Comments on: Cleaning House http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Jaundice James http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-4237 Jaundice James Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:53:06 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-4237 I was not previously aware of the Raving Atheist, nor have I read his site. However, I think that ridicule is a perfectly acceptable weapon against religious zealots. The things they believe and push for ARE ridiculous in the literal sense of the word. Ridiculing, making fun of, and making jokes at their expense helps make that clear. There are many, many atheists out there using science and reason as a weapon. Most, like you, are very polite and civilized about it. I, however, choose to make fun of them and shine a big spotlight on how foolish (and awful) they can be. Ridicule is my weapon of choice. It's my schtik. It works for me. -JJ I was not previously aware of the Raving Atheist, nor have I read his site.
However, I think that ridicule is a perfectly acceptable weapon against religious zealots.
The things they believe and push for ARE ridiculous in the literal sense of the word. Ridiculing, making fun of, and making jokes at their expense helps make that clear.

There are many, many atheists out there using science and reason as a weapon. Most, like you, are very polite and civilized about it.

I, however, choose to make fun of them and shine a big spotlight on how foolish (and awful) they can be. Ridicule is my weapon of choice. It's my schtik. It works for me.

-JJ

]]> By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3997 Philip Thomas Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:25:34 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3997 People's choices are strange things. For example, the mother's financial situation may have altered drastically so that she no longer feels able to support the child while maintaining her own standard of living. Or she may just have been told the results of medical tests which say the child is 'disabled'. Disabilities for which late-term abortion is permissible in the UK include Cleft Palate and Club foot as well as a whole range of more serious disabilities, up to ones that would indeed result in death on birth. In some instances the test merely indicates a high probablility of disability. If the foetus is dead, I would not call an operation to remove the material from the womb an "abortion" and it would be monstrous to forbid it under anti-abortion laws. Anyway, if it is dead, there is no need for Partial Birth, you can take the corpse completely out of the womb. People's choices are strange things. For example, the mother's financial situation may have altered drastically so that she no longer feels able to support the child while maintaining her own standard of living. Or she may just have been told the results of medical tests which say the child is 'disabled'. Disabilities for which late-term abortion is permissible in the UK include Cleft Palate and Club foot as well as a whole range of more serious disabilities, up to ones that would indeed result in death on birth. In some instances the test merely indicates a high probablility of disability.

If the foetus is dead, I would not call an operation to remove the material from the womb an "abortion" and it would be monstrous to forbid it under anti-abortion laws. Anyway, if it is dead, there is no need for Partial Birth, you can take the corpse completely out of the womb.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3994 Ebonmuse Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:35:40 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3994 As far as I'm aware, late-term abortions are never performed on healthy fetuses just because the woman suddenly no longer felt like bringing her pregnancy to term. (Think of the logic behind that: After already consenting to carry a pregnancy for over half a year and dealing with all the attendant effects, a prospective mother would suddenly decide to end it just because she felt like it? Why would anyone choose to do that?) D&X abortions are usually performed for reasons such as that the fetus has already died in utero, or that it has severe genetic defects that would render it incapable of ever living outside the womb anyway. As far as I'm aware, late-term abortions are never performed on healthy fetuses just because the woman suddenly no longer felt like bringing her pregnancy to term. (Think of the logic behind that: After already consenting to carry a pregnancy for over half a year and dealing with all the attendant effects, a prospective mother would suddenly decide to end it just because she felt like it? Why would anyone choose to do that?) D&X abortions are usually performed for reasons such as that the fetus has already died in utero, or that it has severe genetic defects that would render it incapable of ever living outside the womb anyway.

]]> By: Oz http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3980 Oz Sun, 02 Jul 2006 04:20:31 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3980 You are correct, Phillip. The only difference between a birth and a PBA is whether the baby lives or dies. I'm not aware of any conditions where birthing a live baby will kill a woman but birthing a dead one will not, but if anyone cares to enlighten us, feel free. You are correct, Phillip. The only difference between a birth and a PBA is whether the baby lives or dies. I'm not aware of any conditions where birthing a live baby will kill a woman but birthing a dead one will not, but if anyone cares to enlighten us, feel free.

]]> By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3960 Philip Thomas Sat, 01 Jul 2006 15:25:39 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3960 Late term abortions in the UK are sometimes carried out because of disability- there is express provision for that in UK abortion law. The 'health of the mother' is a pretty broad category, at least so it has transpired in the UK. But obviously if the bill didn't protect the mother's life Clinto was right to veto it. Incidentally, surely in partial birth you can always save the foetus if you want to, given its halfway out already? Late term abortions in the UK are sometimes carried out because of disability- there is express provision for that in UK abortion law. The 'health of the mother' is a pretty broad category, at least so it has transpired in the UK. But obviously if the bill didn't protect the mother's life Clinto was right to veto it. Incidentally, surely in partial birth you can always save the foetus if you want to, given its halfway out already?

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3959 Ebonmuse Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:56:37 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3959 Actually, as I recall, that ban was vetoed because it included no exception to protect the life or health of the mother, which is virtually the only reason a late-term abortion is ever performed. As for RA, I'm through with him for now. Swearing off sarcasm is one thing; swearing never to criticize a religion for any reason is quite another. Actually, as I recall, that ban was vetoed because it included no exception to protect the life or health of the mother, which is virtually the only reason a late-term abortion is ever performed. As for RA, I'm through with him for now. Swearing off sarcasm is one thing; swearing never to criticize a religion for any reason is quite another.

]]> By: Oz http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3948 Oz Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:47:22 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3948 Adam: I seem to remember Clinton vetoing the partial-birth abortion ban way back when. If that's not "unfettered abortion until birth," nothing is. Also, have you noticed the marked change in RA's attiude of late? He's sworn off sarcasm and mocking religion, it seems. He's taking a lot of flack for it, too, and there is much speculation as to his motives. You may want to go look, since you brought up the complaint. Adam:

I seem to remember Clinton vetoing the partial-birth abortion ban way back when. If that's not "unfettered abortion until birth," nothing is.

Also, have you noticed the marked change in RA's attiude of late? He's sworn off sarcasm and mocking religion, it seems. He's taking a lot of flack for it, too, and there is much speculation as to his motives. You may want to go look, since you brought up the complaint.

]]> By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3907 Philip Thomas Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:56:54 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3907 That set of responses is under the entry <i> Atheism as a Positive Worldview </i>, if anyone is interested. That set of responses is under the entry Atheism as a Positive Worldview , if anyone is interested.

]]> By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3906 Philip Thomas Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:54:06 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3906 Andrea, to be breif, I meant by "intellectual propositions" <i> propositions of a kind which could be discussed using reason and evidence </i> For example, the suggestion that an intelligent being created the universe can be discussed on the basis of the content of the universe. Or the suggestion that there was a historical figure called Jesus of Nazereth can be analysed in terms of the historical sources available. I don't limit to propositions <i> arrived at </i> using reason and evidence- since you can always accuse your opponent of deriving his propositions some other way, its a bit pointless. At the risk of seriously derailing the thread, I seriously believe that reason and evidence point to the truth of Christianity. If I did not, I would not be a Christian. However, this particular view of mine has been examined at length in a recent series of responses, so let us not repeat ourselves. Andrea, to be breif, I meant by "intellectual propositions" propositions of a kind which could be discussed using reason and evidence For example, the suggestion that an intelligent being created the universe can be discussed on the basis of the content of the universe. Or the suggestion that there was a historical figure called Jesus of Nazereth can be analysed in terms of the historical sources available. I don't limit to propositions arrived at using reason and evidence- since you can always accuse your opponent of deriving his propositions some other way, its a bit pointless.

At the risk of seriously derailing the thread, I seriously believe that reason and evidence point to the truth of Christianity. If I did not, I would not be a Christian. However, this particular view of mine has been examined at length in a recent series of responses, so let us not repeat ourselves.

]]> By: EnigmaOfSteel http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3904 EnigmaOfSteel Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:17:03 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3904 <blockquote>Um. Did you even read my argument?</blockquote> Yes, I did read your argument. I felt there were some extraneous things which didn't warrant commenting. As in your current post, where you include the following: Osama bin Laden, capital punishment, Iraq war, acts of terrorism, Ann Coulter, middle east, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Contra rebels, CIA <blockquote>Your attempt to muddy the water by exaggerating the disagreement within the pro-choice movement is rather transparent and evidentially wanting.</blockquote> Particular versions of so called choice infringe on other versions ability to choose. So much for choice if one can't choose. I merely pointed that out. Trying to divine break points for abortion is a significant issue in the pro-choice community, so I do not need to exaggerate it. As for who is trying to muddy the water, I give as evidence the items listed above that I found in your post. <blockquote>As I believe I alluded to in the past (was "global warming" the subject?), this is not the first time your rhetorical tactics, and your relative position on an issue, have reminded me strikingly of those habitually employed by Creationists. As I recall, in the first case it was cherry-picking expert opinions and misrepresenting the consensus status of the science.</blockquote> I think you are confusing me with someone else. To my recollection I have not commented on global warming. I don't feel I have enough expertise in the subject, and am actually trying to get up to speed on the issue. But for the record, I am highly concerned with global warming. It seems something that would be difficult to reverse, and so we should take the warnings very seriously. I am also not a creationist. That would be funny, considering I'm the guy who last Christmas gave out booklets from the National Academy of Sciences on evolution as gifts. Heck, I even gave one to the Mormon missionaries who visited me after they gave me the Book of Mormon. <blockquote>I also second Adam's question about your source for one of the position examples you've used.</blockquote> I provided the source in my previous post above.

Um. Did you even read my argument?

Yes, I did read your argument. I felt there were some extraneous things which didn't warrant commenting. As in your current post, where you include the following:

Osama bin Laden, capital punishment, Iraq war, acts of terrorism, Ann Coulter, middle east, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Contra rebels, CIA

Your attempt to muddy the water by exaggerating the disagreement within the pro-choice movement is rather transparent and evidentially wanting.

Particular versions of so called choice infringe on other versions ability to choose. So much for choice if one can't choose. I merely pointed that out. Trying to divine break points for abortion is a significant issue in the pro-choice community, so I do not need to exaggerate it. As for who is trying to muddy the water, I give as evidence the items listed above that I found in your post.

As I believe I alluded to in the past (was "global warming" the subject?), this is not the first time your rhetorical tactics, and your relative position on an issue, have reminded me strikingly of those habitually employed by Creationists. As I recall, in the first case it was cherry-picking expert opinions and misrepresenting the consensus status of the science.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. To my recollection I have not commented on global warming. I don't feel I have enough expertise in the subject, and am actually trying to get up to speed on the issue. But for the record, I am highly concerned with global warming. It seems something that would be difficult to reverse, and so we should take the warnings very seriously. I am also not a creationist. That would be funny, considering I'm the guy who last Christmas gave out booklets from the National Academy of Sciences on evolution as gifts. Heck, I even gave one to the Mormon missionaries who visited me after they gave me the Book of Mormon.

I also second Adam's question about your source for one of the position examples you've used.

I provided the source in my previous post above.

]]> By: andrea http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3903 andrea Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:57:57 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3903 hi Philip, Very much on the risk of taking this thread way out of its purpose :) I don’t see how any assertions of religion are intellectual, if you mean that word to mean based on the rational i.e. deduction and evidence. The main assertions of religion are a deity or deities, and the idea that the deity interacts with us. There is no proof of this anywhere, except in myths. And in that myths seem to always have universal themes, it is more likely that humans are hardwired to think in such terms rather than there are a zillion deities out there. Any religion is just as unprovable as the next. You might use emotion to deal with religion but not reason. Just my opinion. hi Philip, Very much on the risk of taking this thread way out of its purpose :) I don’t see how any assertions of religion are intellectual, if you mean that word to mean based on the rational i.e. deduction and evidence. The main assertions of religion are a deity or deities, and the idea that the deity interacts with us. There is no proof of this anywhere, except in myths. And in that myths seem to always have universal themes, it is more likely that humans are hardwired to think in such terms rather than there are a zillion deities out there. Any religion is just as unprovable as the next. You might use emotion to deal with religion but not reason. Just my opinion.

]]> By: EnigmaOfSteel http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3902 EnigmaOfSteel Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:26:35 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/cleaning-house.html#comment-3902 <blockquote>"I think one need look no further than the evidence of some postings on this very site, to see that pro-choice supporters are hardly united in choice. Some want unfettered abortion up to birth ..." I admit I've had some difficulty keeping up with comments this week, but I haven't noticed anyone taking that position. Do you have a citation?</blockquote> Yes I also have trouble keeping up with the thread volume - a testament I think to the success of the web site. Looking at the abortion discussion in the thread titled "Onward Christian Soldiers", a poster who uses the screen name Montu wrote: "I think women should be allowed that choice before the FETUS is born."

"I think one need look no further than the evidence of some postings on this very site, to see that pro-choice supporters are hardly united in choice. Some want unfettered abortion up to birth ..."

I admit I've had some difficulty keeping up with comments this week, but I haven't noticed anyone taking that position. Do you have a citation?

Yes I also have trouble keeping up with the thread volume - a testament I think to the success of the web site. Looking at the abortion discussion in the thread titled "Onward Christian Soldiers", a poster who uses the screen name Montu wrote:

"I think women should be allowed that choice before the FETUS is born."

]]>