I always find it odd that people conceptualize bodily autonomy as allowing the death of a separate individual. To actually support bodily autonomy you would be against abortion as a fetus is the one defenseless and not given the bodily autonomy. The overwhelming majority of pregnancy is due to choices of the individual. To say someone who has made a choice that develops a new life now has autonomy over that life is denial of bodily autonomy.
I used to be an atheist. I still don't go to church (though the wife and I should), but I don't describe myself as an atheist.
One of the big realizations I've had in the past 10 years (the span between edgy atheist teen and cynical 30-something) is this: while I don't need a church to have a conscience and morals (something I assume is true for you as well), there's a LOT of people in this world who DO need that framework.
I am very reluctant to sound like a priest or pastor, because I am definitely neither or those things -- but look at the degeneracy around us. Look at the lives people are living that will leave the next generation worse off than ours. Look at the hedonism, the nihilism, and the apathy. These are not pillars on which to build or maintain a society.
So yeah, I believe there's some sort of God out there -- not because I am trying to curry favor or get in to heaven, but because I think a society-wide moral framework is important. That may sound incongruous to you -- probably because it is.
I'm still working on it - I just see a lot in this comment and the comment above it that make me think you're kind of in the same mental vortex I was in for a while.
One of the big realizations I've had in the past 10 years (the span between edgy atheist teen and cynical 30-something) is this: while I don't need a church to have a conscience and morals (something I assume is true for you as well), there's a LOT of people in this world who DO need that framework.
Same with comfort. I'm also not religious and I totally understand why many people need that sort of a positive, structured cultural thing.
I don't understand what's so hard to get about it. I know people who are addicted to going out to drink, to go on Tinder fuck dates. To go to the gym, do many other things. But they act like it's baffling that others fulfill their social needs through church.
Because deep down most people know (or at least suspect) that they're going down the wrong path and engaging in socially degenerate behaviors.
People going to church and otherwise engaging in socially progenerative behaviors are generally still experiencing social mobility, good family structure, and generally good mental well-being.
I am not a perfect person, and I have my vices -- but at least I don't lie to myself about them (or at least try not to). Liberals, in my experience, take the cognitive dissonance (is this a good thing to do? Is this a smart decision? etc) and seek out people who will reassure them that their conscience is wrong (and is probably part of some white-supremacist system of patriarchy or something).
Girls and young women are especially susceptible to this line of thinking.
I don't get along with most atheists because they're overwhelmingly liberal
Because they've replaced the moral framework religion provided with another moral framework tied in with their atheism and their politics.
Maybe it's as simple as this: humans need something bigger than themselves to believe in. How many people do you know personally that are just as 'religious' as a typical Christian (or more, even) about their atheism.
In these cases, what framework exists is pretty much hedonism and/or nihilism. If there's nothing bigger than us, then nothing we do matters.
Now, here's the biggest problem: the moral decay that I refer to is obviously bigger than a group of atheists. How many "liberal" christian sects are completely and irrevocably cucked? Look at how many denominations stand for absolutely nothing (looking at you, United Church of Christ).
Even the Catholic church is guilty of this. I grew up going to Catholic schools (even though I was not) and I really do like the ritual nature of the Catholic Mass (Hey, at least I feel like I'm participating in something with structure, right?) -- but the current Pope is actively destroying the church by diminishing the structures, the rituals, and the codes. It's all connected.
That's just where I'm at. I'm not going to pressure you to do anything differently - we're both on the same road trying to find the same answers and I wish you the best of luck.
You don't need to believe in a sky father to understand the need for good, and doing things with good intent. Honoring the spirit, rather than the letter of the law is the heart of Christian practice-- we call it being lead by the Holy Spirit, but anyone who acts with posterity in mind, who plants trees who's shade they will never enjoy, acts in accordance with the same good we worship. Being a good steward of this earth doesn't require religion. Any who act in the name of the future are my allies, even if they aren't co-religionists.
I'm sure it wouldn't amuse him, but I ended up here in part due to reading some of Richard Dawkin's books. The one of his driving ideas that genes don't care about good or bad, only useful or harmful, can be applied to ideas, to memes. It doesn't matter if religion is true or not, it matters if it is useful or harmful. And I'm at the point now where I view it as a useful falsehood, a valuable set of memes.
God damn, I never thought of Dawkins that way (The God Delusion was one of my first nonfiction books after hitting my teens) -- but it's a great point and kind of describes where I'm at.
As an atheist you're against killing a five year old just because they're inconvenient, and for killing a single cell because it's not really much of anything.
But something Crowder said was that cell has a new combination of DNA, and that's an actual, hard, science-based criteria. Different genes, different person.
That argument has a lot of appeal to me, because limits like first 3 months are totally arbitrary and subjective. When it looks recognizable? When it has thoughts? I guess you could say after the first heartbeat, but why that? You can't expect people to agree with you if the criteria is just totally arbitrary.
All of this is arbitrary, but first 3 months aren't really subjective. There are a lot of good medical reasons for picking the second trimester as the start of 'human life'. Although the new Texas heartbeat law is probably more scientifically grounded. But I don't find the DNA argument any less arbitrary. Different genes, but is that all you need to call it a person?
The DNA argument is arbitrary in a sense that it's picking one difference out of many, but it's not subjective. All people have different DNA than their parents, unless they're a clone but that's a different topic.
Even an atheist who is at least trying not to have cognitive dissonance must use logical reasoning to draw a line between "tissue" and "human being" somewhere. Like you said some of them think post-birth killing is fine. If they wanted to set a line earlier in the pregnancy based on some biological reality, that would at least make sense. What never made sense to me was setting birth as the magical point when it becomes a person. You've at least given me some insight into their thought process, but you nicely destroyed that argument yourself.
Objective reality is not dependent on a person's subjective "impression" - any more than a man can become a woman just because he thinks he is.
Convincing women abortion isn't killing and is instead exercising her rights is the both the most effective con ever concocted and the sad reality of women's rational thinking.
The thing is if they admit they are responsible for their own pregnancy it means whoring around is wrong and whoring around can't be wrong because they like doing it and denying themselves something they like is out of the question because they're selfish. This is what happens with addiction as well, you refuse the idea of being wrong and go from there, exactly the opposite of what a smart person would do.
Very few people support bodily autonomy. It's not a popular political position. Most people want to have some part in regulating other people's bodies. I guess it's human nature.
I always find it odd that people conceptualize bodily autonomy as allowing the death of a separate individual. To actually support bodily autonomy you would be against abortion as a fetus is the one defenseless and not given the bodily autonomy. The overwhelming majority of pregnancy is due to choices of the individual. To say someone who has made a choice that develops a new life now has autonomy over that life is denial of bodily autonomy.
I used to be an atheist. I still don't go to church (though the wife and I should), but I don't describe myself as an atheist.
One of the big realizations I've had in the past 10 years (the span between edgy atheist teen and cynical 30-something) is this: while I don't need a church to have a conscience and morals (something I assume is true for you as well), there's a LOT of people in this world who DO need that framework.
I am very reluctant to sound like a priest or pastor, because I am definitely neither or those things -- but look at the degeneracy around us. Look at the lives people are living that will leave the next generation worse off than ours. Look at the hedonism, the nihilism, and the apathy. These are not pillars on which to build or maintain a society.
So yeah, I believe there's some sort of God out there -- not because I am trying to curry favor or get in to heaven, but because I think a society-wide moral framework is important. That may sound incongruous to you -- probably because it is.
I'm still working on it - I just see a lot in this comment and the comment above it that make me think you're kind of in the same mental vortex I was in for a while.
Same with comfort. I'm also not religious and I totally understand why many people need that sort of a positive, structured cultural thing.
I don't understand what's so hard to get about it. I know people who are addicted to going out to drink, to go on Tinder fuck dates. To go to the gym, do many other things. But they act like it's baffling that others fulfill their social needs through church.
Because deep down most people know (or at least suspect) that they're going down the wrong path and engaging in socially degenerate behaviors.
People going to church and otherwise engaging in socially progenerative behaviors are generally still experiencing social mobility, good family structure, and generally good mental well-being.
I am not a perfect person, and I have my vices -- but at least I don't lie to myself about them (or at least try not to). Liberals, in my experience, take the cognitive dissonance (is this a good thing to do? Is this a smart decision? etc) and seek out people who will reassure them that their conscience is wrong (and is probably part of some white-supremacist system of patriarchy or something).
Girls and young women are especially susceptible to this line of thinking.
Because they've replaced the moral framework religion provided with another moral framework tied in with their atheism and their politics.
Maybe it's as simple as this: humans need something bigger than themselves to believe in. How many people do you know personally that are just as 'religious' as a typical Christian (or more, even) about their atheism.
In these cases, what framework exists is pretty much hedonism and/or nihilism. If there's nothing bigger than us, then nothing we do matters.
Now, here's the biggest problem: the moral decay that I refer to is obviously bigger than a group of atheists. How many "liberal" christian sects are completely and irrevocably cucked? Look at how many denominations stand for absolutely nothing (looking at you, United Church of Christ).
Even the Catholic church is guilty of this. I grew up going to Catholic schools (even though I was not) and I really do like the ritual nature of the Catholic Mass (Hey, at least I feel like I'm participating in something with structure, right?) -- but the current Pope is actively destroying the church by diminishing the structures, the rituals, and the codes. It's all connected.
That's just where I'm at. I'm not going to pressure you to do anything differently - we're both on the same road trying to find the same answers and I wish you the best of luck.
I hear you.
You don't need to believe in a sky father to understand the need for good, and doing things with good intent. Honoring the spirit, rather than the letter of the law is the heart of Christian practice-- we call it being lead by the Holy Spirit, but anyone who acts with posterity in mind, who plants trees who's shade they will never enjoy, acts in accordance with the same good we worship. Being a good steward of this earth doesn't require religion. Any who act in the name of the future are my allies, even if they aren't co-religionists.
God damn, I never thought of Dawkins that way (The God Delusion was one of my first nonfiction books after hitting my teens) -- but it's a great point and kind of describes where I'm at.
As an atheist you're against killing a five year old just because they're inconvenient, and for killing a single cell because it's not really much of anything.
But something Crowder said was that cell has a new combination of DNA, and that's an actual, hard, science-based criteria. Different genes, different person.
That argument has a lot of appeal to me, because limits like first 3 months are totally arbitrary and subjective. When it looks recognizable? When it has thoughts? I guess you could say after the first heartbeat, but why that? You can't expect people to agree with you if the criteria is just totally arbitrary.
All of this is arbitrary, but first 3 months aren't really subjective. There are a lot of good medical reasons for picking the second trimester as the start of 'human life'. Although the new Texas heartbeat law is probably more scientifically grounded. But I don't find the DNA argument any less arbitrary. Different genes, but is that all you need to call it a person?
Why 3 months and not a week later? Just because.
The DNA argument is arbitrary in a sense that it's picking one difference out of many, but it's not subjective. All people have different DNA than their parents, unless they're a clone but that's a different topic.
Even an atheist who is at least trying not to have cognitive dissonance must use logical reasoning to draw a line between "tissue" and "human being" somewhere. Like you said some of them think post-birth killing is fine. If they wanted to set a line earlier in the pregnancy based on some biological reality, that would at least make sense. What never made sense to me was setting birth as the magical point when it becomes a person. You've at least given me some insight into their thought process, but you nicely destroyed that argument yourself.
Objective reality is not dependent on a person's subjective "impression" - any more than a man can become a woman just because he thinks he is.
Convincing women abortion isn't killing and is instead exercising her rights is the both the most effective con ever concocted and the sad reality of women's rational thinking.
The thing is if they admit they are responsible for their own pregnancy it means whoring around is wrong and whoring around can't be wrong because they like doing it and denying themselves something they like is out of the question because they're selfish. This is what happens with addiction as well, you refuse the idea of being wrong and go from there, exactly the opposite of what a smart person would do.
Very few people support bodily autonomy. It's not a popular political position. Most people want to have some part in regulating other people's bodies. I guess it's human nature.