Re: FW: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] interesting article from a former Bush supporter

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Fri, 19 May 2006, Rick wrote:

> The primary reason I support choice but I'm opposed to partial birth 
> abortions is because, barring the rare instance that it's required for 
> the health or survival of the mother, there is absolutely *no* reason 
> for it to occur that late in a pregnancy.

If you want to make it illegal to perform abortions at 6 months unless the 
mother is in danger or the fetus is sick/deformed/whatever, then I'm all 
for it.  But if a fetus is doomed or sure to be mentally retarded, I say 
let the mom make the choice, and if she chooses abortion, then let it be 
"partial-birth" if that is safest for her and that's what she wants.


> > > I would characterize the "out of touch" crowd as those who take Bush's 
> > > side on every issue always.  They just don't care what he does, they 
> > > don't care what people say about him, they are full-on Bush supporters 
> > > to the end.  That, in my book, is out of touch.
>
> You are just as guilty of this sort of behavior regarding Clinton, but 
> that topic's been done to death.

I don't think so.  I don't believe we've had much to say about Clinton 
except that he "had sex with that woman" (or didn't do it by some obscure 
legal definitions) and I didn't give a damn.


> So that means, since I'm an atheist, I'm not out of touch, just stupid?

I didn't say that, but I also would say that you seem to be able to absorb 
unpleasant facts about Bush.  It might not be enough to convince you 
entirely that he is *evil* but you seem to get it.  For some people on 
this list, they handle the litany of Bush-related problems like a duck 
handles water on its back -- it just rolls off as if it were never there.


> Oddly enough, I had one of these exact discussion yesterday over lunch 
> with one of my coworkers. I was trying to establish exactly what the 
> criteria would be to prove to him, conclusively, that God doesn't exist. 
> Let's suffice it to say that the criteria is not currently achievable by 
> either science or philosophy and involves both n-dimensional space and a 
> sheep...

This is the core problem with "God" as a scientific theory of anything: 
It is irrefutable in principle.  This is why in several thousand years we 
have mad essentially no progress in theological cosmology or "creation 
science."


> However, I think it's safe to say that there is very little "snapping 
> out of it" once a person has accepted the belief that God exists. The 
> belief itself is both self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating and obviously 
> very addictive. Perhaps you should approach it from that angle...as an 
> addiction. Even a cold, clinical approach would be less offensive than 
> your constant implications that everyone else is a retard.

It happens.  Check out this book:

http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/
Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist
by Dan Barker

Dan Barker went from one extreme to the other.  He was a devout Christian 
and minister from a religious family who wrote religious music.  Now he is 
a leading atheist at the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  I think his 
reasons for changing were very nicely explained in his book.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion