O/T - Abortion

Oh I was speaking in general, quoting you at first was a little disingenuous!

Agree with you. I would consider my personal philosophy to be something akin to existential nihilism mixed with a dose of absurdism (without that **** about the shared goals and spirit of man - too idealistic for me).

One of the best Dawkins videos! Lots of time for him.

 

Very true. But they don't like to talk about that do they?

 

That's fairly close to my own personal philosophical bent - with the addition of a touch of secular humanism thrown in, too.

PS I too also have time for R. Dawkins. Decent scientist and great populariser of science. He's also a good advocate for logic and reason. He seems to annoy religious people, too. Probably moreso than Hitchens, which I always found odd because Hitchens could be much more strident and caustic than Dawkins. Although, he was much more personable and witty, too.

 

I would argue that Christianity is a faith. There is no instruction in the Bible that attendance at or conformity to the dogmas of a church is compulsory. In fact there is advice that Christians should not appoint priesthoods that stand in the way of a direct relationship between God and the individual believer. Unfortunately, a pre-requisite of being a Christian is that you are human with all the strengths and weaknesses of the human race and humans have a need to form organisations/communities. I believe that it is in the frailty of the human condition that religion becomes confused with faith.

 

Yeh, again I'd agree!

There's a lot to be said for secularism, humanism etc. Find myself liking Epicurean philosophy in a simple sense, although of course it's not really applicable in modern life; which is a shame.

Fair comment, well argued.

What are your views then, on the Pope and indeed the Catholic Church?

 

I would contend that the frailty of the human condition birthed both faith and religion. Of the two, however, I do have a slight preference for faith, it has to be said.

 

Now you are asking me a very difficult question. I have to preface my comments with the admission that I was brought up as a protestant in Liverpool and attended the only CofE boys high school in the city - hence there maybe an element of inherited bias.

let's take the Pope first. Every organisation must have a leader to head it. Call that person any name you want and therefore Pope will do if you wish. However, I cannot accept that this person is "God's representative on Earth" and it will therefore be no surprise if I go on to say that I cannot subscribe to the concept of the infallibility of the Pope (though not being a Roman Catholic I don't know if that infallibility is still is still subscribed to).

Catholic Church. Excuse me if I become a little pedantic. I do believe in a truly catholic church. But that church (described as the bride of Christ) is the sum of all Christians and is not a human organisation. Turning to the Roman Catholic church then I believe that it is misguided as it appears to me to be dogma bound. To me dogma is a human extrapolation of the faith and leads to extremes. I cannot support the RC doctrine on contraception, abortion, celibacy of priests, etc. etc. Before anybody gets the idea that i am just knocking the Roman Catholic mirror images appear in the Protestant tradition eg Plymouth Bretheren, Baptist Anglican Communion.

Perhaps I am the wrong person to pontificate (couldn't resist that!) on churches as I appear to have a very individual view upon what constitutes being a Christian and belonging to an earthly organisation is not part of that. I don't know if I am a 'good' Christian. I drink and I smoke; I like looking at women and i would probably be headed for hell if it were not for the fact that I do believe in God and have a personal relationship with him (it could be her I suppose).

 

Me, in my youth I did all the reading, regurgitated the philosophies & ideologies, picked apart anything & everything & with each new gain of knowledge felt the arrogance of certainty return, until I'd picked holes in that too.

Science, religion, ideology, philosophy, art. They are all attempts in vain for us to prove ourselves different, above the rest of the animals because we have been cursed through an evolutionary flip of the coin with self awareness. They are all merely different coloured clothes to hide just how very simple we are under our contrived complexity.

One will point to religion & call it absurd & blame it in the deaths of millions. The response will be to point to the great secular experiments of ideology and say just as many millions dead as a result. It's all window dressing.

To stop would be to accept the horror that we are merely still animals with more sophisticated capabilities to exhibit fight or flight. We exhibit the same patterns of behaviour we did 70000 years ago. Predation, herd or pack behaviour we've just evolved out methods.

Our lives are still dominated by fear or the absence of fear.

Do I think these attempts are pointless? only in that I don't believe they will ever end in a final answer or solution for our species because I don't believe there is an answer we can comprehend as physical beings.

Has the human animal really progressed any further in all the time of its existence? We point to various "accomplishments" but they have had no real effect on the basic animal drive of survival. Name one good thing added to our species that wasn't there before? Name any bad thing that we have eradicated from our species entirely?

Ants, Birds, Dolphins all have complex social behaviours we haven't even begun to understand but they're still Ants, Birds, Dolphins. We are still human.

If science has taught us one thing there have been enough species ending events in this planets history to render our strives meaningless in a very short space of time.

Would I like a God to be there at the end of the physical life to reward good behaviour & punish bad? Suppose it depends on what line i'll end up in doesn't it?

I can tell you one thing though & I'm not afraid to admit it. I'm absolutely terrified by the prospect of death; of merely ceasing to exist. The very fact that I am lets be know I'm still in my genetic code merely another animal.

Will this self awareness stop me living my life in my social groups? Nope.will I attempt to uphold what my species see as positive constructive behaviours that enhance the chances of our continued survival. Of course. Will I fall back on fight or flight against those dangers within & without my species that threaten by continued existence? Yup. But the important point is my awareness of doing all these things won't stop me doing them.

 

If u dont want a kid dont have sex.

 

I find it very interesting that we are holding this conversation on faith, morality and philosophy on a football forum, Not only that but on the Liverpool page of that forum! As many other football supporters believe us Redmen to be the thickest and most deluded of supporters it must be a surprise to them that we can hold such a wide-ranging and mostly reasonable informed discussion.

says just a little more about the human condition.

 

Football is about faith morality andphilosophy !

 

You've put your thoughts across very well, Dave. Even if you have been somewhat outnumbered by us evil atheists.

I think forums should be more like this. Very rarely has it descended into childish name calling. I've quite enjoyed it. Well good night ye of faith and ye faithless. Some of us might have religion and some might not but we can all agree that God ... was one of the greatest strikers ever to have lived!

I fully expect some 'what were you guys smoking' posts in the morning!

 

You don't train players, you train dogs - Nietzsche.

Foredeckdave, congratulations on being the most sensible and thoughtful Christian I've ever met!

 

At the end of the day god only exists in the mind of those that believe. For those that dont he simply doesnt exist.

There is no way of telling if he is real or not. This is because they way religion/believers put across their claims covers all bases. Its very clever really. Mysterious ways and everything. Covers all the bases for every possible question a none believer could ask. All of what we know about god is what has been written by man so at the end of the day every believer follows the word of man, not god. They will argue this fact, some will claim they have seen god or felt god but they havent.

I believe they have located the 'god gene' as well. Which if manipulated can give off the feeling people have when they claim to of seen the divine. This discovery wasnt very popular amongst the believers I seem to recall. Cant think why.

Someone on here once said religion/faith should be treated like race, sex and sexuality which is bullshit. Religion/faith is a choice and the others are not. Choices should be open to questioning and ridicule but many believers dont agree. Tough really, if your faith is strong enough it wont bother you but if it does, then you doubt your faith, you doubt god and really are kidding yourself.

 

As much as it pains me to agree with a United fan... I know your pain will be greater to have to agree with Davidako!

 

If blokes got pregnant this wouldn't even be an issue and this thread wouldn't exist. Abortion would be available at your local corner shop. Then again if blokes got pregnant, wearing a condom wouldn't just be something that ruins sex.


[video=youtube;YHx8l1usD90]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHx8l1usD90&NR=1[/video]

 

I've been monitoring this thread closely, and was very close to closing it before but I'm glad you have all managed to keep it relatively pleasant and not jumped into any religion bashing prejudice.

 

You'll make me

 

Because you THINK that does not make it necessarily TRUE

 

My personal view on abortion is that it should be allowed as it's a woman's body and thus their choice, however I think it should be discouraged overall and should certainly not be seen as a form of contraception. I'm not sure if abortion is provided through the NHS but if so, in the event of accidental pregnancy, I think someone should only receive two abortions, at most, on the NHS. Any further abortions would have to be done privately. Not only would this save money for the NHS but it would also discourage people from using it as a form of contraception which I do feel is wrong. In the event of the baby having the risk of genetic defects or the mother's life being put at risk, then of course these restrictions should not apply.

Of course, if abortions aren't carried out through the NHS, then I guess that's irrelevant, but I guess there could be a limit on the number of abortions due to accidental pregnancy covered by health insurance.