That's not true...
Azure! Silence this fool!
:P
Okay then. -click-
...
-clickclickclick-
Thought-provoking discussion appears to overrule my internetmiko mute button. T_T
Actually, that's exactly what I found your post implied. Being ashamed at believing a society of atheists would be a bad thing? How about a society of Christians? Would that all of a sudden be okay?
"What's not okay about that?" was the first thought in my mind. The second thought was "Jolene is such a troll." and then I thought "I better stop writing about what I'm thinking and start writing an actual response."
There was a poor choice of words at the beginning of this little issue, and it's been swinging from hatred of religion to hatred of atheism and back again. It's really ridiculous, in my opinion, that it's still going that way between such people. You posted before that you try to swing things away from religious discussion, and yet you provoke it by opposing it.
And I provoke it further by responding. But that's not my point here.
Really? I mean... really? There is no way any form of hate can compete with what religion springs among itself. In the science world, I think the biggest argument was against Einstein's relativity. But the difference is that we fight with mathematics, not swords.
I see no difference between an hour of anti-religious sentiment from atheists and an hour of anti-religious sentiment from proponents of another religion. Assault on the body may have been the way to go during the Crusades, perhaps, but assault on a person's position or credibility or occupation is what we see today. Where once were Knights Templar, there are now evangelical atheists. Don't call it absurd or I'll quote someone.
Ah, but you contradict yourself here. You're in favor of abortion being made illegal (I'm assuming), but you support democracy? Where is it that "its illegal to have an abortion" coincides with freedom? I'd think giving people the choice for abortion is more inkeeping with freedom. So, to answer your question, the totalitarian aspects of society tend to be supported by the people preaching freedom. That, my friend, is total lunacy, and I don't understand it.
Anarchy is one thing, and democracy is another. Supporting the ability to influence laws and supporting the illegality of abortion are completely coincident- I wish to have the freedom to determine the laws of my nation, and I wish that this law be enacted, so that such and such an environment is maintained. I want to be able to change the law
alongside others, and I want to express my opinion on such and such a matter.
If you want to spout freedom, support anarchy. No laws, entirely dependent upon the actions of the individual.
And besides, at this point it's a personal choice as to whether you want an abortion or not. It's lawfulness (in terms of what the USA calls law) is unquestioned.
There's a difference between discriminating and differentiating. Differentiating is important; discrimination is dangerous. Scientifically, we're all equal; we're made up of the same molecules, we do the same things to live, need the same things to survive, and our brains generally work the same way. Our DNA shares many things. People never see that, though... they never see someone and say, "Hey, he's human!". They look at someone with a turban and say, "Hey, he's a terrorist!" or they look at an atheist and say, "Hey, he's immoral!". Everything but science proves to separate us as humans. Aand it's when we're separated, with the belief that we're not all equal, that events like the Holocaust happens.
I've seen it said that part of Hitler's motivation for the holocaust was partially an overblown view of natural selection. Eugenics? I'm no expert on that front, so I won't expand on that part of it. But I'll tell you now, Hitler was no Christian. Not even a deluded one.
This page expands on that some.
You said you were ex-Catholic? I don't know what you saw, and I can't speak for other religious views, but Biblical Christianity serves to unify others. Women, children, Christians, atheists, cosmic humanists, Hindus, and Raëlians. There's a difference between discriminating and differentiating. Christianity doesn't discriminate. Really, my only point here is that you shouldn't jump to conclusions. Science is not the only uniter of humanity, and the majority of us religious folk don't think atheists are hopelessly immoral. ;)
This isn't science... this is politics. Sometimes there's mercury in fish, but do you believe it should be illegal to eat fish? Notice the difference. Truthfully, the science behind stem cells is separate from the politics. I, personally, define a life by consciousness. And I defy you to show me how a piece of goo has consciousness. But that's a different story altogether. Also, I notice how you say "there was no way to scientifically prove the embryo or fetus is not a life", and you don't even brush upon the subject of "what if it isn't a life?"
The fact that there is such doubt about the liveliness of a fetus should raise questions about the legality of abortion. In the end people got what they wanted, didn't they? And correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time many people get abortions the fetus is more structured than a piece of goo.
According to democracy, shouldn't a person have the political right to cast their vote towards banning the "fish" if they think it ought not be eaten?
Historically, you Christians have killed out of supposed reasons (that these days are, more or less, obsolete), and believed things that are scientifically proven wrong, but has that tainted your view of your belief? Do you look back and think it was the worst decision in the history of humanity to follow the Bible like that, that it was ignorant, irresponsible to do some of those things before reaching a logical conclusion, acted like responsible humans? How is it you can hold the same "pride and glory" with all the blood and wrong beliefs on the hands of your distant predecessors?
How? How could we possibly hold pride in a faith which was misused by others, long dead, who skewed the fact and spirit of what we know for their own purposes? I don't know. you tell me. How could a person like you hold to science after people used it to invented the nuclear bomb? After it made way for guns and Greek fire and poison and the continual invention of life-ruining drugs?
And as I've said many times before, I've yet to see one irreconcilable difference between science and my faith. Only between scientists and believers. Neither does Christianity quash science, but that's an essay for another day.
Do you look back and think it was the worst decision in the history of humanity to follow the Bible like that, that it was ignorant, irresponsible to do some of those things before reaching a logical conclusion, acted like responsible humans?
This section in particular feels like it tells many things about you. I may be wrong once more, but man, does it ever feel that way.