I am not surprised that a woman has cashed-in on her addiction to abortion by landing a book deal. I am surprised that 51 publishers passed on the tale of 15 abortions in 17 years. At least Whoopi Goldberg had the decency to stop before she reached double figures.

Jesus, Whoopi killed almost as many unborn children as God killed born children in the Old Testament. ;)

Herman didn't mean it this way, but he reveals just why abortion is such a profoundly wicked act: the abortionist presumes power and prerogative over life and death reserved only by the Most High.
Whoopi and this other woman are truly deserving of the label "feminazi." And that's not a term I particularly care for or to use. But it is quite appropriate in their cases.

Oh, I meant to add: these cases Dan notes demonstrate how appropriate and telling the radical feminist slogan "I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar" really is. Lions also roar, and they devour. The males, like radical fems, even devour their young when they can.

Eric, do you believe that even the earliest of abortions are "profoundly wicked" acts?

Perhaps Whoopi and this other woman would better be described as "Angel's of Death." That's one way God kills babies, right?

Of course the earliest of abortions are profoundly wicked acts. Why would you think they are less wicked than, say, murdering a newborn?

As for God, can you imagine any reason why He might be justified in taking any human life?

Sodomy

I can't say I know any women that have an abortion fetish but I've known several women who, when they needed money would tell their boyfriends they were pregnantand needed money for an abortion.

Herman,

Yes - murder is a wicked sin. The size and location of a human has no bearing on the human's right to life. But Christ's blood can cover even this.

Are Whoopi and this woman as all-wise and as perfectly holy and just as the Lord our God? The Lord giveth and taketh away. It is not for man to interpose himself as God. That is the worst form of idolatry.

--Eric

Two problems with that, Eric. One, you seem to be employing the special pleading fallacy. Two, more obviously, you're assuming that the lord YOUR god exists and possesses the attributes you claim. You'd think if a god such as yours existed, the majority of humans on earth would know that he exists. But this is not the case, so your immense assumption strikes me as quite unwarranted.

And, regarding the OP, would anyone really want a gaggle of Whoopi lookalikes running around anyway? The world has enough eyebrowless individuals. ;)

Note: I emphasize the lord "YOUR" god precisely because that's what he is - YOUR god, not everyone else's. People who believe in "your" god are in the minority; the majority of humans do not have this belief.

When are leftists gonna get tired of attacking God and all God-fearers? It seems to me that their poses of having an exclusive claim for reason and associating this with Leftism is not only unjustified self-congratulations, and quite unwise, but also does the left no favors, since mose human beings believe in the divine and are turned off by radical self-asserting impiety.

Xantippe,

If you have assumed that I am a leftist, you are guilty of a strange assumption.

You also ignored my point (I said nothing of having an exclusive claim of reason). I will restate and even clarify my point: Those who most vehemently disparage abortion are often those who passionately praise a god who they believe assassinated children. The justification often amounts to: God did it, so it's ok. Ok. So, if Whoopi went to god's angel of death for an abortion, instead of a clinic, would christian anti-abortionists suddenly have no problem with abortion?

Just curious. Dan posted a video of children singing a song about Obama. If that video was creepy (it was) and smacked of brainwashing (it did), then what are we to say of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

C'mon, folks. Consistency.

Herman, let's leave your silly obsession about God's legitimacy being evident in His popularity. Furthermore, if the notion of God is a joke for you, then you can leave Him out of the discussion entirely. Do me a favor and please articulate, clearly, your objections to one or both of the following;

1>Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatazoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell—a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.
2>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

ADB, you lamely mischaracterized my point. My point is: If a god such as Eric's truly existed - with all of the attributes (all-loving, omnipotent, plus a desire for humanity to know him and accept his message as true, etc) - then would one really expect to see the world in its current state? A world where billions of Christians do not know him, do not accept his message as true (perhaps many have not even heard it!), and where Christians themselves cannot even agree on fundamental attributes of that message.

As for your request for objections.

1) Did I voice my objection to this notion?

2) The notion of a creator, for starters.

Herman,

It's called free will. A pretty big part of christianity. The person makes their own choice to believe or not, to follow or not, to spread the word or not, to pass it on to their children or not.
That same thinking goes to the rest of our lives, there's right and wrong, it's up to us to choose and create the world we live in. While I'm no biblical scholar I don't believe God says anywhere in the bible that life would be easy and there would be no suffering. We suffer the consequences of our actions. The world we create is up to us, not God.

I'm going to leave the theological discussion, your questions are good ones... in fact I'm explaining similar ones to my seven year old these days.

1: Yes. When you asked - "Eric, do you believe that even the earliest of abortions are 'profoundly wicked' acts?". Your tone and words indicate a disagreement with my statement(no.1)

2: Where do you think we came from? Aliens, Crystals, Goo? Please feel free to substitute 'creator' for a word of your choice and get back to me.

Hi, Opus.

I fail to see how the free will defense affects my point. Perhaps you can elaborate.

You don't have to be a biblical scholar to know the stories of Moses, Gideon and doubting Thomas. With miracles and appearances, god revealed himself to these men. By doing so, did he violate their free will?

My point is this: If an all-loving god exists and wants us to know him and his message, then wouldn't we expect that he would reveal that message to us clearly and explicitly - just as he did with characters in the bible? I submit that if he did so, there would not be as many unbelievers as their are today. And if god revealed himself, he would simply be letting people know the truth. People would still be free to follow him or not.

The notion about people "choosing" to believe or not - that is, saying that unbelief is a matter of will, in the way that an action is - seems patently ridiculous. As you read this post, can you "choose" to believe that the computer you're using does not exist? If I hold a gun to your head and commanded you to choose to believe that I am the president of United States, could you obey and "choose" to fully believe this to be true? Apply the idea to certain nonbelievers. It seems more likely that some people simply cannot believe, due to the knowledge they have at the time. Consider people who have never even heard of Christianity - how can you "choose" to not believe a proposition that you have never even heard?

The points you raise about suffering strike me as red herrings.

Yo, ADB.

Is your seven year old named Theodore Drange or J.L Schellenberg? The questions I raise come from reading some rather prominent scholars and philosophers.

1) To be honest, I'm pretty agnostic on the matter. I have only recently begun looking into the matter. Here is something I recently read, if you are interested. Read section 1.2 and pay particular interest to the final paragraph: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stem-cells/

2) I suppose I don't know "where we came from." That's why I'm an atheist - I have not seen conclusive evidence to suggest that there is a creator. I don't have enough knowledge to conclusively state an opinion. I am currently reading work by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith on the matter.

A video that shows the worship of a particular mortal human and a video that shows Christian worship are equal? How so? If you’re point is the brainwashing aspect, then I understand.

But it seems much more dangerous and destructive to be teaching blind obedience to a group of kids to follow an extremely flawed and corrupt megalomaniac than it does the spirit of a deity that many find worthy of inspiration and do believe in.

ASDF, yes the point was about "brainwashing."

And while I am sympathetic to your view that
"teaching blind obedience to a group of kids to follow an extremely flawed and corrupt megalomaniac" is dangerous and destructive, what I advocate consistency. After all, Obama's supporters "believe in" him and find him "worthy of inspiration." Does that make him any less flawed, corrupt or megalomanical? No, and the same logic applies to god.

Suppose Obama, after unsuccessful attempts to reason with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hired CIA operatives to kill the first born children of all Iranians. If this happened, (I suspect that) most Christians would rightfully condemn his actions. However, they defend the same action when committed by their god. The defense I hear usually amounts to: "god did it, so it is ok. What he says goes, because he's god." I would like for someone to explain to me how this defense does not commit the special pleading fallacy.

ASDF, recall my earlier point. If what god says goes, then what would happen if Jesus came to earth and announced that abortions are actually ok. Even "Andrea Yates style fourth trimester abortions," as Dan once humorously put it. If we follow the "what god says goes" logic, then Christians would have to accept this edict. In practice, this means that if people THINK they get a message from god to commit an act that they would generally regard as "profoundly wicked," they would have to accept that act as justified. Unfortunately, there is profound confusion regarding what god's message is, or if he even gave us one in the first place. Billions of Muslims believe they have god's message. Billions of Christians believe the same. Billions of others do not believe either of them. This confusion strongly suggests that we do not have any reliable means of ascertaining what god's message is. In light of all this, does the video of brainwashed christian children not seem dangerous?

Herman,
My seven year old often asks 'why does God let bad things happen? You ask "If a god such as Eric's truly existed (snip) then would one really expect to see the world in its current state?
I did not mean to insult your intelligence by comparing the two of you. I don't know you personally ,but for the record, you seem like a relatively intelligent human being. Anyway this is tiresome going over the same point two/three times. Let's keep moving.

1: You say "I have only recently begun looking into the matter", I commend you for this scholarly endeavor. But as someone in the process of formulating an opinion why do you mock others who already have one - be it based on God, tarot cards or science? Or if agnostic/non-committal is your final position, why ridicule someone (eric, opus etc) who has a formulated opinion?

2: It's funny how often one sees this misunderstanding. If you "don't know where we came from." then, I'm afraid, you're not an atheist - you're not denying the existence of a supreme being or creator.

I'm trying to find out where your pro-abortion leanings come from? Given your on-the-fence responses to my stolen political and scientific statements (1+2), it seems your opinions are based on a disdain for the notion of God and those who 'believe', who are mostly pro-life?

It depends on what you mean by a “formulated� and what you mean by “opinion.� Essentially,� I take formulation to mean: The process of coming to accepting a belief as true. I take opinion to mean: Someone's view on a particular subject.

Formulation can rely on solid or shaky evidence, valid or invalid reasoning. Opinions can conform to reality or not. Thus, if I investigate Bob's formulation and find alleged “evidence� that is unclear and ambiguous and/or fallacious logic, then this would affect my opinion of Bob's formulation. And, in a goodhearted fashion, perhaps I would mock him a bit. If there is not enough information or strong enough evidence to establish a position, then I may ridicule the notion that the idea is, in fact, established. The idea, not the person.

From Wikipedia's entry on atheism: “Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]"

Even just a cursory read online reveals that the word has broader applications than you account for. Why should I accept your limited definition?

"I'm trying to find out where your pro-abortion leanings come from? Given your on-the-fence responses to my stolen political and scientific statements (1+2), it seems your opinions are based on a disdain for the notion of God and those who 'believe', who are mostly pro-life?"

I don't know why you think I have pro-abortion leanings. I certainly don't advocate abortion, nor do I advocate a woman's right to choose. Did you read the essay that I posted? Some of the work the author references raises some rather difficult and interesting questions for advocates of the "at conception" position. I probably would not adopt a viewpoint until I have successfully answered those questions. It puzzles me that those who cannot answer those questions, or have not even considered them(!), can so passionately advocate their opinions. What they lack in knowledge, they make up for with passion, to paraphrase Mr. Flynn.

My opinions on abortion are certainly not based on disdain for god and believers - that would be absurd.

Herms,
You're right, why should you accept my limited definition?
M-W: A disbelief in the existence of deity.
OED: the belief that God does not exist.

Again, you say "you don't know". By DEFINITION you are not an atheist. Don't be sad, this should be a positive realization for you.

I'm growing tired of explaining points again and again... it's a shame, I thought this was going somewhere.

ADB,

Herms... lol. I like that. It's catchy, much better than "Hermy."

Your weariness reminds me of a man who ran for hours on a treadmill and concluded, from his fatigue, that he had actually traveled many miles. With all due respect, you have typed many words, but have explained little. Perhaps you will remedy this by addressing my challenge below, instead of asserting (without argument or any defense whatsoever) that you are correct.

Regarding my "ridicule" of Opus. If I recall, all I did was point out why the free will defense does not properly address my point... and the absurdity of the notion of "choosing" to believe.

Many people who think as I do describe themselves as atheists. You say this is incorrect. I challenge you to support your claim. This is a wonderful way for you to demonstrate your commitment to "go somewhere" with this conversation. Actually support your claim.

If you are unable to demonstrate why I should accept your limited definition of atheism - when I clearly gave an example of a more broadly accepted definition - that is your problem, not mine. Rest assured, your inability or refusal (I strongly suspect that it is the latter) to support your claim does not affect my emotional state. Tonight, the only person's refusal that will mean much to me is that of my girlfriend. ;)

Good night.

Herms,
Again, this isn't my "claim". I gave you the Merriam-Webster and Oxford English Dictionary definitions.

ADB, you most certainly did make a bold claim. Your bold claim is that I am, by definition, not an atheist. If you forgot that you made this claim, or do not believe that you did, feel free to re-read your own post to clarify the matter for yourself. Are you now running away from a claim that you clearly and boldly made? I did not say that you WROTE the definition that you quoted. You claimed that I do not meet the definition of an atheist, despite the fact that Wikipedia, other atheists, myself and other sources disagree with your definition.

AGAIN, I challenge you to defend the claim that you made.

Herman, I think by any modern standard, Obama (and the worship thereof) is a far more dangerous entity than Christianity.

In fact, if what you say about fewer people believing in a supreme being, Christian or otherwise, what's all the fuss about?

It should make you happy that the world in general is becoming more secular. By that account, I would worry much more about the flawed evil humans among us than the religious concept of unquestioned and blind belief.

ASDF,

Unfortunately, as you probably know, atheists have leftist political tendencies (perhaps that explains why XANTIPPE wrongheadedly denounced me as a leftist). For this reason, I do not fully celebrate this alleged secularization you referenced.

Originally, "all the fuss" I made simply amounted to demanding some consistency. If Christians denounce those who kill the unborn, why do they let their god off the hook for killing those already born?

Ralph asked "As for God, can you imagine any reason why He might be justified in taking any human life?" Of course, to ask me this simply shifts the burden of proof. It's his job to explain why he opposes abortion (if he does, in fact), yet does not oppose his god assassinating children.

Eric's answer committed the special pleading fallacy. I answered Eric by saying that if the Christian god truly existed, there would not be as many non-Christians as there are today. An all-loving, all-powerful god who wants us to know him and his message would not have permitted this to happen. The answers I received - from the free will defense to the idiotic notion that people "choose" to disbelieve" were... well, they sucked.

As for your last point, ASDF, regarding the danger of unquestioned and blind belief: Consider the Iraq war, which the author of this blog opposed. Have we not heard religious justifications for the war?

"...if the Christian god truly existed, there would not be as many non-Christians as there are today."

Says you. But the Bible explains it all very well, starting with the doctrine of original sin. It does no good to absolutize one aspect of the Christian faith and the Bible's teaching to the exclusion of what else it tells us. For instance, there is a great riddle in the Bible, about how God could be both perfectly holy, perfectly just and at the same time so merciful and perfectly loving. To exercise that mercy would be to undercut his justice. The answer to the riddle is found in the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ, including God's purpose of His crucifixion and the victory achieved and being achieved through His resurrection.

Now, I have found these conversations to be fruitless outside the context of in-person relationships. So I'm not going to waste my time explicating all aspects of the faith and dissecting your arguments. I would encourage you to keep reading and researching - and I am gladdened that you say you are. But know this: Jesus is *my* Lord, and He is uniquely that to Christians by virtue of our personal relationship with Him. But He is also Lord of lords and King of kings - including that over your own personal kingdom of one. One day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. I hope for your sake that you will confess it out of joy and gratitude and not out of anguish.

All that digression to the side, I'll conclude by noting that your posited a-theology amounts to a diversion from the subject at hand: Regardless of the validity of the Bible or of any religious faith, your support of abortion requires godlike presumption over the destiny of the unborn. Who are you to determine who is fit for life, regardless of the reasoning behind any given abortion?

I'll leave it at that. I move on. Good luck to you.