Comments on: Obama Administration Offers Religious Groups Compromise on Contraception Coverage

By: Leonard

Leonard — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 00:04:33 +0000

Why does the story quote “Catholics United” as a source for acceptance of this proposal by Catholics? They are simply left-wing social organization with strong ties ot the Democrats. They have no affiliation with the Catholic Church.

ABC should know better than to quote this grouip as implying acceptance by the Church.

By: B-K KnightRider

B-K KnightRider — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:32:48 +0000

NOUDITTANT: “Lastly, haven’t you used Scripture to bolster your points in some comments? Should I conclude that in those postings your faith has clouded your independent judgment?” – - – Nope, not at all. You are creating a false dichotomy. Rational thinking and religious beliefs are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A person can approach religion and religious beliefs and use scripture in a very rational manner. Now, blind literalism is indeed mutually exclusive with independent rational thought. Also, I try to avoid using the genetic fallacy just like how I try to avoid all the others. So, I don’t reactively accept or reject any idea simply because of its source. Whether or not an idea makes sense and is valid on its own merits is far more important to me than the source.

The primary reason I use Biblical scriptures to support valid moral principles is because that is what I am the most familiar with. Another is that trying to influence most Christians with any other scriptures or moral principles is pointless because most will use the genetic fallacy to reject non-Christian religious moral principles out of hand unless they are close enough to a Chrisitan principle to not know the difference. If I was equally familiar with other scripture I would use them also when I could find a valid moral principle. For example, I love the Silver Rule of Confucianism and Buddhism and other religions just as much, and sometimes more, than the Golden Rule of the Judeao-Christian tradition even though there are ten variations of the Golden Rule in the Bible. Granted, I have never analyzed all ten closely enough to see if any of them are really the Silver Rule. Frankly, I never thought of doing that before. Anyway, I use them both regardless of the source because I think they are both equally valid. Ditto for other moral principles. If it makes sense then that is good enough for me regardless of the source.

By: B-K KnightRider

B-K KnightRider — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:10:31 +0000

NOUDITTINT: “…and if religion is the source of my beliefs then all atheists should disagree with my position. I wonder if that is true.” – - – Nope. I have had one friend with similar views to yours on abortion and she was either an atheist or an atheist leaning agnostic. So far she has been the only person I have known or discussed the issue with who is anti-choice who did not argue from religion. Basically, the extent of her arguments was/is, “Abortion is immoral because I believe it is immoral so it should not be legal.” Ironically, I agree with her on the former but not the latter.

By: B-K KnightRider

B-K KnightRider — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:03:51 +0000

NOUDITTANT: “B-K, show me one statement I’ve made that lead you to conclude any of my positions in this debate are based upon religious beliefs or religious principles?” – - – I can’t. None of them are that overt. Your arguments simply tend to follow exactly the same pattern that religious ideologues use on almost every issue. So, I am simply following the evidence to play the odds. Now granted, the fact that religious ideologues rely upon exactly the same illogical thinking that other ideologues rely upon means that there till sometimes be overlap when there might be some common ground. Basically, you sound like a duck, you look like a duck, you appear to usually think like a duck, so in the absence of evidence that you are not a duck I am willing to risk concluding at this point that you are a duck. If I am wrong then just say you are an atheist. But so far I have never met or discussed anything with an atheist who is as consitently illogical as you usually are. Of course it is also possible that you are simply playing devil’s advocate and dishonestly taking positions you really don’t believe simply to stir things up.

NOUDITTANT: “So, I agree with someone about something you agree with and you view it as the result of independent thought but when I disagree with someone it can only be explained by thought filtered through some religious teachings?” – - – WRONG Whether or not your agree or disagree with anyone about anything is TOTALLY IRRELVANT to me. The ONLY standard I use as a benchmark for determining if someone is capable of independent ratational thought is how often they can present cogent arguments and support them with reliable evidence. Nothing else matters to me when I analyze an opinion or claim or argument. Does their position rationally conform to an evidence based objective reality, or not, and how often. Now granted, you did not present your reasoning or evidence to support the conclusion you gave. I just happen to know that conclusion is a logically valid conclusion that deviatees from the neo-con party line so I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you arrived at it with some critical thinking. Granted, I could be mistaken because even the most irrational people sometimes have correct beliefs purely by accident even if their reasoning is totally irrational.

By: noudittant

noudittant — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:19:14 +0000

B-K, show me one statement I’ve made that lead you to conclude any of my positions in this debate are based upon religious beliefs or religious principles? So, I agree with someone about something you agree with and you view it as the result of independent thought but when I disagree with someone it can only be explained by thought filtered through some religious teachings? I have given this some thought, versus a reaction (LOL), and if religion is the source of my beliefs then all atheists should disagree with my position. I wonder if that is true. Lastly, haven’t you used Scripture to bolster your points in some comments? Should I conclude that in those postings your faith has clouded your independent judgment?

By: B-K KnightRider

B-K KnightRider — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 20:24:46 +0000

NOUDITTANT @ 12:23 – Frankly, it largely appears you are myopic and incapble of rational comprehension only when dogmatic religious beliefs or religious principles are the primary influence of your perceptions. So, when an issue does not really touch on a core religious belief, like for example unnecessary neocon wars, you are capable of some independent rational thought. The primary reason I can separate legal issues from some moral issues is because I refuse to force my religious beliefs, or the beliefs or my religion, or the beliefs of any other religion onto everyone else. I am an American who believes in respecting and following the principles of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution before I am anything else. I very strongly an very sincerely believe tha ALL people (i.e. not just Americans) are born with inalienable rights, and some of those inalienbable rights are life, liberty, to pursue happiness, to exericse free will in ways that don’t harm others or unreasonably infringe upon the rights and liberties of others (i.e. we have a right to sin in some ways but not in others), self-defense or self-preservation, to not be objectified as a thing or a means to and end, treatment with some dignity and respect, and privacy for starters. Some of our inalienable rights are among others that were not enumerated.

By: B-K KnightRider

B-K KnightRider — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 20:05:54 +0000

NOUDITTANT @ 12:17 – Seriously? You really want to go down that rabbit hole with that thought experiment? Okay then, fine. The only way your plan would work would be if EVERYONE had to get a license before they could reproduce – no exceptions. So yes, you are correct, that would provide great benefit to society as a whole if the only people who could reproduce were the ones with the psychological, emotional and financial capacity to ensure thier children grew up in stable, functional, supportive, empowering, and loving environmentes where they could flourish. That would be fantastic for the children and society because we would eventually have nobody but healthy functional happy people – EXCEPT that would also require a very totalitarian government that had the power and resources to enforce such a process and enforce the standards and that would require stripping people of ALL their rights and liberties regarding reproduction and the raising of children. Then there is that whole people are not perfect problem. Great idea – NOT. So, no thank you. That is an even more extreme version of infringing upon people’s rights and liberties than what opponents to abortion are already striving to achieve. But hey, your idea would indeed end all elective abortions (except for incest and rape which is an exception I will always insist upon). So go for it. But your solution is worse than the problem unless you are fine with a totalitarian government with that much power and control over people. I am surprsided that you never picked up on how I am far from the ends justifies the means kind of person and that I often have libertarian leanings. I am also far from a purist with libertarian principles. I consider them. They can inform my positions. But I am not dogmatic about them. The core of my ideology is logic first and a love of truth.

By: B-K KnightRider

B-K KnightRider — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 19:43:26 +0000

NOUDITANT: “B-K, I love you make a statement then attack me for thinking it a little presumptuous of you to claim to know what the future holds for children.” – - – I NEVER did that about children as a whole so your mischaracterization of my position is very disingenuous. I do however believe with absolute 100% certainty – because of all the avialable past and present evidence – what the future holds for SOME children and MANY children. Just like I have zero doubt that many children have been and will be abused today. Just like I have zero doubt that some children today are suffering unnecessarily from malnutrician and sickness/disease and the cold weather. Just like I have zero doubt that many pets have been and will have the same things happeen to them today. The EVIDENCE and logic indicate those are reasonable beliefs to hold. What is it about the clarifiers/limiters “some” and “many” that you don’t understand?

By: B-K KnightRider

B-K KnightRider — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 19:31:24 +0000

NOUDITTANT: “B-K, is birth control (other than deemed medically necessary due to various reasons) elective or not?” – - – Elective, usually. So what? Sometimes it fails. Sometimes accidents happen when someone is trying natural birth-control of timing their abstinence. Sometimes people can’t afford it. Sometimes they are coerced or manipulated or in the worst cases raped. But making birth control readily available and easily affordable to everyone is realistically the most effective way to nearly eliminate elective abortion as a form of birth control. And insisting that everyone just be absitnent is a fantasy that will NEVER HAPPEN. Never has and never will on any large scale. So the best thing to do is mitigate the inevitable.

By: B-K KnightRider

B-K KnightRider — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 19:24:30 +0000

CND FOX @ 11:30 – EXACTLY Sometimes someone capable of a little critical thinking goes ‘OH, I did not know that,’ or ‘Oh, I never thought of it like that,’ or ‘Oh, now I understand.”