Let me help you reconcile these points:

One is both common sense and likely to lead to our children and descendants having the chance to live happily in their time.

The other is narcissitic infanticide, sacrificing the unborn's chance for peace to the current individual's cowardly failure to accept the obvious realities of existence.

Think of it like all those thousands of child rape victims of the Catholic Church: is it better they scream and weep in dark corners so weak housewives can continue to find 'solice' in the Roman policitian with the giant hat? Should jewish & muslim children be forcibly genitally mutiliated for the mental delusions of their parents?

Only a religious or psychotic person would even dare pontificate over how to reconcile these questions.
For the rest of us it's so, so easy: stop wrecking the planet and raping the kids.

@shinyblurry

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

AND from farther down

… your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

Those aren't facts though. Those are your opinions and conjectures. Your theory of God may explain a greater number of things around me than science, but it also raises more questions than it answers, which makes it a horrible theory. "My atheism" doesn't exist as a concept. I don't subscribe to any belief about Gods any more than a monkey does. Are monkeys atheistic? I'm like a monkey. I have no "-ism" that "denies" anything. I happen to lack belief in any supernatural deity. *This lack of belief defines my atheism, rather than atheism defining my lack of beliefs.* I can't believe you still don't understand my position (or lack thereof). I have no idea what you mean by embrace. Nothing about my experience with "meaningfulness" requires me to believe in any gods, particularly not Yahweh.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

Chemicals in my brain cause me to feel hunger and crave food. I follow them because doing so makes me feel good. I don't consider myself weak for being driven by those chemicals in my brain. To really feel like a slave, I'd have to be compelled to follow the commands of a sentient being, like a plantation owner with a whip, or a god of love threatening me with eternal torture, for instance, not chemicals in my own brain. Can there be shame in being a slave to yourself?

So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

You changed one word, but missed the point of mine, so I've changed the same word: So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians *theists* who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Now what?

Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Yep. Pretty much.

The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be.

If your whole final end goal is to prove your child rape hypothetical is internally consistent, and not to extend it into the real world, then yep, that's logically quite true. However, if you want to use it make any point about proving my beliefs to be somehow wrong, then you'll have to give me reason to believe it could ever possibly happen in a sustainable way.

My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us … It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature.

Are we programmed to worship, or to rebel against God? Which is it? I propose that we're genetically designed to do exactly what makes us happy. Being good to others makes us (non-psychos) happy. Worship also makes many of us happy. Cognitive dissonance does not. I don't believe in any god, so I can't possibly worship one with a straight face. That would be cognitively dissonant and make me unhappy. I see no need to introduce the concept of "corruption".

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless … Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

All cognition, from self-awareness, to thought, to the senses, to desires, to emotions, to numinous experiences, all of it is 100% chemical reactions. It's only fair to call my conscience an "illusion" if I also consider everything else that I perceive to be an illusion created by the chemicals in my mind. My feelings are as subjectively real as my senses.

There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

That can be true. It's human nature to want to worship, and worshipping something can give hope. So for some people, if they can convince themselves to believe it, worshipping a god can lift them out of depression.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Occam's razor.

You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated.

If there's no way to establish the truth of something, then there's no sense in trying to do so. There are no reliable records of the afterlife, so hoping to reach a conclusion is a vain pursuit. You can imagine hypotheticals, but you can't give any rationale for preferring one over another. Except by Occam's razor. What you consider "speculation" is just me saying, "nothing disproves anything about the afterlife".

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

It's scientific fact, not mine, not anyone's. It's yours too, if you want it. You just have to go and learn about it from an unbiased source, not from uninformed people with pre-conceived ideas about what it is and isn't.

So no one is really bad?

In the relative non-objective morality sense, no, nobody is inherently bad or "evil" apart from our judgement of their actions. We often call people "bad", but that's just shorthand for what I said, or for having difficulty accepting that another person can do something so contrary to our concept of good.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

True, I would resent anybody giving me free will, then giving me a choice of doing what they say or accepting the worst conceivable torture for eternity. Did I misunderstand something?

[me:]Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

[you:]I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

For a species to evolve to exploit children rather than nurture them is nearly impossible. That gene would get weeded out of the gene pool very quickly. Maybe I'm missing your point, and what you're really trying to say is that according to me, human feelings about right and wrong are, at their essence, random, because humans could have developed different feelings about right and wrong. I agree.

Back to my question: Does the Bible say that rape is wrong? Does it say that you cannot marry a child? To save time, could you point me to a neat summary of all the biblical rules that still stand? The Commandments were given in the Old Testament. I thought that law was struck down and there was a new covenant now, no? No sex before marriage is one, I'm assuming. Do you have to attend mass on Sundays? What are the others? I'm surprised to hear that you don't think the Bible suggests any position on condom usage. Is that just a Catholic hang-up then?

[me:]In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules.

[you:]Romans 13:9-10

I agree that the rules in that verse are clearly derived from "love your neighbour", except maybe coveting, but that's not the point. Once I see the summary of biblical edicts, I'm sure I'll be able to point out that "Love your neighbour" isn't enough, that there are rules you would only follow because they're stated in the Bible, not because they obviously flow from the concept of neighbourly love.

So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

So you're saying that we have to adjust our conscience first to align with the Bible, and then follow it. I'm saying we can just follow it according to what is bad for people.

abortion statistics

Good point. Foetal rights/women's rights is the moral debate of our times, IMO, maybe of all history. I haven't found any solid position on that issue. I've thought a lot about it, but this isn't the place to debate it. Suffice it to say I don't see abortion as a good thing, but not equal to infanticide either.

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia.

You know Germans were 94% Christian during WWII, right? And that the Greeks had those relations consensually? I'm against legalizing sex with children because it would be abused and children would be victimized, not because I think it's impossible for a child to enjoy and benefit from sex. I did it when I was underage and it was nothing but good.

You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not.

The thing is, you regularly invoke the 85% of humans who are theist when having a large number bolsters your argument, yet you disassociate yourself from most of them when their behaviour weakens your argument. I can never tell who you're talking about. Clearly identify the people you're talking about at all times, and we won't have this problem.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations.

And many Christian societies too, but I'm sure you'll disassociate yourselves from *those* Christians.

Tortured for Christ

According to Jesus, the Romanian government was appointed by God, so those Christians must have been doing something wrong, perhaps rebelling:

Romans 13:1-5

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

That passage, BTW, makes my stomach turn for all the people (Christian or otherwise) who have been tortured and killed at the hands of immoral rulers. And Jesus says might makes right. Go Jesus go. Prick.

[you:]… logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature …

[me:]You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

[you:]Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

Then you've entirely missed the point of me making those rules back at Qualiasoup v. Craig.

We agreed not to question the validity of our senses. If I can trust my senses, then I am self-aware. I must assume I'm a rational agent, since it was my own rational awareness that defined my self. If I'm a rational agent, then I can trust logic, which Craig tells us in the same video is a rational thing to do.

If your whole argument is, "a god must exist for you to be able to use logic" then I put it to you to show me logically (and not tautologically) why that must be true. To me, there's no connection.

I still don't see the infinite regression. Give me a real example of it in the form a justifies b which justifies c....

Also, what's "uniformity in nature" and when do I ever appeal to it?

Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect

You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

What I was doing was attacking the foundations of your argument, and providing evidence for my positions. What you have provided is a lot of speculation based on loose interpretations of our history through a secular lens. I would say I have had some success being that the claims you are making have become progressively more modest:

first post: "Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men"

second post: "I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians."

third post: "Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied)"

first post: "Yes, our government was intended to be secular."

second post: "More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government."

I'm going to be sparse in my reply. Since you have seen fit to do a hit and run, I don't intend to spend much time on this.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

No, my main point was that the establishment clause does not mean seperation of church and state, which is the basis for all of this hullabaloo. You've basically conceded this point to me:

"I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others."

You're admitting here that the purpose of the establishment clause was to keep one denomination from gaining control over the others. It wasn't to protect the country from Christian theism, it was protect the country from a particular flavor of Christian theism from gaining power. What "religion" meant was denomination religion, not doctrinal religion. So if this was the purpose of the establishment clause, it can't mean what you argue it does elsewhere.

"And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care."

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian


This is a bizzare comment and it shows you still haven't grasped my point. If you knew what you were doing, you would known that the whole idea of "seperation of church and state" is based on that letter. Obviously I was well aware of that, and fundementally disagreed with that interpretation, which is why I was busy providing you evidence that proved that this was a misinterpretation of Jeffersons intent. If he meant what you and others say he did, then he wouldn't have acted so contrarily to it during his time in government. Barbar got it; he knew exactly what I was saying. It has apparently gone completely over your head.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

When I say "shocking moral decline", I am not talking about womens rights or homosexual rights. I am talking about degeneration of civil society, the increase in crime, drug use, teen pregnancy, and many other factors which paint of picture of a country that is morally debased and getting worse by the year. I'm not saying it was ever perfect, but it had a foundation; biblical morality. Now that the foundation has been removed we are in a moral free fall.

Here are some statistics:

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

Perhaps you're just very young and have no context, but in my observation things in this country have gotten palpably worse in the short time I've been alive, and most of that time I have been observing this I was agnostic. Worse yet, this effect appears to be expodential. Not only is America losing its place on the worlds stage, but internally it has become something like babylon.

The bible doesn't say you need to be a Christian to be moral. It says we all have a god given conscience that tells us right and wrong. This relativism that you're talking about is exactly the problem. If its your truth and my truth, then there is no truth, and no one has a rock to stand on. The thing about Truth is that it the same regardless of when it was written or where it came from. It is the same regardless of what people believe. And the bible is true. There is a God, and He has imposed a moral law, and those who violate it will face judgement. That is why Christ came, to save us from our sins, because all have sinned and fallen short. Are humans smarter? In terms of knowledge, sure. In terms of wisdom? Not a bit. Human beings are no more wise than they were when the bible was written. The words of Christ are wise and they are for all time. In them, there is life, and that abundantly.
>> ^LukinStone:

>> ^shinyblurry:


>> ^LukinStone:



You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

Let me try a different tactic to get us back on track. I think, at least within the discussion between you and I, three different points have been made:

1. Santorum's point, that Kennedy now supported by liberals or atheists or evil citizens was using the establishment clause to say people who believe in God can't participate in government.

2. My point, that Santorum is mistaken and the establishment clause is meant to keep organized religious groups from affecting changes based on solely religious beliefs.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

Your point is related to the initial discussion, but the length you are willing to go with your conclusions is not. In addition, you take political ideas with many interpretations and cherry pick your support. This, I'll admit, is great for making a partisan argument. But, that's not my goal here.
Can you see how a more focused discussion is useful? I know I am a long-winded writer, and so, if you can't stay on track, I feel we'll be forced to trade dozens of pages back and forth as we're continually side-tracked.

I don't have time for that. So, this will be my last comment on this video (may all Videosifters rejoice!). I will give you the honor of last word between us, if you want it. I only offer one challenge: Make your argument without quoting any additional sources. At first, I was impressed that you went to the trouble to research, but now, it seems you are addicted to them. And I'm not convinced they are helping move the discussion along.

I can't let everything you've said fly, not coupled with the conclusion you so righteously came to. So, I hope that you'll forgive me when I pick and choose what I think has the most relevance to the discussion at hand.

Let's get back to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Why is language like this in the constitution if, as you've so thoroughly proven, the founders were all Catholics…wait no, Quakers…wait Presbyterians…wait Baptists…oh, right deists…

I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others.

Do you really have to ask, given how great you think Christianity is, how it is these (to varying degrees) religious men all compromised on this point? They understood that religious differences between Christians had taken their toll on European governments. This was a way to temper such strife. That handy link you provided, breaking down the religion affiliations of the founders, shows that a majority of them were Episcopalian/Anglicans. Do you think it was a valid concern that a Christian sect believing the King of England was the head of the church might be seen as a potential threat to our fledgling country?

I think the interpretation that sees the establishment clause as a protection against and for Christians addresses some other minor points you made. In a state like North Carolina, where Protestants dominated, their individual state's government could more easily make such religious restrictions without having to compromise with different sects. That, in the future, they were forced to change "Protestant" to "Christian" I think shows the national example, which was less tolerant of specific religious language, was more just. The North Carolinians, as well as other state governments, stubbornly held onto the word "Christian" because that's what they knew. Maybe the national founders didn't know how effective the language they used would turn out to be, but by employing the more secular god of deism instead of the specific one of Christianity, they protected the future of all Americans instead of just the most popular sect of the time.

And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care.

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian.

Supreme Court Justices are entitled to their opinions and certainly deserve respect, but Rehnquist's support of your position is not the final word in this discussion. Justices are human like anyone else, and they often make mistakes. They are often politically biased. Upon further research, I found a much more harshly worded version of this letter and learned the political implications of its creation. It was indeed written by Jefferson to make a political point and to caution against aligning politics with religion, as the opposition party did at the time. He cautioned against things like proclamations of thanksgiving, such as the one by Washington you quoted in your initial post directed at me, as they were reminiscent of the proclamations made by the English monarchy.

Justice Rehnquist read the same words, no doubt had a better understanding of history than I and came to a different conclusion. I don't feel like I'm blaspheming when I say, on this, I think he was wrong.

There have always been opposing political parties, vying for power in America. Religion has always been used as a political weapon. That the ire against Great Britain was unpalatable enough for even the most religious of Americans to compromise and allow the establishment clause to be written as it was is no accident. I think it stands to as an example of how important the constitution is that, in the face of tyranny, the founders identified something they all held dear that had been corrupted by governments throughout history, and found a way to work around that problem.

I think to argue that the constitution needs to remain static, without an intelligent and modern understanding of the principles it puts in place, is childish. The founders essentially kicked the ball down the road concerning the issue of slavery. Some believed it morally wrong but saw it as too big of a challenge to tackle at the time. And, I imagine not many men believed in suffrage for female citizens, but that too was something future generations were able shape our laws to include. My point in bringing up examples like these is simply to show each generation's duty to interpret laws, and when necessary, to make changes. If the founders thought the benefits of allowing organized religion to guide the country, in an official capacity, outweighed the dangers, I think they would have explicitly stated so.

The fact that people, humans, immediately went back to using the tool of organized religion to divide each other and seize power is not surprising to me. Testing limits and making amendments is our prerogative as Americans. And, if anything, the wall of separation has proven to be a good idea, as we've only created more religions which have duped more people to believe more untrue things as time marches on.

FINALLY: Two points I have purposely overlooked. They, in my opinion, are outside the realm of this discussion. So, think of this as a Post-script.

1. All of your citations of a Christian god being mentioned by founders and their church-going activities.

As I've now said over and over, I accept that the founders were all Christians, to some degree. The language of government had, up until that point, been tied to that of religion. It makes sense to me that it took a while for the full intent of the separation between church and state to trickled down into the collective consciousness. I hope you can understand how this idea incorporates the foundations of early religious settlements in North America as well as church services being held in tandem with government work after the constitution was written. Obviously, a book could be written about it; I don't think it influences the primary discussion nearly as much as you do. I think the key with this one is that you take a breath and understand where I'm disagreeing with you.

2. Your last paragraph.

The idea that religion has influenced our culture and morals is not the issue here. The evolution of government has shown that organized religion has, in the past, been yet another institution no more intrinsically moral than any other institution established by man. Organized religion has been responsible for education and liberal reform. It has also been responsible for wars, corruption within communities of all sizes and has been used to justify inequality.

The idea of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous? I'll do you one better. I think American history reflects an implicit endorsement of Christianity. And, going back further, before Christianity took hold in Europe, other non-Christian religions were tangled up with government and culture to the point these ideas couldn’t be considered without each other.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

Do we really need a commercial to educate us on family values? And, irony of ironies, from a country which, for the last 25 years has enforced a "one child" rule, resulting in forced sterilization, infanticide, and the abandonment, sometimes in the streets, of unwanted female children. Little wonder he dragged the boy around to make him walk, he is the families only hope.

>> ^Jinx:

Pretty sure life begins millions of times in my testicles. It ends by the millions at the end of a condom too. Oh ok, just gametes right? Only "half" murder. Well then life begins when sperm and egg cell meet, but as has already been mentioned here that little bundle of cells doesn't always find itself alive for very long. The body has a rather nasty habit of flushing a fertilized egg out, Women commit infanticide by design. Bitches.
But seriously, the question of when life starts seems fairly simple. The question of when that life becomes sacred, when it becomes capable of suffering, of thought and human intelligence...We can have a debate about how far into pregnancy an abortion should be allowed, argue 1 week in one way or the other and it would be a reasonble and I think worthwhile discussion. Unfortunately the anti-abortion camp isn't reasonable. They pitched their tent in the extremes. The implausbility and insanity of their position is clear. Their assertions are emotional rather than logical and they shoudln't be listened too.


Myself I consider life to begin at implantation of the fertilized egg. The frequency of spontaneous abortion from that point on is radically reduced. None of the every sperm is sacred madness. Most importantly, it is the last clearly definable point I can think of prior birth. An arbitrary, x days, weeks or months just feels exactly that, arbitrary. Barring human intervention an implanted fertilized egg will by born, grow old and die. Sure, it still has the chance of dying naturally before birth, but we don't accept the infant mortality rates when prosecuting child murderers so it hardly seems a valid argument to when a fetus is differentiated as a human.

I'm open to being dissuaded on when life begins, but the lamentations over the consequences of any given definition aren't what I consider valid arguments.

Pretty sure life begins millions of times in my testicles. It ends by the millions at the end of a condom too. Oh ok, just gametes right? Only "half" murder. Well then life begins when sperm and egg cell meet, but as has already been mentioned here that little bundle of cells doesn't always find itself alive for very long. The body has a rather nasty habit of flushing a fertilized egg out, Women commit infanticide by design. Bitches.

But seriously, the question of when life starts seems fairly simple. The question of when that life becomes sacred, when it becomes capable of suffering, of thought and human intelligence...We can have a debate about how far into pregnancy an abortion should be allowed, argue 1 week in one way or the other and it would be a reasonble and I think worthwhile discussion. Unfortunately the anti-abortion camp isn't reasonable. They pitched their tent in the extremes. The implausbility and insanity of their position is clear. Their assertions are emotional rather than logical and they shoudln't be listened too.

He said that morally, he is in favor of infanticide, so yes he is endorsing it.

>> ^alien_concept:
He's not endorsing it, he's speaking hypothetically. And frankly that is all you are ever doing dear, with your faith. How about we call it evens and say no more about it <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">

I understand perfectly well what he was saying, and again, it is social darwinism, whether they are going to die in agony or not. If you listen to the rest of it, what they are talking about is removing the ethical barrier that is present due to our being created in the image of God. They would like to see that removed and have human life be regarded on the same plane as animal life. When you do that, suddenly things like infanticide become more palatable, because after all, there are billions of us..what is one less? A lot of people want to reduce the population of the planet by 80 percent or so (so long as they're not on the 80 percent side of the equation). It's classic social darwinism, in all its repugnant splendor.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Dawkins is supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases.
Ok, this is the last time I explain this to you. Dawkins is talking about "supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases" that meant it was going to die in agony. That is a direct quote from the video. He is not supporting infanticide in the case of:
- curable diseases
- deformities
- disabilities
- down's syndrome, etc.
Once again, the world is not black and white. Context matters.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Dawkins is supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases.

Ok, this is the last time I explain this to you. Dawkins is talking about "supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases" that meant it was going to die in agony. That is a direct quote from the video. He is not supporting infanticide in the case of:

- curable diseases
- deformities
- disabilities
- down's syndrome, etc.

Once again, the world is not black and white. Context matters.

Again, nuance, context. These things matter. If I kill someone out of mercy, it is different to killing them because they are "not fit to live". Yes, the outcome is the same, but intention matters. Even the legal system recognises this.

He isn't talking about an isolated incident. Dawkins is supporting infanticide in cases where babies have incurable diseases. So, if there was a general policy in society of killing off babies who would die early, according to his own words he would be in favor of that. No matter how you want to dress it up, it's still social darwinism.

Besides in the context (there's that word again) of this video, he is talking about children that will die before they reach puberty anyway, so a true social darwinist would just let nature take it's course.

No, a true social darwinist would kill them off so they wouldn't consume unnecessary resources.

It's great that these kids were saved (by science, I might add). Do you really think that Dawkins is implying that they should be killed with no attempt to cure them? You're really grasping at straws here.

No, I am saying that they would have both would have been selected for death under dawkins morality, even though they would have both lived given the circumstances. I am showing the idea of infanticide being morally permissible is actually morally repugnant, and that many children would die who would have otherwise survived.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What,is implying that they should be killed with no attempt to cure them? You're really grasping at straws here.

That wasn't out of context at all, in fact if you actually use your ears and listen to what he is saying, it reinforces my point twice as much and makes what he said even worse. What they are talking about is how because of the belief that we are in the image of God, that there is a natural barrier regarding moral questions (such as infanticide)..but that this barrier is actually artificial (because they believe in evolution, that we are the same as animals) and so we shouldn't worry so much about traversing it (because they don't believe human life is in any wise sacred or special)..

dawkins says that he at least worries a bit about breaking this barrier and falling onto a slippery slope..(ie, eugenics)..so after he gets through endorsing infanticide..he graciously says he would be willing to give consideration to someone who asked the question "where does it end?"

then Peter says "yes i can see there is a problem with (killing) small children, because we're bonded to them very closely in a way..though we're not really bonded to the same extent to the fetus or even to the newborn (its easier to kill them)..but i think when people make slippery slope arguments in this area (that if we allow infanticide for "compassionate" grounds, why not kill babies with downs syndrome too?)..you have to appreciate that it does go the other way, precisely because we draw this boundary between us and animals (that we're being held back as a race because of moral constraints imposed by the idea of the sacredness of human life(ie, that infanticide and other "compassionate" murder is a good thing, and we should be doing more of it)

This is social darwinisim, and it is monstrous..and this is just the beginning, if people like this get their way. Thank you for proving my point.

>> ^luxury_pie:
How about some context: http://videosift.com/video/Peter-Singer-Uncut-Darwin-Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins
Minute 24.
Nice try though.

>> ^marbles:

Wow. Dawkins embracing infanticide. Good find @shinyblurry.
However, you should acknowledge that "God" in the Old Testament was also a fan of infanticide. And "Godly" people also embraced it. Did the value of human life change from then to now?
You should be questioning the morality of the Bible's God and why you must depend on God's "inspired" word instead of God himself.
Wish I could upvote half a comment.

Who do you say God is, and why don't you think Gods word is inspired?

>> ^marbles:
Wow. Dawkins embracing infanticide. Good find @shinyblurry.
However, you should acknowledge that "God" in the Old Testament was also a fan of infanticide. And "Godly" people also embraced it. Did the value of human life change from then to now?
You should be questioning the morality of the Bible's God and why you must depend on God's "inspired" word instead of God himself.

Wow. Dawkins embracing infanticide. Good find @shinyblurry.

However, you should acknowledge that "God" in the Old Testament was also a fan of infanticide. And "Godly" people also embraced it. Did the value of human life change from then to now?

You should be questioning the morality of the Bible's God and why you must depend on God's "inspired" word instead of God himself.