What do you mean? Do you believe Abraham actually existed? Because according to the Bible God invented MGM with Abraham. And I thought we were talking about what the Bible said and how it was crazy, not whatever a historical Abraham might have actually done.
If I were a woman who had undergone FGM I would slap the shit out of any man referring to a circumcision in this manner. It’s just so detached from reality and insulting.
Well what is it then? I suppose you’re also disregarding that fact that type 1 and 2 FGM (the most common kinds) remove an equivalent amount to MGM. I am not trying to minimise the experience of FGM survivors, but it is ludicrous to say that cutting off parts of the male genitalia is not male genital mutilation, just as it is female genital mutilation if it’s done to females.
You seem to assume that all men are happy with having MGM done to them, but that is not the case. Many men suffer from physical and psychological problems as a result of MGM, such as loss of sensitivity, pain, infection, scarring, and trauma. Many men regret (if that’s even the right word, seeing as they didn’t have the choice) having MGM and wish they could restore their foreskins.
The claim that there are health benefits to MGM is not supported by scientific evidence. The World Health Organization states that there is no convincing evidence that MGM reduces the risk of HIV, urinary tract infections, penile cancer, or other diseases. In fact, MGM may increase the risk of some infections and complications. Even if there were slight health benefits, they would not outweigh the harms and risks of MGM, and they would not justify performing MGM without the person’s consent.
You also seem to have a double standard when it comes to FGM and MGM. You acknowledge that FGM is wrong, but you defend MGM. Some defend it as a matter of tradition or religion, although that is not your overt argument. However, tradition or religion are not valid reasons to harm another person’s body without their consent, especially as religions both advocate FGM and MGM, there is no double standard there. Both FGM and MGM violate a person’s autonomy and rights. They should both be banned and condemned as human rights violations.
I hope you will reconsider your views on this issue and respect the rights of all people to have control over their own bodies.
(and I know you will be able to tell that AI was used in writing this, all I used it for was mellowing down my language, the points are mine.)
Thank you for taking the time to write this so constructively. I was feeling myself get real mean about it lol. Then I read your post and realized you already said what needed to be said. Using AI to tone it down was a good call. But I am floored at that person’s point of view. Truly unreal.
Would you mind answering any other questions posed to you? Seems very disingenuous to dismiss the whole argument based on “vibes” and the fact that circumcision has shown (in a whole 2 studies) to be effective against the contraction of HIV
You don’t know anything about me, I’ve not made up my mind on anything. I think your position on this topic is unique and would truly appreciate further insights, because I’ve never met anyone with your opinion besides the internet.
The procedure is associated with reduced rates of sexually transmitted infections[6] and urinary tract infections.[1][7][8] This includes reducing the incidence of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) and significantly reducing HIV transmission among heterosexual men in high-risk populations;[9]
just an observation: the two scenarios aren’t the same from the poaition of thw protestor.
she says that her god has a plan for all the babies. her contention is that abortion messes with that ‘plan’.
the argument that her god killed the first-born of egyptians is not relevant here. while it displays cruelty, if anything, it supports her position.
her god had a ‘plan’ for those killings as well. her premise here is not that ‘killing’ of foetuses is cruel, it’s that doing so messes with this ‘plan’. so should – in her eyes – saving those first-borns in egypt.
now, i am pro-choice and not allowing safe access to abortion is an act of inhumanity for me – and I’m the staunchest of atheists around as well as a person not brought up around this woman’s faith – but the interviewer here has got the wrong end of the horse.
I guess the question then is why aren't the abortions part of god's plan? Because the Egyptian case clearly shows that this isn't actually black/white issue to him.
How can abortion mess with God’s plan if the person who did it exists in accordance with God’s plan? Is there some arbitrary point at which the plan for each baby stops being God’s and suddenly becomes it’s own? I don’t think you can meaningfully apply logic within an illogical paradigm, however narrowly you want to define her specific argument
I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately disingenuous or just trying to do a “well, ackshully,” but that’s not responsive to the presented situation.
He wasn’t arguing that god doesn’t know the pre-embryo or whatever this lady thinks. I’ve talked to catholics who think that there’s a queue of babies in heaven waiting to be born.
What the guy is saying is that god obviously doesn’t care whether they die or not. The god-concept she’s advocating for kills kids left and right, 24/7. The kids in Egypt was good. That’s some Charlton Heston and Yul Brenner shit.
Of course, for sheer bloody-mindedness, you can’t beat the flood, where god killed everyone everywhere all at once. I’m sure he knew all their names. He just decided to smoke the whole planet because he was mildly disappointed in what some people were doing. Then there’s all the bits where infants are dashed to pieces against rocks. And the bit where an embryo is not a person but rather a piece of property of the father, where killing it isn’t murder but just a property crime.
So our assumption must logically be that god wants those poor babies dead. He set everything up for it, and he even kills slightly over half of the babies in the womb himself anyway. All of those non-implanted fertilized eggs? Bam! Dead baby, but I’m sure god knew it’s name.
So OP demonstrated that god’s plan is just to whack the kid. He whacks the kid well over half the time.
Plus god knowing the kid’s name ahead of time kinda fucks with the whole predestination vs free will, I think.
I became an atheist because in college I spent a lot more time around fundamentalists. The more time I spent around them and their rediculous justifications for thinking the Earth was 6,000 years old the more that it became apparent to me that if they could be that ignorant of why their beliefs didnt make sense, the same could be true of mine. So I investigated why I believed what I did and over time more and more of my religious beliefs failed to withstand the sort of scruity that I put them under and eventually I realized I couldnt call myself christian anymore because I didnt believe any of it.
I really like the way Jmike put it at 20:40 in this show
In 1 Samuel 15:3, when god commands the Amelekites to be–infants to be slaughtered, that would be “good” under your view. That would be a good thing. So long as it’s commanded by the thing–that’s not morality at all, that’s obedience. There’s nothing there about what someone should or should not do. The moral facts can just change on a whim. I don’t understand this high ground of morality from theists when theirs is so vacuous and devoid of anything intrinsic to the actual actions. It’s actually an extrinsic thing. What makes, like, throwing someone off a building “wrong” is if god puts this extrinsic notion that it’s wrong, this command, not that the intrinsic action had anything to do with it, right? It’s so divorced from how we actually deal with ethics. So I don’t get this move of putting the theist at this high moral ground, I dont get it.
From a religious viewpoint, I believe that many theists would would say that their god is perfect and the standard of morality to which everything is compared. Should something waver from this standard, it is immoral. A theist that believes in an unchanging god might then reason that a non theist, or a thiest that believes in a god that changes or is not eternal in its attributes, is not capable of operating under a seperate moral code because their code would be subject to change as they or their god changes. One is capable of acting morally if their actions fall under the fixed code, but their actions would not be moral because of their own seperate code, but because they coincide with the higher code.
Looking back to the example given from 1 Samuel, a Christian would likely reason that the actions of the Hebrew army were moral because punishment of “evil”, as defined by their god, is a moral action. Things are very rarely black and white. While most would say that killing, for example, is not good, it can be justified and moral should the conditions satisfy the proper conditions.
If absolutely any theist I know tells me that it is okay to murder an innocent child because their parents belong to a region that treated your people badly, and because someone said that God said to, I would cut that monster out of my life faster than I typed this comment.
Again, it isn’t a moral framework to say “whatever God says to do is good.” That’s just obedience. It says nothing about the morality of any given action, and provides us with no framework on which to build our moral code. It’s just saying “that guy said he wants these kids dead, so the right thing to do is kill these kids.” Absolutely hideous.
If absolutely any theist I know tells me that it is okay to murder an innocent child because their parents belong to a region that treated your people badly, and because someone said that God said to,
Obviously the child wouldn’t be innocent in that case /s
When was a sovereignty of the Third Reich in question? Hitler and the NSDAP took power under legal means and then transformed into a dictatorship. They would have been recognized when they came to power.
There’s a book about it called Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, and how the church used The Nazis and Holocaust to further their power in Europe
My usual response. “You do know that malnutrition makes people hallucinate?”
I mean hell, anyone can test this themselves. Just restrict your daily vitamin E for long enough and I bet you’ll be seeing people walking on water in no time.
I mean, you’ll also do irreparable harm to your heart and nervous system, but you’ll be seeing some crazy shit first hand as well.
Actually venting and expressing your dissatisfaction sometimes can help relieve your anger and pain. Even if you’re venting to an imaginary being. Therefore this makes sense.
atheism
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.