Atheist groups calls for fair debate=shoving it down your throat

[fireheart17]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1226625367122

So an atheist group wants to call for a fair debate on various issues that are normally hot topics, usually due to religious reasons. They are NOT planning on forcing people to do xyz, but rather they want to make it available for those who DO want xyz.

Apparently that translates to either forcing the religious into certain behaviours or similar. Somehow atheists are also incapable of showing charity, empathy or common sense. (The comments more than anything)

Oh and let's not forget the "Christian country" bullshit.

[Andara Bledin]

I do have to wonder at the "more than 50 percent" comment. A quick look at statistical data shows over 50% listed as Christian of some variant. Why would they say something so obviously untrue?

That said, I do think that there does need to be the allowance for all parties to have their say, though not all viewpoints should be given the same weight.

As for comments, it helps to remember that the ones most likely to comment are also the ones most likely to foam at the mouth. It's unfortunately rare that someone with a rational and balanced viewpoint will take the time to have their say in the face of such.

[Rebel]

I do have to wonder at the "more than 50 percent" comment. A quick look at statistical data shows over 50% listed as Christian of some variant. Why would they say something so obviously untrue?

It could be from the 2012 press release for the Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism.

In the numbers it includes people who are convinced atheists and those whom are not religious. This brings the numbers to well over 50% of the population whilst only 37% of the population identifies as religious.

I personally wish this group the best of luck. Issues such as contraception, euthanasia and marriage equality should not be dominated by the religious voices. All groups should be equally represented.

[BlaqueKatt]

I do have to wonder at the "more than 50 percent" comment. A quick look at statistical data shows over 50% listed as Christian of some variant. Why would they say something so obviously untrue?

I'm thinking since it wasn't written by a member of the group and is a misquote, I've found "non religious" listed as 15% which over phone could sound like 50%

[Gravekeeper]

I'm thinking since it wasn't written by a member of the group and is a misquote, I've found "non religious" listed as 15% which over phone could sound like 50%

Yeah, I'm guessing misquote or including non-religious in the equation. It is true that non-religious is the largest growing segment though as I recall. Also interesting but I guess not surprising that devout religiousness increases with hopeless situations ( poverty ) and decreases with education.

Still, the folks in the article seem very reasonable about this. The ones in the comments, not so much. We could use a good ethical discussion without it being hijacked by religious beliefs. Public discourse in the US is completely overridden with religious influence. Which is damaging when it comes to important topics like reproductive rights and marriage quality.

[fireheart17]

Still, the folks in the article seem very reasonable about this. The ones in the comments, not so much. We could use a good ethical discussion without it being hijacked by religious beliefs. Public discourse in the US is completely overridden with religious influence. Which is damaging when it comes to important topics like reproductive rights and marriage quality.

Most of the public discourse down here has come in the wake of New Zealand allowing gay marriage.

Contraception is generally not so much an issue down here. That may also be because nearly all schools actually do the contraception-plus program through SHIneSA (Sexual Health Information). Pretty much the information is there.

The bigger issues (and rough public opinion on them) at the moment are:

Gay marriage: HUGE one at the moment. The usual arguments are the same-old "Australia is historically a Christian nation" (or founded on Christian beliefs-I usually challenge them to prove it without relying on statistical data), "homosexuals do xyz" (so if we're dictating by sexual practices, you have no problem with couples who torture one another?), "homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt children" (usually comes up because of the agreement that married couples can adopt kids and my counterargument to THAT is "so alcholic, drugged-up and abusive parents are OK?") and my personal favourite the slippery slope argument (which I usually counter by pointing out that the number of polygamists is minuscule, the age of consent does not change*, generally the law requires HUMANS to get married and that the number of Muslims is also very minor**)

Abortion: generally a blase attitude to it, there's usually a few small pockets of anti-abortion*** protesters, who are usually guarded.

Euthenasia: BIG. FAT. SHITSTORM. Generally speaking, there are laws that are introduced and countered all the time. Not going to go there. Again, the slippery slope argument comes into play.

Prostitution: This one's more state-based since every state has their own rules, but in my state, there are calls to decriminalise prostitution. Usually that's met with the "think of the children" folks or the idea that prostitutes are sleazy, disgusting and diseased (and I knew that there are ways to accommodate prostitutes WELL before I read Seshat's enlightening thread on CS.com). You drag disabled folks into it and it usually gets ignored.

Honestly, the idea that atheists have no moral compass pisses me off. I'm an atheist, I know full well not to kill or harm others and I try to help out those who need it where possible (although I do it because I want to, not because I think it'll get me into heaven. That's part of the reason why I chose special education)

*=age of consent for marriage down here is 18 for both parties, but if one party is 17 or younger, you can get permission from a judge to do it. If the judge says no, bad luck. If both parties are underage, you need to get both parental and judges permission. Some ultra-conservative religious folks have tried to force their child into an arranged marriage for whatever reason, which the government is cracking down on. But basically, unless the judge is a complete idiot, pedophiles are not going to be able to marry their victims.

**=I mention polygamy and Muslims separately here since not all polygamists are Muslim and not all Muslims are polygamists. The Qur'an does not REQUIRE a man to have more wives from memory, but if he does, he has to treat them all equally.

***=I say anti-abortion rather than pro-life here, since most pro-lifers I know recognise that there are times when a woman absolutely MUST have an abortion otherwise she or the baby will die. These guys don't care-to them, if a woman gets pregnant, she has to have the baby. If the baby dies, so be it. if the mother dies, SAVE THE BABY.

[Seifer]

Euthenasia: BIG. FAT. SHITSTORM. Generally speaking, there are laws that are introduced and countered all the time. Not going to go there. Again, the slippery slope argument comes into play.

I still don't understand why euthanasia is such a big deal. I can understand family members getting upset over a loved one choosing assisted suicide, but a person's life is their own. If they wish to end it, who the hell are we to tell them they can't?

[fireheart17]

I still don't understand why euthanasia is such a big deal. I can understand family members getting upset over a loved one choosing assisted suicide, but a person's life is their own. If they wish to end it, who the hell are we to tell them they can't?

This is more coming from the usual public court of opinion here, but the general consensus seems to be a mixture of the following:

Religious reasons: see my earlier post pertaining to the "we are a Christian nation" bullshit. Unless it explicitly states in any form of federal legislation or documentation, including the Australian constitution, that we are a Christian nation/founded on Christian beliefs, then I call it a load of bullshit.

Assisted Suicide: Some people seem to have this idea that it will encourage those who are severely suicidal to see a doctor and get hold of a lethal cocktail of drugs without treatment. Given the lack of decent mental healthcare in this state, the idea does not surprise me, but still....

Dishonest doctors: The idea that doctors will possibly try and cajole a patient who is not necessarily of sound mind to "let go" or that doctors will try and pressure a patients family.

Incredible optimists: The idea that once someone's diagnosed with a terminal disease, they'll somehow be able to end their life immediately rather than pursuing treatment for it or actually enjoying life while they can.

Old Bugger-Offs: There are some people who seem to have this idea that the elderly will be pressured into dying with dignity rather than receiving treatment, especially as they get older.

And finally:

Hippocratic Oath: They seem to be concerned about whether doctors actually take the hippocratic oath these days and the idea that those who take part in the ending of life shouldn't be considered doctors. >.>

[Panacea]

Honestly, the idea that atheists have no moral compass pisses me off.

It should, because it's not true. That tired old argument is the last resort of idiots who can't think of a persuasive argument to convince someone to take up faith who doesn't want to, or who wants to deny people their rights because they "don't have right thinking." It IS a bullshit argument. People who follow a religious belief have to choose it; if you enforce it through punitive laws and dehumanization programs (propaganda basically), then it's not free choice and it's not faith.

I would much rather see productive dialouge than the old, "Religion is hokum" vs "Atheists are amoral and going to hell" wrangling.

**=I mention polygamy and Muslims separately here since not all polygamists are Muslim and not all Muslims are polygamists. The Qur'an does not REQUIRE a man to have more wives from memory, but if he does, he has to treat them all equally.

IIRC, a Muslim man can have up to 4 wives, but ONLY if he can support all four financially. Muslim wives have a right to sex, so her husband can't ignore her needs in that area.

***=I say anti-abortion rather than pro-life here, since most pro-lifers I know recognise that there are times when a woman absolutely MUST have an abortion otherwise she or the baby will die. These guys don't care-to them, if a woman gets pregnant, she has to have the baby. If the baby dies, so be it. if the mother dies, SAVE THE BABY.

Another subject that should not be legislated based on religious beliefs.

It goes back to what I just said: people have to CHOOSE to follow the rules of their religious faith. If you enforce religious laws, then it's not a choice. I'm not a big fan of abortion, would never have one myself, but I don't have the right to push my views on others through the law so I'm pro-choice. I would rather educate women (and by education, I mean real education, not just sex ed because women who are educated tend to choose family planning) and reduce the NEED for abortions (except in extraordinary cases) than try to ban it through the law.

I still don't understand why euthanasia is such a big deal. I can understand family members getting upset over a loved one choosing assisted suicide, but a person's life is their own. If they wish to end it, who the hell are we to tell them they can't?

I have issues with euthanasia. Very often, if the patient is well managed under the hospice philosophy, then the patient can enjoy a fine quality of life while taking the time to close out their personal lives, and die in a peaceful and dignified manner. I don't think euthanasia is really that dignified in most cases (a patient on a feeding tube or dialysis choosing to end treatment is another matter than one taking a massive overdose).

I like Oregon's Death with Dignity Act: euthanasia is not legal, but the patient can get a massive overdose of drugs as long as they can take it on their own. Most patients never actually take the dose; that little bit of control gives them the strength to stick it out.

I do have concerns about elder abuse with euthanasia. Many elders are quite vulnerable, and this would open them to abuse from family members who want to get control of an estate. I see this kind of elder abuse a lot; usually family members who want to keep the elder alive so they can keep siphoning off the Social Security check. In more affluent families I can see the opposite happen; I've also seen plenty of cases where family members squabble over POA control of the elder's money, and that money gets sucked away while the elder lives in squalor.

[Seifer]

I have issues with euthanasia. Very often, if the patient is well managed under the hospice philosophy, then the patient can enjoy a fine quality of life while taking the time to close out their personal lives, and die in a peaceful and dignified manner. I don't think euthanasia is really that dignified in most cases (a patient on a feeding tube or dialysis choosing to end treatment is another matter than one taking a massive overdose).

I like Oregon's Death with Dignity Act: euthanasia is not legal, but the patient can get a massive overdose of drugs as long as they can take it on their own. Most patients never actually take the dose; that little bit of control gives them the strength to stick it out.

I do have concerns about elder abuse with euthanasia. Many elders are quite vulnerable, and this would open them to abuse from family members who want to get control of an estate. I see this kind of elder abuse a lot; usually family members who want to keep the elder alive so they can keep siphoning off the Social Security check. In more affluent families I can see the opposite happen; I've also seen plenty of cases where family members squabble over POA control of the elder's money, and that money gets sucked away while the elder lives in squalor.

I can see how euthanasia could be abused. If euthanasia laws were passed, lawmakers would have to put in some kind of clause stating that such and such must happen before someone can choose euthanasia. The patient must be seen by a neutral third-party doctor and found to be of sound mind, their financial and other worldly business must be completed, etc.

A lot of the good arguments I've heard for euthanasia have come from people who have terminal diseases. They're to the point where their treatment is incredibly painful and they know it's only downhill from that point, yet they're basically being forced to "stick it out" when they'd rather die painlessly.

[Panacea]

A lot of the good arguments I've heard for euthanasia have come from people who have terminal diseases. They're to the point where their treatment is incredibly painful and they know it's only downhill from that point, yet they're basically being forced to "stick it out" when they'd rather die painlessly.

With good hospice care, they can have a pain free death. Hospice is all about symptom management. Patients and families report high satisfaction with hospice care. It's about living, not dying, and symptom management (not just pain, but other symptoms) is a large part of that.

[Seifer]

With good hospice care, they can have a pain free death. Hospice is all about symptom management. Patients and families report high satisfaction with hospice care. It's about living, not dying, and symptom management (not just pain, but other symptoms) is a large part of that.

And some people don't wish to draw it out. Pain may be minimized, but the patient is still living with constant medication and hospitalization. For some people that's okay, but others don't want to live in that environment. I don't really blame them, either.

Here's a video that goes into the issue a bit. The important parts are from 19:00 - 23:00. Careful if you watch the whole video. Penn and teller are notorious for having nudity in their Bullshit episodes. The part I mentioned above has none, though.

[smileyeagle1021]

I still don't understand why euthanasia is such a big deal. I can understand family members getting upset over a loved one choosing assisted suicide, but a person's life is their own. If they wish to end it, who the hell are we to tell them they can't?

I think the problem is that most people's view of assisted suicide is that it is going to be the suicide booths of Futurama, that you go in, say you want to die, they give you the massive overdose, you take it, and everything's done.

Hippocratic Oath: They seem to be concerned about whether doctors actually take the hippocratic oath these days and the idea that those who take part in the ending of life shouldn't be considered doctors. >.>

The hippocratic oath says do no harm... it could be argued that in the spirit of do no harm there comes a point where you must do a lesser harm to prevent a greater harm (just look at chemotherapy and all its side effects). I see no contradiction in saying that a patient has no chance of recovery, will have agonizing pain no matter how well managed the care is, will never have full quality of life again, giving a massive overdose is causing harm, but it is a lot less harmful to the dignity of the person than a long drawn out death (I'm thinking of incurable cancers in particular, my grandfather had inoperable lung cancer, chemo wasn't working for him, radiation had no effect, and every day he was in more pain than the last, by the end for it to be bearable for him, he had to have so much pain killer in him that he wasn't even aware of his surroundings, he was just in a thick daze, death would have had more dignity than that.)

[lordlundar]

The "shoving it down our throat" statement has been horribly abused as of late in the states. The health care plan Obama and the democrats proposed was labelled as such despite it being discussed, debated and modified to the point where it's a horrible mess.

At the time of the first debate over it the Democrats had a supermajority and full party support regarding it. If Obama really wanted to "shove it down our throats" as was claimed, it would have been voted on and passed with no change and the republicans would have been able to do jack squat about it.

"Shoving it down our throats" is apparently a direct translation of "I want to prevent debate and discussion".

[Panacea]

And some people don't wish to draw it out. Pain may be minimized, but the patient is still living with constant medication and hospitalization. For some people that's okay, but others don't want to live in that environment. I don't really blame them, either.

Which is why I support Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, a law that differs from traditional views of euthanasia where the medication is administered by a third party. Allowing that is open to all kinds of abuse. The Death With Dignity Act allows the patient control, which is what most patients really want rather than to simply kill themselves. Only a handful of patients in Oregon have actually taken the dose; most have gotten good hospice care and died natural deaths.

Here's a video that goes into the issue a bit. The important parts are from 19:00 - 23:00. Careful if you watch the whole video. Penn and teller are notorious for having nudity in their Bullshit episodes. The part I mentioned above has none, though.

As much as I like Penn and Teller, I don't consider them a good source for a rational argument on this subject. The nature of what they do conceals a natural bias within the comedy that isn't always apparent (I don't have a problem with bias, but it should be easily identifiable, and that of comedians isn't always).