Militant Atheism And 'Nonpersons' As Natural Resources

Sierra Times ^ | Apr. 3, 2005 | Linda Kimball

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "Pinnelas County, where Terri Shiavo was "humanely starved' has a nest of these vipers."

There are making inroads everywhere, even here in Freeperland. Have you seen some of the comments and sympathetic Threads for the husband and Judge Greer?

[cooper72]

That was a selective response. You said:

"The slaughter was left to Nietzsches adherents."

What slaughter do you mean?

[orionblamblam]

> If you truly do not think God exists what is the point of worrying about those who do?

If you truly do think God exists what is the point of worrying about those who don't?

[Lindykim]

"Conditioned minds" are everywhere. They actually believe there is a moral high ground that exists between man having the power to determine if another person is a 'nonperson deserving of death' and mankind not having that power. Where is a middle ground that isn't based in conveniance and a desire to no no longer be held morally responsible for another human being?

[Beckwith]

Atheism is the highest form of arrogance.

If they don't want to believe in a higher being, fine. But beyond that, why should atheists push their beliefs on anyone else.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "If you truly do think God exists what is the point of worrying about those who don't?"

Am I my brother's keeper?
Find the story that this line is taken from and you will find your answer.

[Lindykim]

snip...why should atheists push their beliefs on anyone else.


For the militant ones, it's all-consuming selflove. Pride that says:
"I'm better than you.....I'm the smartest, most brilliant person in the whole world"

[Lindykim]

ttt

[Max in Utah]

But beyond that, why should atheists push their beliefs on anyone else.

Because they can't stand being contradicted; it rubs against their delusion of being their own highest moral authority. They'd rather not be reminded of the One they're rebelling against.

[cooper72]

If atheists are their own highest moral authority, how do you decide who is morally correct between two good Christians who believe in the opposite thing in a moral dilemma?

[TigersEye]

Tom L. Beauchamp, co-author of one of the most influential bioethics textbooks, "Principles Of Biomedical Ethics," declared: "it is safe to assume that a creature is a moral person if....(1) it is capable of making moral judgements about rightness and wrongness of actions, (2) it has motives that can be judged morally."

I reckon that leaves you out, Tom!

[TigersEye]

Tribe believes that there should be no "insistent reference to human interests," at the expense of "plant and animal life and things of beauty." We need "biological modesty on the part of man to acknowledge that his species has no intrinsically superior value..."

He may have a point. I have house plants I'd sooner run into a burning building to save than Lawrence Tribe.

[Max in Utah]

You decide on the basis of Christian principles, which derive from the Bible.

[scripter]

In "Mere Christianity," CS Lewis...

That's a great book. I haven't read it in a while, but I encouraged one of my old managers to read it. He was an atheist and thought I was really weird, but after he read Mere Christianity and using reason and logic, he became a believer.

After that I helped him translate Mere Christianity into Korean. Of course I don't know Korean and he mentions that in the book, but I was able to help him with some of the concepts. And now more folks have the opportunity to read Mere Christianity, which I highly recommend to anyone looking into the truth.

[lafroste]

If atheists are their own highest moral authority, how do you decide who is morally correct between two good Christians who believe in the opposite thing in a moral dilemma?

That question is a non-sequitor. The notion that atheists consider themselves to be the highest moral authority does not speak to the situation of two Christians (by definition non-atheists) struggling with a moral dilemma. Two atheists, if confronted with that same moral dilemma, have no recourse except that one of them must prevail. Since they acknowledge no higher moral authority, then there appears to be no intellectual structure to reach a solution to their dilemma. Therefore, they will likely try to resolve the conflict through coercive means.

The Christians, on the other hand, both sharing a sense of a higher moral authority will both attempt to frame their dilemma in terms of that morality. That framework is more conducive to finding a resolution and that resolution is less likely to include coercion.

[cooper72]

You still haven't answered my question. The late Pope believed that contraception was evil, yet many great Protestant leaders do not.

Who is right?

[cooper72]

You decide on the basis of Christian principles, which derive from the Bible.

But there are many Christians who disagree on it's interpretation.

The catholic church accepts evolution, and yet many other Christians do not. Who is right?

[MHGinTN]

"In their power-crazed bloodlust they have thus far exterminated over one hundred million human beings. And they are not done yet." Actually, the number is so much higher and growing my multiple millions each year counting the alive sensing and alive not yet sensing unborn human beings.

[cooper72]

And they are not done yet.

Who are the "they"?

[MHGinTN]

Those who systematically dehumanize the unborn, the handicapped, the elderly, the retarded. Want to join their club?... All you need do is dehumanize one group of humans or another and get really p!ssy about it ... 'they' will welcome you.