sub-headings attached to each clause. With which clause of the Nicene Creed is stem cell research in conflict?<br /><br />I promise you, once you answer my question, I'll answer yours.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-65823876056083071442015-07-07T07:27:46.130-07:002015-07-07T07:27:46.130-07:00Wasn't it you proclaiming how evil it is to en...Wasn't it you proclaiming how evil it is to engage in research that might eventually save millions of lives? You tell me why it is so evil.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-23765147970989815172015-07-07T05:42:14.168-07:002015-07-07T05:42:14.168-07:00Please identify which dogma(s) stem cell research ...Please identify which dogma(s) stem cell research is supposed to be in conflict with.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-21225886880114762672015-07-06T21:57:10.894-07:002015-07-06T21:57:10.894-07:00Yes, they hope more people will be filling their c...Yes, they hope more people will be filling their collection plates.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-65053856934626060052015-07-06T21:56:21.124-07:002015-07-06T21:56:21.124-07:00That's what they said about Galileo and Darwin...That's what they said about Galileo and Darwin.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-77280076431558732042015-07-06T20:55:09.811-07:002015-07-06T20:55:09.811-07:00By the way, here is an excellent article about the...By the way, <a href="http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/nine-lessons-from-the-obergefell-decision" rel="nofollow">here</a> is an excellent article about the recent supreme court decision which gives nine reasons for hope in the face of this disaster. Knowing in advance you won't do so, I nevertheless highly recommend that you read it slowly and carefully. There is much wisdom here.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-3804675115035396732015-07-06T19:26:16.181-07:002015-07-06T19:26:16.181-07:00I oppose the research you linked to as well. It do...I oppose the research you linked to as well. It does not conflict with any "dogma" - it is simply objectively evil, and should not be pursued.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-33445540537576741282015-07-06T17:44:12.953-07:002015-07-06T17:44:12.953-07:00As Papalinton said, the facts are not inconvenient...As Papalinton said, the facts are not inconvenient. As I explained, it is by no means surprising that in an an era when there were virtually no atheists, there would be no atheist scientists. The church has been a patron of science, it is true, but only to the extent that it doesn't conflict with their dogma. In the dark ages, they sponsored astronomy, not to learn the secrets of the cosmos, but to be able to calculate the date of Easter. Galileo's work was not well received, until the church eventually found it impossible to deny the science, and they modified their dogma accordingly. The same is true of Darwin. After fighting it, they were forced eventually to grudgingly accept the fact of evolution, and change their dogma accordingly. If you listen to them today, you'd think they have always been champions of science. But the reality is that they <a href="http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/816571/11785704/1303153798667/fs_medical_research_threatens.pdf?token=9rTNrAfNN%2BfraXsDCYQgLrJiZmI%3D" rel="nofollow">still oppose scientific research</a> when it conflicts with their dogma. This is the inconvenient truth that you are loath to admit.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-66268871877806019592015-07-06T16:35:26.712-07:002015-07-06T16:35:26.712-07:00The facts are by no means inconvenient.
But to im...<i>The facts are by no means inconvenient.</i><br /><br />But to im-skeptical, they are - very much so. He doesn't care for the <b>fact</b> that so many prominent scientists were theists, even Christians, even (gasp) Catholics... often members of the clergy! So he makes up a convenient fantasy about how "if they were alive today" they wouldn't be. See? That's what I meant by "making up your own reality." Don't care for what's plainly on the record? Substitute your imagination.<br /><br />How convenient.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-59473402386723248452015-07-06T01:23:10.620-07:002015-07-06T01:23:10.620-07:00Plank says: "Must be nice to be able to make...Plank says: <i>"Must be nice to be able to make up your own reality when actual facts are inconvenient."</i><br /><br />The facts are by no means inconvenient. It is how they are acknowledged and used that is paramount. It is christian apologetics that is irreconcilably problematic; it is a fundamentally flawed historical process through which the actual facts are defiled and corrupted. Christianity is little more than a hackneyed, weary and overworked Game of Thrones that far fewer today are buying into anymore, preferring rightly for a much brighter and more imaginative proxy for their daily fill of entertainment.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-8562178020090376112015-07-05T19:23:35.330-07:002015-07-05T19:23:35.330-07:00If three centuries from now the evidence shows tha...If three centuries from now the evidence shows that Catholicism is more correct that atheism, I will concede that that would be the correct thing to believe. But the fact of the matter is that science has already moved us <b>away</b> from the ancient superstitions.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-53745100559732259482015-07-05T19:10:55.357-07:002015-07-05T19:10:55.357-07:00Many of them, had they lived in more recent times,...<i>Many of them, had they lived in more recent times, would surely have been atheists.</i><br /><br />Must be nice to be able to make up your own reality when actual facts are inconvenient. How about if someone said this 300 years from now? "Many 21st Century scientists, had they lived our modern, enlightened world where atheism has long been thoroughly discredited, would surely have been devout Catholics."<br /><br />See how easy that is?planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-12886955307128889532015-07-05T18:37:21.565-07:002015-07-05T18:37:21.565-07:00Way many more were than are. In your list, you mig...Way many more were than are. In your list, you might notice that the majority are from before the 20th century. Compare that to a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_atheists" rel="nofollow">list of atheists</a> from a variety of arts and professions (and this list is by no means comprehensive). The majority of them are from the past century. There are reasons for that. Until the 19th century, the scientific evidence wasn't so conclusive, so there were very few atheists. It's not surprising, then, that most scientists were theists. Many of them, had they lived in more recent times, would surely have been atheists. Also, for the majority of history, it would have been a death sentence (or at least the end of one's professional life) to publicly state that you were atheist. I'd be willing to bet that some of the people on your list were not so devout in their religious belief.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-20723980205416948902015-07-05T18:30:25.781-07:002015-07-05T18:30:25.781-07:00All great men, no argument there. However, for th...All great men, no argument there. However, for them, being a christian as it has always been was an accident of birth and history. One couldn't be anything but with life so dominated by the hegemony of christian thought. They observed the salutary lesson of history that should they try to cash out their beliefs they would have been summarily dealt with. Christian history is filled with the murder of people who believed the wrong belief, or who didn't propitiate to the 'right' god. They were murdered for thought crimes. <br /><br />Thankfully today, the joy of the maturing community is becoming less obsessed with perpetuation of supernatural superstition as a model for living and are far more concerned with vigorously and properly protecting civil and human rights and the true and inalienable freedoms around which they are founded. Bigotry, discrimination and anti-social behaviour dressed as religious freedom is no longer tolerated.<br /><br />We are, now, truly tasting what freedom means. We are, now, at last, able to let freedom ring.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-17781735054099723082015-07-05T16:07:15.468-07:002015-07-05T16:07:15.468-07:00As much as you want to remain blind to reality in ...As much as you want to remain blind to reality in the cozy little cocoon of your religious delusion, overpopulation is a serious threat to the health of every living thing. Mankind is wreaking <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33209548" rel="nofollow">serious damage</a>, and the Catholic church in particular stands against all reasonable efforts to bring this dangerous situation under control.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com