In an impassioned plea before a US court, a born-again Christian argued on Thursday that he had killed a prominent abortion doctor because he wanted to save the lives of unborn babies.
Is that suppose to sway rational people? We live in the 21st century and we are still inflicted with this madness people call religion. :-\
A person who did the same thing in the USA and used the same defense,was executed for murder. Hopefully the courts can still see through this idiot’s delusion. The sad part is that Christians will still defend this kind of thing because their irrational faith causes a kind of cognitive dissonance. It’s once again a case of “good people doing bad things because of religion”.
The delusion of religion would be harmless if it were not for this kind of thing. It’s almost as if witch-burning is still lurking beneath the seemingly peaceful waters of Christianity - we never know what these idiots are going to do next “in the name of God”. And Christians still have the gall to call Islam immoral … hah!
Let’s see what the numbers can tell us about this abortion issue.
The latest list of statistics in the CIA World Factbook (2009) (select “WORLD” from the “— SELECT A COUNTRY OR LOCATION —” drop-down listbox) gives the following world human population data:
At the given population growth rate, this means that the world population size a year before in July 2008 was about 6,790,062,216/(1+1.133/100) = 6,790,062,216/1.01133 = 6,713,992,700. The average world population size over that period was near enough (6,790,062,216+6,713,992,700)/2 = 6,752,027,500, and the nett population increase was about 76,100,000 people. This increase is made up of near enough 6,752,027,500/1,000×19.86 = 134,100,000 births, offset by about 58,000,000 deaths.
However, for each 1,000 live births, 44.13 die during infancy, so that the number of surviving births represents (1,000-44.13)/1,000 = 955.87/1,000 of the total live births. Hence, the 134,100,000 births contributing to population growth was made up of 134,100,000×1,000/955.87 = 140,290,000 live births and 6,190,000 infant deaths.
Among several similar sites, Shared Journey, a human fertility resource, reports that an estimated 15 to 20 per cent of pregnancies come to an end (before the 21st week of gestation) in a miscarriage. Being generous and using the lower figure of 15 per cent, this means that the 140,290,000 live births calculated above constitute no more than 85 per cent of pregnancies, so that the total number of pregnancies was 140,290,000/0.85 = 165,047,000 of which 165,047,000×0.15 = 24,757,000 ended in miscarriage. If we use the upper miscarriage figure of 20 per cent, the total number of pregnancies climbs to 175,362,000 with 35,072,000 ending in miscarriage. In addition, the number of infants who died is 6,190,000. Grouping miscarriages and infants together under the fitting label of “The Sinless,” we find that, at present, between about 30,950,000 and 41,260,000 such innocents die each year. Thirty-one to forty-one million miscarriages and infant deaths per year, and that proportion would be considerably higher were it not for science-based, god-free medicine. In comparison, the relevant numbers handled by all hospitals and abortion clinics together pale into insignificance.
It should also not be necessary to add that deaths of The Sinless are predominantly and directly against the wishes of the (expectant) mother, who is often severely traumatised when such a tragedy befalls her.
The conclusion to be drawn from the above is that a personal god, if s/he exists, is far and away the most prolific, craven, callously infanticidal and indiscriminate abortionist ever to bloody the pages of history. Ironically, anti-abortionists are very often religiously motivated, citing what they believe to be their god’s word as their moral font, and they will no doubt manufacture some excuse on his/her behalf to make the numbers look as though they lie. Even more ironical is the resultant violation of the admonition against bearing false witness.
'Luthon64
If any person had any law (either divinely inspired or secularly derived by whatever means) that stated: You are not allowed to murder another human being…end of discussion, and then goes ahead and claim that murder is for the greater good, is either stupid or insane irrespective of his/her religion, creed or beliefs.
Unfortunately this stupid or insane person used his religion as an excuse and now opened the door for all kinds of people to come up with unwarranted misrepresentations and bad generalizations.
Some Christians might defend this kind of thing, they do so irrationally. Claiming that the majority do or even close to the majority would be a sad misrepresentation.
Good people do bad things all the time because of various factors. Religion can hardly compete with money and greed.
I don’t think there is any person on this forum that can call anybody else immoral. If you do, by whose authority and whose standards? Your own? A collection of similar minded bigots like yourself? I thought not.
Who the hell does this?
Unfortunately this stupid or insane person used his religion as an excuse and now opened the door for all kinds of people to come up with unwarranted misrepresentations and bad generalizations.Imagine there was no religion though, we'd not have this discussion. Crazy people would do crazy stuff for other reasons but we won't have religious crazy people. Win win all around.
I don't think there is any person on this forum that can call anybody else immoral. If you do, by whose authority and whose standards? Your own? A collection of similar minded bigots like yourself? I thought not.Of course I can. And do so easily. You shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot do.
Human beings.
Imagine if there were no beliefs, ideals and goals (purpose driven goals towards something, not soccer goals dufus) etc… Funny how you are an anti-religious fundamentalist but not an anti-belief, anti-ideals, anti-goals etc. fundamentalist?
Btw, could you run that reason by us one more time why you are not a philosophical materialist of philosophical naturalist? Didn’t you say both take it too far or something like that? Still waiting for an actual reason though and I am sure the other… erm materialists here want to know as well… Wouldn’t want people to think you are just a boring contrarian of some sort now…
By whose authority and whose standards are you allowed to be such a bigot? Your own? A collection of similar minded bigots like yourself?
Really? Now all that is left is for you to prove this stupid assertion. That would be swell.
Funny how you are an anti-religious fundamentalist but not an anti-belief, anti-ideals, anti-goals etc. fundamentalist?What exactly is funny about that? Your failure to understand? That is kinda funny yeah.
Btw, could you run that reason by us one more time why you are not a philosophical materialist of philosophical naturalist? Didn't you say both take it too far or something like that? Still waiting for an actual reason though and I am sure the other... erm materialists here want to know as well... Wouldn't want people to think you are just a boring contrarian of some sort now...Asked and answered.
By whose authority and whose standards are you allowed to be such a bigot? Your own? A collection of similar minded bigots like yourself?Why the fuck do I need any authority to do this?
Damn, are you drunk again and the bar is too far to go look for piss and a fight? Honestly now, that the other forumites here haven’t actually pointed out to you that there are actual human beings that believe they are not allowed to murder other human beings is a bit sad. I donno, maybe they are smoking pot or shooting some coke?
So…, you are not a philosophical materialist or a philosophical naturalist because…? At least help the other materialists to understand.
And hey man, if you want to be a bigot without reason… so be it. You are apparently delusional (after all you have said you are quite afew times before), so no need to give reasons.
How exactly is it an “unwarranted misrepresentation” or a “bad generalization” to say that religion can and does harm people? Or that it is often instrumental both in provoking and in sustaining conflict, invariably in blatant contradiction of its purported tenets concerning peace, love and harmony? That it is rarely effective in curbing disputes? How exactly is it a “sad misrepresentation” to say, as Sam Harris does, that moderate believers give considerable shelter to their more radical and fundamentalist peers simply because they in effect are saying that it’s okay unquestioningly to believe propositions that are ab initio unintelligible, absurd and evidence-free?
No dodging now, see? Including any “not my religion” ploys or mass-appeal cons. Otherwise…
'Luthon64
bad generalization: Christians will still defend this kind of thing
Actually, some Christians will still defend this kind of thing (without warrant), however the majority (and rightly so) of Christians do not defend this kind of thing precisely because they believe murder is wrong.
All kinds of fundamentalism brings harm, including religious fundamentalism. Anti-religious bigots and fundumbmentalists tend to focus on a subgroup of fundamentalism and then tend to come up with bad generalizations and misrepresentations… which is sad unfortunately. Not all though, there are a few with a backbone. Finding one here though… well we are going to need SETI’s methodology to find that >:D
Poor old Sammy and his blunt axe he is trying to grind might as well apply the same “logic” to secular fundumbmentalists. Of course, in the eyes of the interlopers of this site, there is no such a thing as secular fundumentalism right?
No I am not. See why I said this is irrelevant? You cannot tell when I am drunk or not and you loose either way, which is actually embarrassing.
Honestly now, that the other forumites here haven't actually pointed out to you that there are actual human beings that believe they are not allowed to murder other human beings is a bit sad. I donno, maybe they are smoking pot or shooting some coke?Are you quote mining [b]yourself[/b] now?? (wtf!!)
Let’s try again as it is Friday.
telic - You are not allowed to murder another human being…end of discussion, and then goes ahead and claim that murder is for the greater good
me - Who the hell does this?
telic - Humans
me - prove it
telic – quote mines himself
Once again: Who says You are not allowed to murder another human being…end of discussion, and then goes ahead and claim that murder is for the greater good
Damn, all those years of drug and alcohol abuse must be getting to you. You sound like a drunk lunatic all the time now.
Saving lives is a greater good not, or are you a bit too dense to understand that as well and need an explanation for why saving lives is good.
If you just happen to agree that saving lives is a greater good, then even you can understand how the idiot in the opening post is a Christian (Christians believe murder is wrong/evil/not good etc.) and believed that murder was for the greater good. Your example was in your post dumbass. Unless of course the guy was not really a Christian and think murder is not wrong or evil or bad etc.
It’s one thing to have a debate, but…
Damn, all those years of drug and alcohol abuse must be getting to you. You sound like a drunk lunatic all the time now.
…I think this comment is way out of line. Teleological, you should be ashamed!!! >:( >:( >:( >:(
mdg
Really why? Why all of a sudden this “judgement”? All mighty and high now are we? Surely you are not so blind to see that this is a common tactic of interlopers at this site in “debates” if that is what you want to call it? When in Rome…
Go try and put some other person here on some kind of guilt trip and see if they care… be consistent for a change and get of your high horse for a moment thanks.
Really why?
Well what does it have to do with the OP?
Do you all of a sudden care if a post is relevant or not? Once again this impartiality of yours is glaring. At least try and show that you can be even remotely consistent with these “criticisms” of yours. I mean, what have you said that was relevant to the OP anyway? Hypocrite.
Hypocrite.
So that’s how you deal with criticism, name calling and personal attacks? I might not have said anything relevant to the OP (which I thought made for an interesting discussion),but at the same time, personal attacks such as that comment, and others, are unnecessary and don’t add anything to the discussion.
Hold on, if you want to at least be consistent and credible (and not look like an impartial bigot) in these little sermons of yours, then you should at least dish them out in a regular fashion here at skeptics.za.org. Surely you are not so blind and not see that name calling and personal attacks are not a way of dealing with criticism, but a way of life for the interlopers here. When in Rome…
You have added nothing to this discussion and then wish to lecture others (albeit impartially) on how name calling and personal attacks adds nothing? Go try that tactic out on cyggiepop, he might fall for it ok.
And get of that high horse of yours. Trying to sound all mighty and high here might cause others to think you are some religious fundamentalist.
Look, I merely pointed out that I thought that comment was out of line and doesn’t add anything to this particular topic. If that’s how you want to have discussions, then be my guest. dismounts high horse
However you have confirmed my suspicions about you.
As you said, when in Rome…
Admin, I second Mefiante’s call for an ignore button.
I don’t think that this is true. Of course, it does depend on how one views “harm” and “good” and such like, and I’ll be the first to admit that in the great scheme of the impersonal cosmos, such concepts are just more irrelevant shit that happens. But I would choose to say that searching for self-knowledge, searching for knowledge and understanding of our world and universe, and the discarding of the delusional, are “good” in some sense - they provide a certain satisfaction, they allow me to deal with my little world appropriately, and they are able potentially to lead to the sustainability of human life wherever we may roam.
There are many concepts that have been articulated by ancient philosophers and that are present in religion that remain in our language and pollute our thinking at every second turn. Words like “soul” and “spirit”, and the division of “mind” from “body” come to “mind”. :
These inaccurate, inadequate and inappropriate terms are perpetuated from generation to generation in language, and generations and generations accept the ideas and concepts as valid, clouding and masking the real state of affairs, in turn perpetuating religious “thought” and acceptance. Some vast percentage of the world’s population is religious. Religion makes humans deal with the world in inappropriate ways by giving justification to incorrect, often bizarre, interpretations of reality, frequently causing great pain - roll up to Rwenzori’s Travelling Faith Healing Tent for some examples. ( I see even the ex-Pope was prone to giving himself a good thrashing every so often ! ).
So, let’s spend our savings on a lekker jol overseas - don’t worry, Jesus will look after us in our old age.
So, don’t worry little Johnny, Mommy has gone to Jesus in Heaven and is happy now.
So, let’s pray about your terminal cancer - Jesus loves you and will look after you.
So, bright young academic, Jesus wants you to be a missionary to Boinga-Boinga-Land.
So, you want to divorce that wife-beating husband of yours - no can do, old girl.
So, you bumped off your old granny for inheritance money - don’t worry, God forgives you, you are pure again.
En so voorts…
Religion is never harmless. Living its bullshit is never harmless.
PS. mdg - try to ignore the TeleoMechanicalPhronetic one’s weak ad hominem rubbish - he always resorts to such childish behaviour when cornered or when he cannot keep up with the topic, which happens frequently.
PPS. Yo! TeleoMechanicalPhronetic one! Stop behaving like a poes again.