addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupsimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

London Atheist Activist Group (informal community) Message Board 1. MAIN FORUM - (non-Islam) › Richard Mourdock Says Even Pregnancy from Rape is Something God intended to

Richard Mourdock Says Even Pregnancy from Rape is Something God intended to Happen

Barry R.
user 10723166
London, GB
Post #: 447
Ginny,

the expression that you are looking for comes under the general heading of 'Causation'. Specifically, 'Causation and Omission' would cover the 'God sitting on his hands' eyewash.

Frances could give you chapter and verse on this, I'll bet.
Martyn
Maradam
Guildford, GB
Post #: 340
I rather like to think that as a self-aware species we should NOT be living lives based on the randomness of nature, or the inability of evolution to give a damn about the individual. We should, and do, care about the individual, and that, I believe, is a rational policy.

There is no after-life, therefore we should strive to make this life our 'heaven' - free from coercion. NO ONE deserves to live in misery.

That means any form of violence or unfairness against another person is, how can I put this? Uncivilised...? Evil...? Destructive...?

Rape exploits the physical power of the rapist over the victim and at the same time shows a complete disrespect to the individual. It is a more violent form of bullying. Other crimes in the same category would include kidnap, slavery, exploitation and even murder.

The term 'Might is Right' is wrong.

The policy of violence doesn't work if we tried to make it symmetric. What happens when the raped (or the enslaved) have the opportunity to respond in kind? We often end up with a blood bath.

Sounds like history doesn't it?

Millions have suffered and died because of coercion and the subsequent response to it. The human race is too bloody stupid to learn this basic lesson, probably because we're basically 'evolved' and 'natural' animals under the bonnet. Tribal instincts have a lot to answer for and religious works that propound the policy of domination are evil.

'Do unto others as they would do unto you.'...?

At first glance that sounds good; but if one person has been brought up in a violent household (or society) and therefore expects violence as the norm, then the recipient simply gets battered and subjugated and we're back to square one.

Violent coercion (the imposition of one's will over another) - of any form - is therefore unacceptable. This is an absolute, not a relative, premise.

Pregnancy from rape puts the female body through yet more stress - effectively extending the period of imposed violence until after childbirth and also risking the life of the mother. Rape of a woman is therefore more serious than the rape of a man, and far more likely to life threatening.

Evolution may not 'not permit' it - but any civilised person should.

I hope that's a rational train of thought.
CHERYL K.
user 9335524
London, GB
Post #: 448
Agreed.

If you want Anton, call nature 'randomness' and where does that get us? The point about Murdoch is he suggests god intends this to happen. Randomness is why we are all here. Our parents had sex (not necessarily randomly) and one of millions(?) of sperm happens to reach an egg making it's way down the fallopian tube. I see no correlation at all.

I honestly think you are looking for a more benign 'higher power' shall we say. What can toss us about on this stormy sea of life if you don't believe in god? Nature? Randomness? Most people don't like the latter. And I think you will be annoyed at my implication in the first sentence. I apologise, but I do think that's what you're doing.

I made the point in another post that we reify nature and talk of it as tho' it's outside us - our puppetmaster so to speak. We ARE nature. Not outside it. And we have no idea how this universe is truly constituted but I don't get why the utter lack of meaning, intention, which is the very opposite of ourselves correlates with the title statement. We are not enfolded in nature.

So we created god in our own image and unless we're careful, we end up making nature in our image. We are inside it, not outside, defining it. There isn't even an 'it' to define. We know so little.
Martyn
Maradam
Guildford, GB
Post #: 346
I didn't waffle on about my thoughts on 'Atheism' - so quickly then...

The word 'Atheism' simply means 'No belief in Gods'. However I also interpret the word to mean 'No belief in Gods through a process of rational deduction.' That is, if there's a psychopath who doesn't believe in God because he believes the world revolves around him, then he isn't to be included in my group of 'Atheists' - even though technically such a person is one.

Atheism, to me, is consequence of rational thought - not an end in itself.

Having said that, I know that one's approach to 'rational thought' might be informal and not structured. Mine certainly is.

I'll stop there. I've waffled enough already.
A former member
Post #: 165
Atheism, to me, is consequence of rational thought - not an end in itself.
i agree with that, and agree with all of your previous post, too.

to cheryl; i am seeking nothing but to obtain what is the atheist perspective on the issue that pregnancy from rape occurs all around us in nature... human or otherwise.

i do not see why it is so abhorrent that a religious person substitutes the word 'god' for 'nature' - because that is the way his beliefs are inclined - and draws this conclusion, and yet atheism, left with only nature and no other values on this issue, is left with pregnancy occuring from rape because "oh well, it's random, isn't it?".

i really don't see how this is any better - except that atheism is not attempting to set moral values.

one last time - i am an atheist - i am not seeking any higher power - what i was seeking, was a robust atheist viewpoint on the underlying matter and the consequences of being left only with nature.
A former member
Post #: 166
further, i would like to draw your attention to this post from ginny in this group's 'values' / 'what is this group for' thread:

Some of us left another group for this very reason ( amongst several other reasons, LOL!) .... Hamid's leaving note there cited that he felt as though every post had to start with a disclaimer. I wouldn't want this forum to get that like - some things have to be assumed as a basic given if people join an "atheist rationalist" forum! Er, ...that they're non-believers of *some* description, and they're rational in more than just atheism.

as this post suggests - nobody on this forum should have their arguments twisted into suggesting that they are looking for some kind of higher power - if they were, they simply wouldn't be here in the first place.

i am getting the feeling that perhaps my using my rationalism on our own 'ism' has been interpreted as some kind of attack... i would very much hope not. there is nothing irrational about using your own powers of reasoning to challenge (and strengthen) your own perspectives, from time to time...
Barry R.
user 10723166
London, GB
Post #: 458
Hi, Anton,

my perspective on human pregnancy (sometimes) occurring from rape is as follows.

1) The 'act' of rape is a crime - we are all agreed.
2) Pregnancy may occur as a result of this crime.
3) Pregnancy is a natural process, though in this case, a crime has been committed in order to initiate this process.
4) Nature/biology is impersonal and cannot differentiate between sought and unsought conception. Once the trigger has been pulled, the process begins.

To me, as a rationalist, I don't find anything here to be considered or resolved.
Having re-read your earlier posts I'm wondering if your use of the word 'allow' might have been the cause of the confusion.
'Allow' can be used in the way that you showed in your 'computer' example. I'm afraid that I was rather stuck with the idea that 'to allow' indicated some sort of conscious decision-making.


CHERYL K.
user 9335524
London, GB
Post #: 449


to cheryl; i am seeking nothing but to obtain what is the atheist perspective on the issue that pregnancy from rape occurs all around us in nature... human or otherwise.

This is what is confusing for those of us that have responded. I really don't understand why there might or should be an 'atheist perspective' on this. It's things that happen. Rupert Murdoch simply put a supernatural, religious overview on a crime that could have the consequence of pregnancy. This could for some women trigger a sense of guilt or self questioning where before there was none. Personally I don't think life is sacred (and I'm not assuming you do), I just think it has value to the person living it and the value with which others endow our existence.

Genuinely, I'm not sure if you're making a point or asking for some philosophical clarification about something which for me needs none.

i do not see why it is so abhorrent that a religious person substitutes the word 'god' for 'nature' - because that is the way his beliefs are inclined - and draws this conclusion, and yet atheism, left with only nature and no other values on this issue, is left with pregnancy occuring from rape because "oh well, it's random, isn't it?".

Gosh! Who said anything was 'abhorrent'? I would say that jumping from god to nature is often the stepping stone some questioning religious people take. I've confessed to finding paganism quite a moving religion, celebrating our natural state and the world around us. But, but, if we worship nature as if it has intentions there is a fuzzy line there. If we are substituting nature for god we are still, in my view, clinging to what might be called a 'fetish' belief. Same way some atheists still believe in horoscopes, or think they have a guardian angel, or admit that the god they believe in probably is just an imaginary friend but it makes them feel better so they're not changing anytime soon. And BTW, I'm not suggesting you follow any of these things. But I think as Sam Harris said (paraphrased) "No society ever became less healthy by becoming more reasonable and rational". I think we should beware of anthropomorphosising ANYTHING which has no conscious will or awareness of it's own. By all means enjoy nature, shelter from it, guard against it, but even I, as I write this I still have a residual feeling it's a capricious or benign cradle in which I live which can make or break me. 'It' doesn't exist in that way. I am interwoven into all that is anyway. It's not outside me.



one last time - i am an atheist - i am not seeking any higher power - what i was seeking, was a robust atheist viewpoint on the underlying matter and the consequences of being left only with nature.

I know you're an atheist. As I said before, I think you will deny all of the above. I understand. I'm suggesting merely that we can sometimes fall into the idea that there is still a 'something else'. As I admitted I do too. But I'm still left with a confusion about what the 'underlying matter' is? And why you ask about the consequences of being left only(?) with nature? The answer to that is the entire history of the universe. Isn't it?

And you say we are only "left with nature and no other values on this issue". My values don't come from nature. Except that they come from me and I am part of all that is. And do we need something other than nature to explain the universe we live in and our physical functioning?

This could be all a miscommunication. I can only respond from what I'm picking up as I read. This is a debating forum. And as I said, I know you're an atheist. You're in this group.

I would suggest to people that when it seems no-one quite agrees with you or understands you, imagine you were having a face to face conversation. The tone would almost certainly be much lighter than when we read text printed on a public forum. What reads as criticism is often a gentle debate. Text feels more bludgeoning somehow.
Richard F
user 2543752
London, GB
Post #: 887
Let's try it this way.

Atheism concludes that gods don't exist therefore there is just cause and effect in the natural world.

However, the human species have developed a beneficial detailed social structure that inherently requires certain behaviours that are found in the natural world to be seen as harmful or damaging to that social structure. Therefore actions like theft, rape, murder and deceit are bad even though they occur in nature. This is a rational conclusion which, I would argue, is part of an atheist's makeup.

How about that?
Georgi L.
Guffaw
London, GB
Post #: 875

I would suggest to people that when it seems no-one quite agrees with you or understands you, imagine you were having a face to face conversation. The tone would almost certainly be much lighter than when we read text printed on a public forum. What reads as criticism is often a gentle debate. Text feels more bludgeoning somehow.

Brilliantly put Cheryl. I'm taking the liberty of copying it and adding it to 'what this forum is about/ 'rules' of conduct'.

Powered by mvnForum

Optional Contribution

GBP10.00 to laag.events@gmail.com

This covers: This is to help with LAAG's activism and the Ministry of Reason project.

Payment is accepted using:

  • PayPal
  • Cash or check - “Please email us and we'll send details. Or see us at any LAAG own meetup (i.e. not EXTERNAL events etc.) Again if in doubt email us.

Refunds are not offered for this Meetup.

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy