Do knowledgeable ex-atheists exist?

[Cyclops]

I think OP is thoroughly busted, belief in a deity (any deity) does not preclude knowledge. One horrible aspect of many organised religions is the insistence of One Truth and I think some atheists fall into the same trap if they insist believers are somehow ignorant.

...
The big bang did not "create everything", that's a misrepresentation of the theory.

Maybe z3n is alluding to the fact many people are satisfied that there's "something" to explain everything, whether it be "sky daddy #1 did it" or "sky daddy #2 did it" or "catch phrase did it".

What people believe is not always what the "experts" tell them, often its a garbled version.

[Cope]

And then you scampered away from the argument when I replied

Weak bait, but I'll bite. I did not reply initially for three reasons: (1) the points you've raised have been repeatedly rebuked in the D&D (and in real life) previously; (2) the purpose of introducing abortion was to expose your self-defeating claims of "self-evident" moral standards, not to discuss the finery of the issue; (3) the topic of the thread doesn't tend itself toward a debate about abortion.

Nevertheless, since you are clearly eager to hear my rationale, I will provide it.

Yeah, just like when a chicken lays an egg. But you're not a militant vegan or anything.

It's precisely because I do not find birdlife to hold an equivalent value to human life that I'm not a militant vegan. And since I know you are content to consume poultry and dairy products but not human flesh (either of an embryo or born person) I'd say that, despite your failed attempts to show hypocrisy on my part, we hold a similar standard here.

"genetically distinct human life" is a meaningless phrase and benchmark.

1. A genetically distinct life is more commonly referred to as an organism; a genetically distinct human life can therefore be (and scientifically is) classified as a human organism or human being. Arguing that this categorization (which applies beyond humanity) is "meaningless" is either delusional or, as I suspect is the case, a form of mindless gainsaying.

2. According to your own "I only accept scientifically verifiable information" standard, any and all moral benchmarks can be dismissed as "meaningless". So to pretend as if those who disagree with your preferred benchmark vis-a-vis abortion (for which you can provide no objective accounting) are being "disingenuous" is itself disingenuous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_t...n_of_pregnancy

"There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a human becomes viable.^[15] A 2015 study found that even with active treatment, no infants born at less than 22 weeks survived, at 23 weeks survival without severe impairment is less than 2%, and at 25 weeks, up to 30% might survive without severe impairment.^[16][17] According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 24 weeks of gestation survived,"

I'm not sure what the purpose of pasting wiki information about "viability" is. The term doesn't imply that humans which are not viable outside of the womb are valueless; you're simply extrapolating a subjective moral judgement from it - ie. that only humans which can survive independently are deserving of the right to life. This position can be easily rebuked by highlighting that foetuses which are viable as well as birthed infants and vulnerable adults cannot survive independently either.

There's nothing "individually human" about them.

A zygote is a genetically distinct human life form (organism) at the earliest stage of development (a phase common to all humanity). All of the building blocks for adult life (unique DNA) are present. Hair colour, eye colour, gender, heritable personality traits, potential height, etc. have already been determined. Therefore, the claim that there is nothing "individually human" about zygote is both scientifically and morally false.

They have no personality or emotion, no sentience. They are aware of nothing and are nothing more than a tumor or growth.

Even were I to accept the premise that "sentience" is the only valuable element of life, your point would still be irrelevant. The expectation that the zygote/embryo/foetus will, as a consequence of its inherited genetics, rapidly develop observable "personality, emotion, sentience" etc. is more than enough to justify its right to life.

You're aborting something that is at that point essentially a parasite, with the active infanticide of an entire nation's babies.I don't think it's a stretch at all to call it disingenuous. It's a woman's right to choose what happens to her body.

1. By referring to the unborn as "parasites" (a sordid attempt to devalue the life) you're inadvertently conceding that zygotes/embryos are distinct organisms and defeating your own argument that pregnancies concern only the physiology of one organism (ie. the mother). You are also implying that you would support abortion up until the moment of pregnancy (since according to your rationale the foetus would remain a "parasite" until that point). This contradicts your previously implied position that an embryo gains value when it shows signs of brain functionality (sentience) or is viable outside of the womb.

2. The ability to use protection or remain abstinent is the bodily choice that people have; there is no moral theory, other than self-defence, which provides a "right" to destroy an innocent human being.

It is not god's right to commit genocide, no matter how badly he wants Canaan for his Jews.

God neither commits nor commands genocide: his orders refer to the purging of wickedness. The account of Sodom's destruction - wherein the Lord promised to spare the city for the sake of ten good men - offers a clear insight into this issue.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

26 And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:
28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.
30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.
32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.
33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

Just because abortion can look messy doesn't make it morally or medically wrong. A vast majority of medical procedures look pretty "gorey" to the outside observer. Ever seen someone get a steel rod put into their leg? They literally use a giant hammer. Claiming that abortions are messy is a classic move by those against a women's right to choose, but it's a totally moot and irrelevant point. It's like comparing a surgeon amputating a limb with a murderer cutting your leg off while you're still alive. The action is technically the same, but aside from that the two things are unrelated.

If you want to compare videos I think there's a few of the genocide in Rwanda laying around that show genocide and infanticide are a bit more serious than a controversial medical procedure.

You're the one who introduced violent imagery ("dashed against the rocks") in an attempt to draw a distinction between contemporary and historic forms of infanticide. Your clear implication was that the historic killing of infants was somehow more abhorrent because of its violent nature, even though many contemporary abortive procedures involve the tearing of limbs from the abdomen and the crushing of skulls. So don't now turn around and pretend that I'm the one who sought to play an emotive trick or claim that "just because abortion can look messy doesn't make it morally wrong" as if you hadn't just tried to argue the opposite with regard to ancient infanticide.

[Akar]

Weak bait, but I'll bite. The reason I did not reply initially was for three reasons: (1) the points you've raised have been repeatedly rebuked in the D&D previously (and in real life); (2) the purpose of my introducing the question of abortion was to overcome your self-defeating claims of "self-evident" moral standards, not to discuss the finery of the issue; (3) the topic of the thread doesn't tend itself toward a debate about abortion.

The weaker the bait, the more skilled the fisherman.

It's precisely because I do not find birdlife to hold an equivalent value to human life that I'm not a militant vegan. And since I know you are content to consume poultry and dairy products but not human flesh (either of an embryo or born person) I'd say that, despite your failed attempts to show hypocrisy on my part, we hold a similar standard here.

I find the life of a baby bird or any other collection of cells barely meeting the criteria of life to have the same value. There's really no difference between a human child that has just been concieved and an egg that has just been laid. Aborting the child or cracking open the egg have just as much or little effect on anything. It is alive, but it is not life. It is not sentient. There is no point.


Also I would absolutely eat a person if it was socially acceptable and readily available.

1. A genetically distinct life is more commonly referred to as an organism; a genetically distinct human life can therefore be (and scientifically is) classified as a human organism or human being. Arguing that this categorization (which applies beyond humanity) is "meaningless" is either delusional or, as I suspect is the case, a form of mindless gainsaying.

2. According to your own "I only accept scientifically verifiable information" standard, any and all moral benchmarks can be dismissed as "meaningless". So to pretend as if those who disagree with your preferred benchmark vis-a-vis abortion (for which you can provide no objective accounting) are being "disingenuous" is itself disingenuous.

"genetically distinct" is a pointless addition when "human life" is clearly already sufficient to describe the situation. "Genetically distinct human life" evokes the meaningless age-old propaganda from the anti-choice movement about "fingerprints at X age" or whatever. Being distinct or individual is an irrelevant marker. All life aside from clones are genetically distinct. It's a meaningless term within this argument.

p.s I heard you like disingenuity so we put some disingenuity inside your disingenuity so you could be disingenuous while you're being disingenuous.

Even were I to accept the premise that "sentience" is the only valuable element of life, your point would still be irrelevant. The expectation that the zygote/embryo/foetus will, as a consequence of its inherited genetics, rapidly develop observable "personality, emotion, sentience" etc. is more than enough to justify its right to life.

It seems illogical to care about one set of unaware but technically alive cells for another. Where do you draw the line on a difference between an animal embryo and a human one other than at sentience?

The "expectation" is irrelevant. At the point in time the mother and her desires are the only thing that matter. The mother is the only individual with life and sentience at that point and as such her choices and decisions are all that should matter. Life for the sake of life is pointless. No one should be forced to have a child and no one should be forced to grow up with parent's who did not choose to have them but were forced to.

Plus, the Bible seems to disagree on the validity of abortion.

Numbers 5:19-22 says the following about abortion: "Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. ²⁰ But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— ²¹ here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. ²² May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."

1. By referring to the unborn as "parasites" (a sordid attempt to devalue the life) you're inadvertently conceding that zygotes/embryos are distinct organisms and defeating your own argument that pregnancies concern only the physiology of one organism (ie. the mother). You are also implying that you would support abortion up until the moment of pregnancy (since according to your rationale the foetus would remain a "parasite" until that point). This contradicts your previously implied position that an embryo gains value when it shows signs of brain functionality (sentience) or is viable outside of the womb.

Yeah, I have no issues with abortion up until the moment of birth. It is the mothers choice what happens to their body and their unborn child. No one else is going to have to deal with the consequences of either action aside from her. An unborn child does not have rights. A woman does have rights. You cannot take away a woman's right and give it to something that has no ability or agency to exercise those rights.


I did not have a "previously implied position" that aligns with what you've described.

2. The ability to use protection or remain abstinent is the bodily choice that people have; there is no moral theory, other than self-defence, which provides a "right" to destroy an innocent human being.

Aside from the ridiculousness of attempting to tell others how to regulate their sexuality or sexual encounters in the modern age, even abstinence and protection are not always perfect. Who are you to tell a woman what is or isn't "moral" for her to do to her body?

God neither commits nor commands genocide: his orders refer to the purging of wickedness. The account of Sodom's destruction - wherein the Lord promised to spare the city for the sake of ten good men - offers a clear insight into this issue.

Except for of course all of the times he does commit or command genocide.

Psalms 137:8-9 says "O Daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones"

Deuteronomy 20:17 says "but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you,"

Hosea 13:16 says "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

Exodus 34:11-14 says "Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite."

Jeremiah 50:21-22 says "Go up against the land of Merathaim, [even] against it, and against the inhabitants of Pekod: waste and utterly destroy after them, saith the LORD, and do according to all that I have commanded thee. "

By the way, does the flood that kills every single person but 1 family count as a genocide?

You're the one who introduced violent imagery ("dashed against the rocks") in an attempt to draw a distinction between contemporary and historic forms of infanticide. Your clear implication was that the historic killing of infants was somehow more abhorrent because of its violent nature, even though many contemporary abortive procedures involve the tearing of limbs from the abdomen and the crushing of skulls. So don't now turn around and pretend that I'm the one who sought to play an emotive trick or claim that "just because abortion can look messy doesn't make it morally wrong" as if you hadn't just tried to claim the opposite.

No, I was in fact using it to point out the genocidal nature of the biblical god. Then when you brought up the "imagery" of abortion I thought it important to point out that many medical procedures are visually graphic but that doesn't make them less justified or medically sound.

You've raised good arguments and I have enjoyed reading and responding to them. Thank you.

[Cope]

The weaker the bait, the more skilled the fisherman.

^Also weak bait.

I find the life of a baby bird or any other collection of cells barely meeting the criteria of life to have the same value. There's really no difference between a human child that has just been concieved and an egg that has just been laid.

If you consider an organism’s value to be proportional to its “complexity” (ie. no. of cells) then you’re the one who ought to be a radical vegan, not me. Funnily enough, you aren't.

Aborting the child or cracking open the egg have just as much or little effect on anything. It is alive, but it is not life. It is not sentient.

To be alive is, by definition, to be a part of life. And if you’re going to repeat your insinuation that the only valuable aspect of life is sentience (despite the fact all sentient life is dependant on non sentient life), then I shall repeat my claim that the imminent expectation of sentience on the part of the zygote overcomes any suggestion that its lack of brain activity justifies denying it the right to life.

There is no point.

If there is “no point” to the first stage of development, then there is “no point” to any stage of development and your claim about infanticide is meaningless.

"genetically distinct" is a pointless addition when "human life" is clearly already sufficient to describe the situation."Genetically distinct human life" evokes the meaningless age-old propaganda from the anti-choice movement about "fingerprints at X age" or whatever. Being distinct or individual is an irrelevant marker. All life aside from clones are genetically distinct. It's a meaningless term within this argument.

1. You’re the one who claimed that there was “nothing individually human” about zygotes/embryos/foetuses (a lie). Now you’re trying to shift the goalposts by claiming that genetic individuality is “pointless” and being distinct is “an irrelevant marker”. And this is despite the fact that you explicitly cited expressions of “personality, emotion and sentience” (ie. extensions of DNA and genetic individuality) as relevant factors regarding human value.

2. The reason why the issue of genetic individuality is often raised in these debates (aside from what I have already mentioned) is because there is tendency among pro-abortion advocates to falsely claim that the unborn child is itself the mother’s body (“my body my choice”) when it is in fact a physiologically distinct organism.

It seems illogical to care about one set of unaware but technically alive cells for another. Where do you draw the line on a difference between an animal embryo and a human one other than at sentience?

Human life has an intrinsic value which supersedes the value of other earthly lifeforms. With limited exceptions, this view is held by all human societies, both secular and religious. This is remains true irrespective of sentience (hence why euthanizing an unconscious human is a capital offence but killing a mouse is not).

The "expectation" is irrelevant. At the point in time the mother and her desires are the only thing that matter. The mother is the only individual with life and sentience at that point and as such her choices and decisions are all that should matter.Life for the sake of life is pointless.

The expectation of sentience is clearly not irrelevant: people don’t choose to reproduce for the sole purpose of creating zygotes. They reproduce with the expectation that their offspring will flourish into adulthood. This is why it is a criminal offence to induce a miscarriage by way of violence.

The claim that the desires of any human should supersede the right to life for any other innocent human is an argument from the moral gutter.

No one should be forced to have a child and no one should be forced to grow up with parent's who did not choose to have them but were forced to.

So the solution to people being “forced” to grow up with parents who did not choose to have them is euthanasia? What an asinine and dangerous argument.

Plus, the Bible seems to disagree on the validity of abortion.

Numbers 5:19-22 says the following about abortion: "Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. ²⁰ But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— ²¹ here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. ²² May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."

The arguments I’m making are not from the Bible, though if they were they’d be in the context of Christ’s ministry. I’m quite sure that abortion is, and was historically, viewed as acceptable by many Jewish communities though.

Yeah, I have no issues with abortion up until the moment of birth.

The atheist reveals his final form. All of the arguments about sentience, viability and complexity were mere distractions: he believes in none of them. Instead he tries to convince me that infanticide is “self-evidently” evil but destroying the lives of viable foetuses (which are remarkably similar in physiological terms to the born) is perfectly acceptable. And what’s the distinguishing factor? His arbitrary say so.

If I were going to be kind, I’d say that you clearly haven’t thought through any of the moral principles or standards involved in this debate and you’re simply regurgitating hard left talking points.

It is the mothers choice what happens to their body and their unborn child. No one else is going to have to deal with the consequences of either action aside from her.

To state the obvious, the euthanized z/e/f is affected by the decision to abort. Though I do enjoy how the typical power dynamics that leftists prattle on about are inverted in the case of abortion so that the powerless party (the child) is to be left at the absolute mercy of the powerful (the parents and doctor).

An unborn child does not have rights.

This is legally (depending on the circumstances) and morally false.

A woman does have rights. You cannot take away a woman's right and give it to something that has no ability or agency to exercise those rights.

Providing the universal right to life for all human beings is no more “taking away” female rights than was the 14^th A taking away white rights. The insinuation that infants should be denied the right to live on the basis that they lack “agency” is another argument from the moral gutter. It could also easily be used to deny post-birth infants the right to life – a position which you claimed was self-evidently evil.

I did not have a "previously implied position" that aligns with what you've described.

As is evidenced by your introduction of viability, sentience and complexity arguments (in failed attempts to rebuke me) you clearly did have implied positions.

Aside from the ridiculousness of attempting to tell others how to regulate their sexuality or sexual encounters in the modern age, even abstinence and protection are not always perfect. Who are you to tell a woman what is or isn't "moral" for her to do to her body?

I couldn’t care less what people do with their own bodies (not that z/e/f are their mother’s body anyway) so long as it doesn’t have a negative impact on innocent parties. You can’t punch someone in the face and then claim “my fists my choice”.

Except for of course all of the times he does commit or command genocide.

Psalms 137:8-9 says "O Daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones"

Deuteronomy 20:17 says "but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you,"

Hosea 13:16 says "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

Exodus 34:11-14 says "Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite."

Jeremiah 50:21-22 says "Go up against the land of Merathaim, [even] against it, and against the inhabitants of Pekod: waste and utterly destroy after them, saith the LORD, and do according to all that I have commanded thee. "

By the way, does the flood that kills every single person but 1 family count as a genocide?

I’m not going to address all of these points because I’ve already offered a general explanation above. The destruction of wicked civilizations is seen as an inevitable consequence of sin and/or disobedience in scriptural terms; the quotes you cited are therefore instances of self-destruction (or prospective self-destruction) not “genocide”. The same standard also applies to the Israelites who routinely suffer for their transgressions throughout the text (the Pslams passage you quote above refers to the Israelite captivity in Babylon, for example).

No, I was in fact using it to point out the genocidal nature of the biblical god. Then when you brought up the "imagery" of abortion I thought it important to point out that many medical procedures are visually graphic but that doesn't make them less justified or medically sound.

You claim that infanticide is “self-evidently” wrong when it’s allegedly being done by God, but is fine when it’s done by doctors in a clinic. Seems like a patent double standard to me.

[Muizer]

Ok, I don't want to report anyone, but it does look like this thread is in dire need of moderation. Go dig up some of the no doubt countless discussions on abortion and continue there. This as absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

[MaximiIian]

We started with the idea that Dyeus Pater (the Sky Father) created everything, several millennia later...

In addition to Akar's point, this line here is a huge falsehood on several levels.

For one, we don't really have any myths from Proto-Indo-European peoples. We have certain myth-themes that show up among several Indo-European cultures, but the "root" form is unknown. We don't even necessarily know what deities they worshiped, it's all back-constructions based on linguistics. Dyeus is a reconstructed name, we don't have any inscriptions or physical evidence. We have no clear picture what the god was. But if we are going to use later gods whose names are derived from Dyeus Phter, we should be aware of what we're dealing with. Which leads to...

For two, the "sky father" common to European myth was not a creator-god, but a ruler-god. The most common elements to such figures is an association with high places, birds, bulls, and most of all governance. Law, order, citadels, war, sovereignty; all the things that denote governing power and patriarchal authority to the ancient Europeans. The association with the daylight sky is less a matter of control over weather and the generative power of rain, but a function of being associated with mountains, hilltop forts, and other fortified peaks. This isn't just Dyaus, Zeus, and Jupiter, but also Tiwaz, Tyr, Ziu, Dagda, even Mars (to a lesser extent). In some religions, the thunder-god became conflated with the sky-father, but not always.

For three, these religions didn't always have a clear, singular creator-god. Their creation myths, when recorded, usually have some unusual or spontaneous event that's responsible. Not a deity. In Greek myth, it's the spontaneous formation of Earth and Sky out of Chaos. In Norse myth, the primordial giant Ymir is born from the flowing waters that arose when the lands of fire and ice met. Celtic gods arose indigenously from the land, with no creation myth that we know about. Hinduism and Vedic religion reject any creation myth, with the Rigveda even outright saying "Who really knows?", since the creation of the world is just part of a continuous cycle of creation, destruction, and rebirth.
A creation myth detailing everything to be the work of a powerful creator-god is mostly a feature of Near Eastern religions.

[Infidel144]

Plus, the Bible seems to disagree on the validity of abortion.

Numbers 5:19-22 says the following about abortion: "Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. ²⁰ But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— ²¹ here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. ²² May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."

'Miscarries; is how NIV translates the hebrew. That looks to be the only version that does:
https://biblehub.com/numbers/5-22.htm

[sumskilz]

'Miscarries; is how NIV translates the hebrew. That looks to be the only version that does:
https://biblehub.com/numbers/5-22.htm

Yeah, that NIV translation doesn't work. Although the others are full of varying degrees of euphemism. To put it politely, it says her reproductive parts will rot.

[Akar]

I shouldn't have posted anything but KJV, I didn't see that I had used NIV but like Sumskilz said I think the message/takeaway is the same.

[Infidel144]

Yeah, that NIV translation doesn't work. Although the others are full of varying degrees of euphemism. To put it politely, it says her reproductive parts will rot.

Then, I take it, nothing to do with abortion in hebrew?

[Akar]

The JPS 1917 translates it as:

19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;
20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--
21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell;
22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness.
24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal...e_bitter_water

Almost assuredly something to do with abortion or a miscarriage.

[sumskilz]

Then, I take it, nothing to do with abortion in hebrew?

Correct

Unless I'm forgetting something, the only biblical passage that is relevant (though far from comprehensive) is Exodus 21:22-25. The correct translation there is "cause the woman to give birth prematurely" rather than "miscarry". You'll see both if you look it up, but the reason I say that is because the verb (yəlāḏehā) literally means "cause a child". In its noun form it means child (yeleḏ).

[Prodromos]

That passage doesn't seem to be about abortion. But supposing it were: God alone has the right to take anyone's life, so this passage no more permits the human practice of abortion than God's killing of David's infant son permits the human practice of infanticide. Humans aren't God.

[Infidel144]

Correct

Unless I'm forgetting something, the only biblical passage that is relevant (though far from comprehensive) is Exodus 21:22-25. The correct translation there is "cause the woman to give birth prematurely" rather than "miscarry". You'll see both if you look it up, but the reason I say that is because the verb (yəlāḏehā) literally means "cause a child". In its noun form it means child (yeleḏ).

As opposed to shakal in 23:26?

[sumskilz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal...e_bitter_water

Almost assuredly something to do with abortion or a miscarriage.

According to the links there, that idea originated with an early Twentieth Century biblical scholar, but it's an interpretation not apparent in the actual text and not present in the Mishnah.

EDIT:

As opposed to shakal in 23:26?

Correct, and that verbal root is related to bereavement.

[z3n]

And then you scampered away from the argument when I replied



The big bang did not "create everything", that's a misrepresentation of the theory.

I don't think that was the exact point, rather that our beliefs, no matter what they are, wont be shared by those millenia later. In the same way we look at others as silly for believing something, they will look at us as silly for believing something (or at best uninformed).

It is interesting that we believe the catalyst for our origin originated in the sky, no matter who we are, no matter who we are we need to believe something. If you believe nothing then you have to doubt reality, a sure sign of insanity.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

If you believe nothing then you have to doubt reality, a sure sign of insanity.

Call me insane, but I not only subscribe to, but perpetuate an eternal slight mistrust of the nature of reality as we perceive it.

[z3n]

Optical illusions exist so some caution can be prescribed.

However, since it is not an absolute mistrust, you must believe something and not nothing? You must for example, believe that you're not talking to yourself as you type on your keyboard and then press the Post button.

[Cyclops]

Optical illusions exist so some caution can be prescribed.

However, since it is not an absolute mistrust, you must believe something and not nothing? You must for example, believe that you're not talking to yourself as you type on your keyboard and then press the Post button.

Yes even self belief is an act of faith, and the dark hole of solipsist doubt is a repugnant place for me.

I do have faith that I know things, even though I don't know how I know them. I agree with CommodusIV's skepticism about knowledge and appearances but it doesn't erode faith necessarily.

I use the (admitted flawed) analogy of Cyclops Jnr's experience. He can't remember learning to talk but talk he does. He doesn't understand how me leaving for work leads more or less directly to chocolate cake for him but he's sensing a relationship and accepts that explanation from me. he sometimes ventures little explanations, often repeating some homily of mine before launching into absurd fantasy like "Scientists say dinosaurs lived one hundred million thousand ago, but now there are birds, because the meteor was cold". He's getting there, by which i mean to a place where he can debate the ideas in his sentence with me.

Like Jnr I plaster half understood explanations over my ignorance, and the rest I make up. There's instinct and some sort of groupthink thing that happens with humans on top of "reason" as an individual might exercise it. Some people "know" there's a god or God or gods or whatever, with great certainty. Given the uncertainty and faith base of my own reasoning, who am I to deny them theirs?

There's also the arena of reason as a (more or less) shared discipline. Taking on faith that we somewhat understand one another because we evolved that way (or God created us that way, or both) then I'm happy to argue the toss of Biblical phraseology, text analysis, history and archaeology. I think the "feeling of rightness" that might lead an atheist to openly mock the sanity of a person of faith is the same "feeling of rightness" that might get a witch tied to a stake so there are real political implications to our epistemological approaches.

If you say "the Bible is true" and by that you mean "this version, glossed this way, with this praxis applied" then the implications range from a tolerant benevolent society to a living Hell. In precisely the same way the statement "the Bible is false" does too.