Log in

No account? Create an account

October 30th, 2007

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
11:51 am
Why one particular atheist is angry.

I agree with pretty much everything she had to say.
So I'll just add, "amen."
Current Location: work
mood: calmcalm

(82 bits of drivel | babble incoherently)


[User Picture]
Date:October 30th, 2007 04:19 pm (UTC)
For example, I think the complex issues surrounding abortion can be summed up better than with a photo of a wire coat hanger.

As a woman, I'm insulted.
[User Picture]
Date:October 30th, 2007 04:39 pm (UTC)
The comment you're referencing is "I'm angry that women are having septic abortions -- or are being forced to have unwanted children who they resent and mistreat -- because religious organizations have gotten laws passed making abortion illegal or inaccessible."

I would agree with you if the sentence was "I'm angry at religious organizations for being the sole cause of all abortions (unsafe or otherwise)." But I think her point is clearly illustrated in the last clause. She's upset that religious organizations have shaped abortion legislation according to their personal beliefs about right and wrong, thereby affecting millions of women who don't share those religious beliefs.

As you said, abortion is a complicated issue. There are a million ways to discuss it-- but I would strongly argue that in this country the religious debate has severely influenced political health care decisions.
[User Picture]
Date:October 30th, 2007 04:45 pm (UTC)
So...religious women don't have the right to be upset about healthcare? Only atheists are allowed to have social concerns?

I think she's got it backwards. Most brands of Christianity actually teach that it is a good thing to help out the poor and the sick. That whole thing that Jesus guy did, yannow.
[User Picture]
Date:October 30th, 2007 04:48 pm (UTC)
nowhere is she denying other people their own anger, she's explaining hers. You need to take the framing and context into consideration here.
[User Picture]
Date:October 30th, 2007 04:53 pm (UTC)
Okay, then at whom is she angry?
[User Picture]
Date:October 30th, 2007 07:36 pm (UTC)
She's not angry at any one specific person, she's angry at an institution that has significant sway in her country and is not good at allowing or sometimes even acknowledging any different view points.
[User Picture]
Date:October 30th, 2007 08:49 pm (UTC)
"Religious people" is not an institution.
[User Picture]
Date:October 30th, 2007 04:54 pm (UTC)
What? I'm sorry, but I didn't say or imply anything like that in my comment. The whole point is that anyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof, shouldn't have to abide by health care laws influenced by a particular religion's morality. That says nothing about anyone's right to be upset or care about health care...?

I'm not sure what the last part of this comment has to do with this. If you'll clarify then I can answer to it.
[User Picture]
Date:October 30th, 2007 04:57 pm (UTC)
I didn't say you did. I'm reposnding to statements made in her post, as you requested.
[User Picture]
Date:October 30th, 2007 05:07 pm (UTC)
Sorry, my confusion.

So, your statement "religious women don't have the right to be upset about healthcare? Only atheists are allowed to have social concerns?" is supposed to be referencing the article? Where is that implied? I didn't see anything that supported that line of thought? Anyone can be (and should be!) concerned about health care, but she's talking specifically about religious beliefs being written into law. People can make their own decisions about their health care, whether based on religion or not, but when laws are based on religious belief, that takes the choice away from those that are non-religious (hence her original point, as paraphrased by me).

As far as "I think she's got it backwards. Most brands of Christianity actually teach that it is a good thing to help out the poor and the sick. That whole thing that Jesus guy did, yannow."

So that's an original teaching of Christianity. And? That doesn't excuse or invalidate all of the points she makes about what's the affect of religious teachings and organizations has actually been. She talks specifically in the post about what religion was meant to be, and how that's irrelevant when the actuality of how it impacts the world around it is different.
[User Picture]
Date:October 31st, 2007 03:00 am (UTC)
And you accuse Christians of not wanting to engage in debate?

First you start a debate with me, I keep going for awhile, and then request to bow out. You don't respect this but keep sending responses and trying to continue the discussion. Then you invite me to your journal. I give in and keep the conversation going. You state your confusion at our conflicting views, but stop responding.

I think this is because you want to continue at your journal, so I go over there as you asked, and make one polite reponse.

The next thing I receive from you is an angry reply saying you had told me you were done with the conversation, which you hadn't - you'd only expressed bafflement at our differing viewpoints. And now you've defriended me, which is fine but seems awfully petty to me. But it's your choice.

I've done the same and defriended you, but I am feeling very resentful about you attempting to set me up like this - as though the pretense of asking for an intelligent debate was an excuse to pull childish drama on your part.

I'm not impressed.

I suggest you practice some open-mindedness and tolerance before you insist on dragging people into debates in the future.
[User Picture]
Date:October 31st, 2007 07:01 am (UTC)
I've stared at this response for a good solid half an hour, trying to decide if I wanted to post it or not. I generally don't go back on my decisions once I decide I'm bored with a flame war so this is genuinely difficult for me.

Nowhere in this thread did I see you requesting to bow out of this "debate." Nor did I see oceanic ever respond to you in anger. What I saw was a thread spin wildly out of control. oceanic attempted to stem the flow by inviting you to continue the debate in her journal. You chose to ignore her and continue the debate here. oceanic finally decided after attempting numerous logical responses to you that these statements were falling on deaf ears and ended the conversation. At that point you decided to take her up on her invitation from earlier in the day, after she had already requested to end this conversation. I saw no anger in her request...exasperation perhaps, but no anger.

The fact that you actually have the gall to suggest someone open their mind and be more tolerant is perhaps one of the more laughable statements I've seen in this thread today. I find myself continually tickled by your uncanny ability to twist facts and opinions to say what you want them to say. What I find most amusing though is the lack of logic in any of your so called arguments. The fact that you continually resort to calling the author an idiot should have given all of us a clue that actually attempting to communicate with you under the guise of logical discourse was a farcical exercise at best.

I'm sure you will have a response; Dobermans can't let go of a steak once they've latched on. By all means have your last word if you find that it comforts you to leave it. I assure you that I do not intend to waste my time reading it.
Why one particular atheist is angry. I agree with pretty much… - another LJ. or: how i learned to stop worrying and love this life-thingy

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> Lord Google

lil gamers

> Go to Top