The Nature of Evil

[betsy]

Funny that women who live in areas where birth control and access to abortion are more freely available, there are fewer abortions, and at earlier stages in pregnancy than in those states that are going back to patriarchal standards.

Do you mean Canada? There are no accurate data since 1998(?). Records-keeping hasn't been enforced.

So that means we cannot know.

[betsy]

Do you have any evidence that the religious among us are having less premarital sex, and less abortions?

Because this is the first I've heard of this claim.

That's not what I said.

Anyway, those who will listen to the Pope will more likely abstain....and if those Christians don't listen to the Pope, they're the ones who're more likely to use birth control devices! They'll try to avoid compounding a sinful act with the sinful act of murder!

Excluding rape, it's those who don't have a care or respect for human life....those who lives by the moment....those who put themselves before all else....those who want instant gratification....those are your problems! And they're usually the ones who abandoned God, or don't believe in God or a god.

Just to remind you, I'm reacting to WIP's accusation of the Pope's promotion of abstinence.

I'm just stating a logical fact. If the Pope says to abstain from sex, those who will listen to him will abstain from sex. Those are not your problem. They're already using the natural method of birth control.

Anyway, those Christians who will not listen and will not abstain from sex, they're the ones more likely to use birth control devices to avoid pregnancy. Since fornication is a sin, surely any Christian who do have

fear of God will most likely take precaution so as not to commit another sin.

After all, a wrong cannot be corrected by another wrong.

As for the teens....do you really think most teens give a hoot what the Pope says? Think back when you were a teen. Did you really listen and follow authority? You've got to give your main focus on these folks....they're the ones with raging hormones and highly reckless.

The positive note is that not every teener ends up pregnant....so some parents must be doing something right in raising their children.

Sure there are still Christians who get pregnant out of wedlock, but I doubt that the numbers of those who go for abortion will be so high.

So I say, focus your energy and resources in promoting condoms! Whether the Pope promotes it or not is not the real problem. Let him worry about his flock.....you concentrate on everyone (including his flock). If you did it successfully with anti-smoking, you can do it again with condoms!

Edited March 23, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

god is ominipotent and omniscient.

God creates the universe.

God creates heaven and all his minions.

God creates evil

God infects Lucifer with Evil.

God creates Hell.

God creates Man.

God creates free will.

God and lucifer battle for men's souls.

God knows what is going to happen. He knew that Lucifer was going to thirst for power 'cause he was so perfect and beautiful. He knew that Lucifer was going to be cast out.

He knew that Adam was going to eat the apple.

He knows what every person decision is when exercising that free will.

He toys with lucifer because he can swat him like a fly at any time, but doesn't.

He toys with his human creations creating all kinds of mysterious, illogical and tragic games to play with them.

Conclusion: God was bored and needed something to amuse himself with. Kinda like the first multiplayer video game.

Thanks for explaining what you meant.

[pinko]

Study: Religion May Head Toward 'Extinction' in Many Western Countries

If the authors of a new study have it right, then the Pope may want to update his résumé. That's because men of the cloth—and religious leaders of any faith, for that matter—will be in less demand as religion slowly dies out as a part of everyday life.

(More on TIME.com: See pictures of colorful religious festivals)

Researchers at Northwestern University and the University of Arizona gathered census data in nine countries—Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland—where officials have traditionally included questions about religious affiliation in their population count. They found a steady rise in the number of people who claimed no religious affiliation over the past century. And, using "nonlinear modeling," they unpacked the relationship between religious respondents and their motivation for claiming a religion.

At its core, the research found that the perceived value of joining a religious group has decreased significantly. As the number of non- religious people swells, the appeal of joining their ranks does, too. "For societies in which the perceived utility of not adhering is greater than the utility of adhering, religion will be driven toward extinction," the study said. "People no longer see the slate of benefits as being as great as they probably did 100 years ago. It's become less socially useful."

Richard Wiener of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement told the BBC that in the Czech Republic 60% of people identify as non- affiliated with religion—the highest in the study. He also forecast that in the Netherlands the percentage of non-believers will skyrocket from 40% today to 70% by 2050. (via Montreal Gazette)

(More on TIME.com: See how TIME has covered religion through the years) 5 Share 0diggs digg MOREAdd to my:del.icio.usTechnoratiredditGoogle BookmarksMixxStumbleUponBlog this on:TypePadLiveJournalBloggerWordPressMySpaceRead Other Related Stories About This:

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/23/study-religion-may-head- toward-extinction-in-many-western-countries/#ixzz1HRsK3nZ7

[bloodyminded]

Oh wait... that was evidence to the contrary. My bad.

Yes, that's not helpful! It rather hurts certain specific arguments on a practical level....

[bloodyminded]

That's not what I said.

Anyway, those Christians who will not listen and will not abstain from sex, they're the ones more likely to use birth control devices to avoid pregnancy.

That's your opinion. But it doesn't appear to be supported by the facts.

Why do make these claims?

The positive note is that not every teener ends up pregnant

No, mine didn't.

....so some parents must be doing something right in raising their children.

Thank you, but I prefer to give them the credit.

Sure there are still Christians who get pregnant out of wedlock, but I doubt that the numbers of those who go for abortion will be so high.

According to cybercoma's link, that's simply incorrect.

[WIP]

Don't dodge and skirt around what I pointedly asked you. Why is a piece of paper so important to you?

cancelled....pulled up the wrong post.

Edited March 23, 2011 by WIP

[WIP]

This will make a very intersting topic....wish you'd make one.

I intend to in a few days when I have more free time. But, this analysis still has a place in a discussion of evil, which is usually void of any empirical evidence about the causes of evil and how to deal with them.

[ToadBrother]

Perhaps some did not. But others did. Oviously the fetuses had some protection. Otherwise why did abortion have to be de-criminalized?

I never said abortion was historically legal. I said that the intentional death of a fetus was not murder. A doctor found to have performed an abortion was charged with that crime, which is entirely separate from the crime of murder. A pregnant woman seeking out an abortion was not charged with being an accessory a conspirator. The aborted fetus was not given a death certificate. In short, abortion was not capital murder. And the California legislation (and similar fetal murder legislation elsewhere) only muddies the waters because it confers some limited rights upon a fetus for some circumstances, based on the bizarre notion that intent to kill means different things depending on whether it's a doctor performing an abortion at the request of a pregnant woman or the intentional death of the fetus at the hands of some malevolent individual.

Anyway, now we know. We know that they are human.

"Human" is not a legal concept, it is a moral one. "Person" is, and there are very few jurisdictions out there where the concept of "person" is applied to a fetus.

[bloodyminded]

I And the California legislation (and similar fetal murder legislation elsewhere) only muddies the waters because it confers some limited rights upon a fetus for some circumstances, based on the bizarre notion that intent to kill means different things depending on whether it's a doctor performing an abortion at the request of a pregnant woman or the intentional death of the fetus at the hands of some malevolent individual.

You're right, this is quite a serious conundrum. It would appear to make possible the truly lunatic notion in which a woman could conceivably decide whether someone has committed murder or not, depending on her claims of planning or not planning an abortion.

[cybercoma]

"Human" is not a legal concept, it is a moral one. "Person" is, and there are very few jurisdictions out there where the concept of "person" is applied to a fetus.

Human is a biological concept. No one denies the biological humanness of a fetus. After all, women don't give birth to cats and dogs. To even argue whether or not a fetus is human is absurd. Betsy knows this. She also refuses to move into the legal language of personhood because she will be taken to school there too, since the legality has been clearly outlined several times over in this thread.

[betsy]

That's your opinion. But it doesn't appear to be supported by the facts.

Why do make these claims?

There is no accurate data for abortions in Canada, since 1998(?), not sure with the date but iyt's in one of my links. So there is no way of gathering facts!

According to cybercoma's link, that's simply incorrect.

His links also supported my argument. Anyway, when was that survey done?

[betsy]

You're right, this is quite a serious conundrum. It would appear to make possible the truly lunatic notion in which a woman could conceivably decide whether someone has committed murder or not, depending on her claims of planning or not planning an abortion.

It is women empowerment!

Thanks to the influential Feminist Movement and the clime of apologists and political correctness gone bonkers!

[betsy]

"Human" is not a legal concept, it is a moral one. "Person" is, and there are very few jurisdictions out there where the concept of "person" is applied to a fetus.

So what! First it's the piece of paper....now it's semantics!

Person or human, take your pick! They're one and the same.

Numbers of jurisdiction is moot. Nazi Germany had those who didn't agree with Hitler's assessment that Jews were not human....or sub-human.

Face it.

Edited March 24, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

His links also supported my argument. Anyway, when was that survey done?

Your argument is that religiosity reduces abortion. If nothing else religiosity has no effect on abortion, even if the data seems to suggest that it increases it and causes people to be more likely to lie about it. The danger inherent in this is that women may try to hide their abortions and procure them in dangerous ways (back-alleys, coat-hangers, etc.). So if nothing else, religion does absolutely nothing when it comes to a woman's decision to have an abortion, at worst it's a dangerous influence causing harm. You cannot, however, say that it causes less women to have an abortion. That's simply not true.

Edited March 24, 2011 by cybercoma

[betsy]

Your argument is that religiosity reduces abortion. If nothing else religiosity has no effect on abortion, even if the data seems to suggest that it increases it and causes people to be more likely to lie about it. The danger inherent in this is that women may try to hide their abortions and procure them in dangerous ways (back-alleys, coat-hangers, etc.). So if nothing else, religion does absolutely nothing when it comes to a woman's decision to have an abortion, at worst it's a dangerous influence causing harm. You cannot, however, say that it causes less women to have an abortion. That's simply not true.

This is an excerpt from your source:

"However, when faced with this incredible decision, things like education and future aspiriations simply appear to matter more," Adamczyk told LiveScience. Later in life, women might be more inclined to carry a pregnancy to term, perhaps for religious reasons, she said. Religion might have a greater influence on one's decisions when school and career aspirations have already been achieved or are moving along well.

Adamczyk said that this may be partially explained by the evidence that personal religiosity delays the timing of first sex, thereby shortening the period of time in which religious women are sexually active outside of marriage.

I also said that teens - whether religious or not - usually don't listen to authority! That's why I say to focus on this group!

Take note of the boldened statements.

[pinko]

This is an excerpt from your source:

I also said that teens - whether religious or not - usually don't listen to authority! That's why I say to focus on this group!

Take note of the boldened statements.

Another busybody wanting to impose her narrow views on others. What attitudes these women may adopt in later life is absolutely none of your business.

[betsy]

28 DAYS LATER. This is not that sci-fi/horror movie....but horrific nevertheless.

Why Peter Singer makes the New Atheists nervous

DINESH D'SOUZA

I write this fresh from debating bioethicist Peter Singer on "Can we be moral without God?" at Singer's home campus, Princeton University.

Singer is a mild-mannered fellow who speaks calmly and lucidly. Yet you wouldn't have to read his work too long to find his extreme positions. He cheerfully advocates infanticide and euthanasia and, in almost the same breath, favors animal rights. Even most liberals would have qualms about third-trimester abortions; Singer does not hesitate to advocate what may be termed fourth-trimester abortions, i.e., the killing of infants after they are born.

Singer writes, "My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others." Singer argues that even pigs, chickens, and fish have more signs of consciousness and rationality -- and, consequently, a greater claim to rights -- than do fetuses, newborn infants, and people with mental disabilities. "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at 10- or even 32-weeks gestation. … The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy."

Some people consider Singer a provocateur who says outrageous things just to get attention. But Singer is deadly serious about his views and -- as emerged in our debate -- has a consistent rational basis for his controversial positions.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0132.htm

I guess women get a trial period if they want the baby - 28 days. And we think Hitler was a monster.

Edited March 27, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Compared to many other animals, humans are born quite prematurely.

[WIP]

28 DAYS LATER. This is not that sci-fi/horror movie....but horrific nevertheless.

I guess women get a trial period if they want the baby - 28 days. And we think Hitler was a monster.

Betsy, it's been said a million times already, but I'll give it one more shot here because this is a particularly bad example: you are using one-sided propaganda to try to support your positions on issues. If you quote a hit-piece on Richard Dawkins for example, why not step outside your Christian bubble and read something by the author, so that you at least understand his position from his own point of view, instead of the one deliberately skewed by a writer with an agenda? Just like his bullshit writings on politics, D'Souza uses adverbs and adjectives to try to smear Singer: "cheerfully advocates infanticide and euthanasia." And D'Souza uses Peter Singer's philosophical writings on utilitarianism to try to hang on all atheists. Not all atheists are utilitarians, nor do all atheists agree that answers to all ethical dilemmas can be found in one of the three major systems of ethics: Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, or the Deontological systems that are part of nearly every religion-based ethics.

Singer in his own words, will tell you that he is trying to apply philosophical rules to real world problems, and will develop a position (like the one above) whether he actually agrees with it personally or not. Singer is trying to develop something that would be a perfect, flawless system of ethics, with no inherent contradictions in the real world...and that's not likely even possible right from the start.

In the original article, Singer is asking a difficult, though valid question that most ethicists would rather avoid: what's the difference between a very late-term fetus and a newborn baby in terms other than independent viability? And the truth is: not very much! A newborn baby's brain is only slightly further down the road to sentience than the 36 week old fetus; so, if privacy rights are absolute, and a pregnant woman has a right to abortion at any stage of pregnancy, then why not infanticide?

Most people living in the everyday world realize that ethical dilemmas like the abortion issue, are never going to be perfectly settled to everyone's liking. So, even if we are pragmatic, non-god believers, who favour utilitarianism largely, we still realize that following a consequentialist system to the letter, will sometimes lead to problems where a better answer might be found from virtue ethics for example.

And since that little piece of propaganda by D'Souza appeared on a Catholic Church site, how about if they delve into the ethical absurdities on the abortion issue that Catholic ethics based on their rigid deontological rules leads to...such as the women who have their lives endangered by Catholic rules that the fetus inside them has an equal right to life! Or that a woman who is pregnant through rape, is obligated to carry the pregnancy to term, and be reminded of the crime for the next nine months...and permanently, if she is obligated to raise the child afterwards. Let's see the Catholic Church deal with the harms they have caused for this world by their attempts to stop women from having a say in how many children to bring into this world.

[betsy]

In the original article, Singer is asking a difficult, though valid question that most ethicists would rather avoid: what's the difference between a very late-term fetus and a newborn baby in terms other than independent viability? And the truth is: not very much! A newborn baby's brain is only slightly further down the road to sentience than the 36 week old fetus; so, if privacy rights are absolute, and a pregnant woman has a right to abortion at any stage of pregnancy, then why not infanticide?

Next so-called "difficult" question that will be brought forth...

What's the difference between a very late-term fetus and an incapacitated and dependent person (regardless of age)?:

And the truth is: not very much!

D'Souza's piece was published in a Catholic site...so what! The issue at hand is still the same.

Edited April 2, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

And speaking of D'Souza, what a timely and appropriate question to ask on this thread...

Can we really be moral without God? Really?

Edited April 2, 2011 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

And speaking of D'Souza, what a timely and appropriate question to ask on this thread...

Can we really be moral without God? Really?

Sure we can. Just like we can be moral with ten gods or a hundred gods.

Humans are social animals, and like all social animals, we organize via codes of conduct, or morals, if you like. The actual codes of conduct often are highly variable in both time and place, but what counts is that they are there. The Soviets officially had no gods, but do you think the Soviet Union was a place of anarchic hedonism? It was probably a more orderly society than the West has ever seen.

[dre]

And speaking of D'Souza, what a timely and appropriate question to ask on this thread...

Can we really be moral without God? Really?

Can we really be moral without God? Really?

[Oleg Bach]

Waging war for fun and profit is evil - abortion is evil - gayification of normal youth is evil...nature is basically an evil force. Christianity in part was about being a super nature or a super natural being that had control over the forces of nature that would debase and destroy if left to it's own device. "Young men you are strong because you have mastered evil"...right there is the key in scripture that explains that you must understand nature...and not be devoured by it.