Pro-life video of the day: Abortion rage
by Hans Johnson
We’ve all heard of road rage: sudden bursts of anger because of supposed slights by another motorist. Some also can’t control themselves around others with differing points of view.
Donna Holman knows this quite well from past experience – and most recently from her experience on the morning of August 21 when she was protesting in front of a Planned Parenthood in Iowa City, Iowa. Mrs. Holman, of Missionaries to the Preborn of Iowa, was struck in the back of her shoulder by a man, sending the literature she was holding to the ground. He then kept walking without saying a word.
She grabbed her walkie-talkie and alerted her husband Dan, who was protesting two blocks away. He chased down the assaulter, who was Man Chun John Ma (pictured above right), a 30-year-old from Hong Kong and a graduate student at the University of Iowa, and began interviewing him with his video camera Asked why he, a 6′ 1″ 200-lb. young man would hit a 78-year-old woman, he said: “Sorry about that. I know I’m in trouble.”
Ma later admitted to the arresting officer: “I did punch her. That was probably wrong.”
Unfortunately, the arresting officer seems to suggest that Ma’s reaction was provoked by Mrs. Holman’s practice of free speech (holding an anti-abortion sign):
“Listen, you and I both know why he did it,” the officer tells Holman on camera. “He doesn’t like the sign. I personally don’t like the sign… he was extremely offended by the sign… you’re looking to provoke an extreme reaction with that. I don’t have a problem with what you’re doing; I don’t like it… but that doesn’t mean that what he did was okay.”
Court documents say that Ma’s motive for the crime was that “he found the idea of being anti-abortion to be strange.” He was released from jail on a $1,000 bond and is expected in court on September 11.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/kK5mp1wF3mM[/youtube]Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: TheBlaze]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“I did punch her. That was probably wrong.”
Probably?
We live in a society in which the term “provoked” is used as a cop-out to engage in behaviors that are unacceptable. I find that for the police officer to use this term, is that much troubling. You mean to tell me that an inanimate object has the capacity to “provoke?” Pro-aborts by using this term in regard to reacting to pro-life demonstrations are in fact declaring that a mere sign is a cause of rage for them. Thank God we prosecute batteries.
More pro-life signs are needed to upset pro-aborts’ balance and push them into a frenzy!!!
Does he have a problem with people HAVING abortions, or just with people SHOWING the results of abortion?
Misplaced rage, and misplaced outrage, from the young man and the cop, respectively.
This is only a few miles from where I live! My family participated in a silent prayer protest outside this clinic before (toddler and pregnant belly along too!), but due to health and scheduling haven’t done anything for years. My church supports a CPC and I always pray for the people I see outside this PP as there are people there with signs fairly frequently. This town is so aggressively liberal with the big university the violence doesn’t surprise me in the least.
The placement of this PP is particulalry bizzare, there is a pawn shop, a Joanns fabric store, and a KFC, turn down the alley and, there’s the PP, right across the street from a neighborhood garden plot. I think there is a machanics shop next door too. It’s very tucked in this little hole of an alley between random businesses on one side (closer to the main road) and a neighborhood residential area on the other side. There are so many different places in town where there are various medical clinics (due to the university) grouped a few together. (The CPC is next door to an orthapedics rehabilitation clinic for instance, and down the road from a plasma facility for example) but the PP’s placement is baffleing.
Listen, you and I both know why he did it,” the officer tells Holman on camera. “He doesn’t like the sign. I personally don’t like the sign…”
Mr. Policeman, with all due respect, you are being paid to enforce the law, not to excuse a criminal’s behavior or tell us what you do or don’t like about the law. Figure that out before you put on the uniform.
Hmmm.
1. Find someone doing something that you deem “strange.”
2. Punch them.
Got it.
1) Many people are outraged by the sight of a police uniform. That does not give anyone a license to assault policemen.
2) We know why the young man was offended. This is America, and everyone has a right to be offended. No one gets arrested for being offended. But a person can be arrested for assaulting other persons or intentionally damaging their property. Being offended is no excuse.
If you don’t want to see the pro-life activists, don’t walk by an abortion shop!
Simple fact is: Pro-aborts are dangerous-minded people. They firmly believe that killing is a suitable course of action to resolve any sort of problem. So we must not act shocked when they use violence against us.
The sidewalk is never a “safe” place. Always work in pairs. Keep an eye on each other. If incidents have happened, keep cameras handy and know how to use them. Assign a person to start filming full-time, when deathscorts or dissenters are present. This is a deterrent to violence, and not just for recording evidence. We want to stay safe.
I wonder if this officer ever told a victim in a domestic dispute with a black eye for “mouthing off” that he also doesn’t like what “you’re doing”?
It’s called free speech, sir.
I’m going to express some sympathy for the police cop. As far as cops are concerned, protestors anywhere are a constant potential for violence and altercations. Police don’t like these situations — they endanger the public and the police who answer the calls.
The cop’s job is to defuse the situation. He asked Dan to step away. When Dan did not do so, the cop was politely frustrated with Dan and took Dan aside for a chat.
What the cop told Dan was essentially the same thing that myself and others have posted here: Our message about violence to the children is going to unsettle a lot of people, and some portion of them are going to react violently toward us. We have to expect this.
These pro-aborts “should'” grow some thick skin if they desire to interrupt pro-life demonstrations. But let me get this straight; a simple pro-life sign is “offensive” to pro-aborts but a sign that declares “Jesus is a not a d…, keep him out of my vagina” (I don’t think I am quoting this verbatim, but you get the picture) is somehow not?! How about bringing of urine samples to pro-abortion demonstrations?! So it’s fine and dandy for pro-aborts to be ”offensive” but when pro-lifers return in kind, it’s a big problem. Pro-life demonstrations need to be stepped up with not only simple pro-life signs but graphic depictions of abortions, aborted fetuses, Gosnell’s mug and more…
“protestors anywhere are a constant potential for violence and altercations.”
Gotta’ disagree with you on this one Del. People who angrily disagree with protestors are the constant potential for violence and altercations.
Eric, perfectly rephrased! I hate it when people blame -even passively- the law abiding side for infractions that occur. Certainly, because we know lawlessness exists we know there are certain actions which may present a higher likihood of attracting said lawlessness, but he onus on the situation is still 100% that of that criminal. It’s one thing to say ‘use some common sense, stay in pairs because you know this might get violent’ and a very, very different one to say ‘you provoked this violence’. It’s not protesters, of any sort, which the public/police should dislike for the possible disruption of public safety, it’s the criminals who use it as an excuse to act out. (Although sometimes protesters can turn criminals!)
Hmmm.
1. Find someone doing something that you deem “strange.”
2. Shoot them in the head or bomb their premises.
Got it.
I am all for assisting people by placing the truth about abortion in front of them. This video is an example of just how powerful a message these these signs send. It may be that Ex-RINO and a host of other progressives keep themselves in a state of denial as a self-defense mechanism. When powerful images like these signs force them to see the truth it can drive them into rage.
Getting rather lazy Reality.
Just illuminating the imbalance Carla.
Hm. After having sexual intercourse and finding yourself pregnant, consider it “strange.” Pay a someone to kill him or her before he or she is born.
got it.
Punching someone – illegal, a crime against a fellow citizen.
Shooting someone – illegal, a crime against a fellow citizen.
Bombing premises – illegal, a crime against a fellow citizen.
Terminating a fetus – legal, not a crime against a fellow citizen.
Punching someone – illegal, a crime against a fellow citizen.
Bombing premises of notorious killer –a crime but understandable.
Stabbing a baby in the back of the neck with a scissors. Brutally barbaric.
Setting up shop and killing babies on a daily basis for money – Planned Parenthood and the DemocRATic party.
Bombing premises of a notorious killer – a crime but understandable.” – which particular ‘notorious killer’? Can’t be executioners, I’m pretty sure bombing a prison would be very difficult and risky. Do you just mean the general rethuglican policy in regard to those they don’t like?
You’d be one of the 29% who blame obama for the poor federal response to Katrina in 2005, rather than one of the 28% who blames bush wouldn’t you truthseeker? I doubt you’d be one of the 43% who were confused by the question.
Reality, the law determines who is our fellow citizen. Correct me if I’m wrong…but I seem to remember reading in my history books that the law has gotten that wrong in the past. Dred Scott anyone??
Hey, asking questions is dangerous. What if you get laryngitis from talking too long? Or you accidentally realize you’re wrong about something?
When I see somebody protesting something and I don’t understand why, my immediate reaction is, “Well, gotta go punch another stranger…”
”Bombing premises of a notorious killer – a crime but understandable.” – which particular ‘notorious killer’? Can’t be executioners, I’m pretty sure bombing a prison would be very difficult and risky. Do you just mean the general rethuglican policy in regard to those they don’t like?”
I was thinking about a drone bombing against AlQueada. Since Obama has refused to call it a war on terror the extra-judicious killings are unlawful.
Reality says:
August 27, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Punching someone – illegal, a crime against a fellow citizen. Shooting someone – illegal, a crime against a fellow citizen. Bombing premises – illegal, a crime against a fellow citizen. Terminating a fetus – legal, not a crime against a fellow citizen.
Insane, isn’t it?
But there are still people who advocate for the legality of this violence toward children, and those advocates are often violent themselves.
I had a young pro-abort assault me from behind and try to pick a fight with me a few months ago. A boyfriend/escort of some woman in the clinic talked with him at some length about how that was no way to behave toward people who are praying on the street and trying to help.
The sidewalk is a bizarre place. I was just glad that I was there to absorb the abuse from the young cad, and that the women doing sidewalk counseling were not molested.
You might want to brush up on the case Sydney M.
Gee, that’s bit out of context with the rest of what you said truthseeker ;-)
“Insane, isn’t it?” – not at all.
“But there are still people who advocate for the legality of this violence toward children,” – such histrionics.
“and those advocates are often violent themselves.” – ‘often’? Guns and bombs?
“I had a young pro-abort assault me from behind and try to pick a fight with me a few months ago. A boyfriend/escort of some woman in the clinic talked with him at some length about how that was no way to behave toward people who are praying on the street and trying to help.” – ‘trying to help’ hm.
“The sidewalk is a bizarre place.” – I can’t argue with that, full of all sorts of crazies sometimes.
“I was just glad that I was there to absorb the abuse from the young cad, and that the women doing sidewalk counseling were not molested.” – ah, ‘molest’ now is it.
“Getting rather lazy Reality.”
Getting?
:-) that’s funny coming from you JDC :-)
.
How many abortionists have been killed? Is it even 5? If so then abortionists out murder anti-abortion murderers by 10,000,000 to one.
.
“reality, the “resident-philospher” more concerned about semantics than anything of substance.
Here is some substance for ‘reality’ to enjoy.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/28/toppled-planned-parenthood-sign-shows-abby-johnsons-abortion-clinic-closed/
How many abortionists have been killed? Is it even 5? If so then abortionists out murder anti-abortion murderers by 10,000,000 to one.
I think its slightly more than that. In my opinion, one killed is one too many. Our opponents claim we are all violent. If that was so, there would be no abortionists left because we would have killed them all by now!
I had a class with a young woman from Hong Kong once. She said women there have abortions all the time and its not considered a big deal. I also read that in Sweden, the incidence of teen parenthood is really low — not because the young people there aren’t sexually active, but tbecause hey almost always abort. A teenage girl who decides to keep her baby is considered an oddball and “Strange.”
What’s the matter Thomas R., got nothing to say?
“If so then abortionists out murder anti-abortion murderers by 10,000,000 to one.” – except abortion isn’t murder.
(that’s a fact by the way Thomas R., not semantics or philosophy)
Because they suffer so severely from cognitive dissonance, abortion fans who troll pro-life websites are unable to make any rational argument for why killing certain innocent human beings is wrong, while killing other innocent human beings is a cash business they feel compelled to defend.
Your claim of cognitive dissonance is false ninek. There are clear and strong reasons why abortion and post-birth killing are vastly different. I see more cognitive dissonance in those who advocate for the death penalty whilst advocating against abortion.
“cash business” – shallow and unjustified claim. It’s all about womens reproductive freedom and choices.
You’re only lying to yourself. Enjoy that.
Given the extent to which I have, over a period of time, explained how and why abortion bears no correlation to the killing of a post-birth human your assertion is groundless and simply wishful thinking.
OK, seriously, don’t feed the troll.
ninek,
You must have forgotten that a woman’s vagina is a magical vortex that changes a fetus into a baby on the way out. If you need proof then seek out the peer-reviewed scientific studies that show how the laws of women’s choice and reproductive freedom change a fetus into a baby as he or she passes through the vagina.
However, I am not 100% sure how babies delivered through C-sections accomplish this?
OK JDC :-)
Not surprising, Realitay, that you continually confuse US with being the troll here, since you’re so confused about who human fetuses are.
(I only fed him the truth, JDC. I expect it to pass right through him with no effect.)
“(I only fed him the truth, JDC. I expect it to pass right through him with no effect.)”
I’m pretty sure he’s allergic to the truth, so if there is any effect it will be negative.
Yes. About as nourishing as cardboard.
No Hans. Don’t be offended. I don’t think you are ALL trolls, only a couple who display the behaviors which meet the description. You are not one of them.
Oh, and I do know what human fetuses are.
Trolls disrupt blogs that they disagree with for the most part.
Human fetuses are very young human beings.
Just so we’re clear.
So disagreeing and explaining why is ‘disrupting’ now is it?
What about when arguments start here over race? Or judaism? Politics? What percentage of the commentors on those threads are trolls because they are ‘disrupting’ things then?
How many times do have I have to say the same thing. Gestating human fetuses are of the human species.
Just so we’re clear.
Wait, which pro-lifers do you think are trolls Reality? Lol.
I’m probably in the minority because I don’t think Reality is much of a troll, sometimes he has real conversations and debates (which is okay by Jill’s rules so it’s not really trolling). He trolls sometimes when he does the whole thing:
“Pro-lifer’s statement here” – nope.
Because it’s unsupported and doesn’t foster any type of debate or conversation.
“Because it’s unsupported and doesn’t foster any type of debate or conversation.” – wanna bet? :-)
But yes, I noted someone pointed out the responses such as ‘nope’ so I am making an effort to expand. Mind you, some responses I receive are basically ‘no, insult reality’ rather than any pertinent expansion. But I don’t mind.
I still want to know which pro-lifers you think are trolls, I have a feeling I’d be amused by the answer. :)
I don’t feel the need to name anyone Jack, and they’re not trolling all the time. Suffice to say I think they are different to a couple who I feel troll you.
Jack,
I would agree with you that Reality may not be a full-fledged troll, since he lacks their bitterness. But his flippant sense of humor isn’t always appropriate with the subject matter.
People troll me? People are mean to me sometimes, but I usually deserve it. Don’t know about trolling.
I agree Hans, sometimes the humor is a bit much. I think the majority of time though I don’t consider Reality trolling.
Meh, some of us are flippant, others snide. Then there are those who are just plain nasty.
Jack, my observation is that some people harangue you in an attempt to get you defensive and upset.
Oh yeah people do that on occasion. I assume I’ve done something to offend them so they are trying to hurt my feelings, which is understandable.
Not at all. I cannot remember you saying anything specifically offensive.
They just don’t like the fact that you are not of their persuasion on certain topics.
Nah, I think I’m doing something wrong, just haven’t figured out why I make everyone mad yet. “If you have a problem with everyone, then you’re probably the problem”.
Rubbish! – (explanation, not trolling :-) ) – you are not ‘doing something wrong’. I think for some they just can’t deal with the fact that you are strongly anti-choice yet have an opposite viewpoint on almost everything else.
“If you have a problem with everyone, then you’re probably the problem.” – yeah, like when you’re the only sane person in an asylum.
Well I’m hopeful that I can learn to express my opinions in a way that makes people feel less upset with me.
Come off it Jack. You are agnostic. That gets about 75% offside. You take a rational approach to the drug problem. There’s maybe anywhere from 25%-50% with at least a partial overlap with being agnostic. You don’t believe the sun shines out of the gop’s collective a… so there’s another 95% with an overlap and even some double overlap! You don’t slam dunk people because their lifestyle doesn’t equate with your preferred ideology. That’d have to be at least 50% I’d guess. Overlap, overlap, overlap. And then…..and then…..you’re vegetarian! Talk about how to get everyone offside.
So add it all up and you’ll get an idea of why you cop some of the stuff that you do.
Well… I think people identify very strongly with their religion, so sometimes people can take it as an attack if someone doesn’t agree. It’s kinda like how a lot of LGBT people get really hurt when people simply don’t agree that homosexuality/bisexuality is moral (I do that too, it seriously makes me sad) because it feels like a personal attack rather than an opinion about the world. And I think I sometimes come across as rude or hateful when I talk about religion, so that might explain the angry response.
And lol yeah you might be right about the vegetarian/more liberal ideologies, some people seem to be very upset I think these things. But not everyone.
Jack,
Who in the world is mad at you? You probably lock horns the most with Tyler, but he tends to sound as hurt as you do.
Okay, I’m mad at vegetarians. ;)
“I think I sometimes come across as rude or hateful when I talk about religion” – I think that’s well wide of the mark. I think most of it is what I said before and then there are a few who think being agnostic or atheist is tantamount to a crime.
Do you think vegetarians taste different to non-vegetarians Hans? :-)
Hans as far as I can tell I irritate most people. Any time there’s some type of argument on this blog it’s usually my fault! Or maybe Ex-GOP. And it’s not just this blog, I make everyone mad!
I do think some people think really poorly of agnostics/atheists, Reality. I’ve actually lost count of the times I’ve either seen or personally been told that non-religious people have no morals. But I think most people just worry that the non-believers are going to hell so they want to fix that.
Talk about being wide of the mark, Reality. That describes your quips to a “T”.
Jack,
If you asked for a show of hands of people here that aren’t angry at you, there would be some kind of “butterfly effect” on the Earth’s climates. I can’t speak for your bio-family, but your interweb family thinks you’re pretty much okay.
Compared to ourselves, anyway.
I know Jack. To make such a claim ignores all sorts of history/anthropology/culture/whatever. Especially given the behavior of certain individuals. And the fact that the incarceration rate of atheists is markedly lower than for other groups.
“But I think most people just worry that the non-believers are going to hell so they want to fix that.” – you do?
Don’t read too much into it Hans. I just wondered if the different diet would affect the bodies physiology or whatever in any way that would be discernible taste wise. Not that you or I would ever consider cannibalism.
Yeah, the prisons are full of major theologians.
You reminded me of the Jay Leno joke about a religous argument between Charles Manson and another prisoner. “Here are a couple of major theologians.”
Badly put together, but at least typo-free for once.
Oo, I don’t think they are Hans and I intimated no such thing. Just people who aren’t atheist, that’s all. My remark re ‘certain individuals’ relates to those who are literally caught with their pants down, employ ‘luggage lifters’, have multiple marriages etc.
My comment wasn’t typo free. I used ‘bodies’ plural instead of ‘body’s’ possessive.
Well thanks Hans.
Yes Reality I think a lot of people are “pushy” with atheists/agnostics because they truly, honestly believe that we’re headed for eternal torment and would like us not to go there. I don’t agree with the methods but I don’t think that a lot of them are trying to be hurtful. Sometimes though, especially with how people talk about LGBT people, it comes across as very hurtful.
Also, it’s true that atheists are underrepresented in prisons and jails, but from my experiences that’s mostly due to a lot of people “finding Jesus” when they are incarcerated. Considering recidivism, I knew a lot of guys who got religious in lock-up but went right back to selling junk and gang-banging right after they got out, just more God talk, otherwise they didn’t change much.
Send the punk home. He doesn’t need to be here. Unprovoked assault –yes, unprovoked, legally that is, since she wasn’t threatening him– is a good reason to have one’s visa revoked.
If he is so uncivilized at his age, he just doesn’t need to be here. Let his country educate him.
“And the fact that the incarceration rate of atheists is markedly lower than for other groups.”
Only in the US.
Most atheists in the US are Asians or white males. Two groups that already have low incarceration rates. Of course in China, atheists do not have lower incarceration rates than Christians because most people there are atheists. So, it is not consistent cross culturally. In other words, atheism is just an incidental finding, not a causal factor.
“Most atheists in the US are Asians or white males.” – do you have data for this? I think you are probably right though. I saw an article which stated that black women have the highest rate of theism. What about females?
“Two groups that already have low incarceration rates.” – I agree. Do you know the comparative incarceration rates? The data I have seen – which is slightly speculative of course – shows that the incarceration rate for atheists is at least 10 times lower than that for theists.
“Of course in China, atheists do not have lower incarceration rates than Christians because most people there are atheists.” – are you not confusing rates with numbers?
“So, it is not consistent cross culturally.” – that would make sense.
“In other words, atheism is just an incidental finding, not a causal factor.” – I disagree and I think that while the data is ‘fuzzy’ at this stage it will be borne out over time. I think it is one of a number of indicators of difference.
.
“the incarceration rate for atheists is at least 10 times lower than that for theists.”
.
I haven’t looked at it for a while, but that sounds right. Anyway, theists and atheists of similar intelligence have similar incarceration rates. So, again, intelligence leads to both atheism and low incarceration rates, but atheism doesn’t cause intelligence, so…
“So, again, intelligence leads to both atheism and low incarceration rates,” – yes, that is what the studies are showing. That gosh-darned educamation stuff causes people to believe in science and stuff!!!
Okay, but smart theists also have low incarceration rates. Intelligence is associated with all kinds of better outcomes.
However, dumb theists and dumb atheists both have poor outcomes, so we know that neither atheism nor theism are the cause.
Education also doesn’t cause intelligence. Education leads to academic achievement, and smart educated people have higher achievement because they were more intelligent to start with.
Anyway, these kinds of relationships and outcomes are complex but not inscrutable. We know that secular education doesn’t produce smarter kids because educational achievement has not risen even though the fraction self identifying irreligious has risen. If we assume that the more of the smart people are now atheist, which I am sure is the case, it doesn’t change the fact that there aren’t more smart people as a fraction of the population. So, again, to be clear, intelligence leads to atheism, but atheism doesn’t cause intelligence.
.
“That gosh-darned educamation stuff causes people to believe in science and stuff!!!”
.
Not necessarily.
.
Science has proven that an individual’s life begins as a fertilized egg, but some superstitious folks still claim it begins at birth.
.
I agree, I wouldn’t claim that atheism leads to intelligence. But yes, intelligence and education do lead to atheism.
Hm, my observation is that most ‘superstitious’ folk are both anti-choice and believe that the product of conception is as much a person as you and I.
A seed is life too, not much of a tree just yet though.
Hey Reality. Is it superstitious to deny the existence of The Creator when we have no other explanation for how the world began? And spare me the ‘Big Bang’ and tell me where the atoms that crashed in the ‘Big Bang’ came from in the place.
It’s not superstitious to not believe in a Creator.
Centuries ago, we had no real explanation for many things. So, people tended to “God did it” (and still do, apparently). There’s a plague? Obviously, it’s a punishment from God. An eclipse? God must have done it.
I’m not saying it’s wrong to believe in God or anything, but it’s certainly not superstitious to not believe in a Creator because we don’t have a solid, set in stone knowledge of how the universe came about. I do think hardline atheism is a bit silly, because we cannot know for sure either way, but I don’t think it’s superstitious. Just because we don’t know something now, doesn’t mean we might not figure it out in the future. Either way, it’s certainly not science to say “this is the only possible explanation”, and for people who base their worldview on scientific knowledge will never find that satisfying in any way.
Jack, Your analogies of God’s presence (or lack thereof) in current events makes an interesting philosophical discussion. But what I was alluding to is that educated/scientific people understand that you cannot create something out of nothing and so there must necessarily have been a being that existed at the time of creation. If there is no other rational explanation of how life began then it would be superstitious to deny the existence of God. If not superstitious then it is at least an admission of ignorance.
No, there are theories that posit a beginning for matter and energy that do not require a creator. We simply do not know. There were no “rational” explanations for many things that we later learned had actual explanations. That’s why I don’t find it superstitious to reserve judgement.
Especially when people go from thinking “well, it’s likely that some type of Creator exists” to “this particular God has to be the one that exists.” That doesn’t make sense to me at all, though I’ve tried. I’ve pretty much given up on understanding, I think some people are just incapable of faith and I’m probably one of them.
I don’t have a problem with “admission of ignorance”. I don’t think it’s possible to have all the answers, we are simply limited in what we can understand, though human knowledge grows every day. I just see no reason why “a Creator exists” should be the default rather than “a Creator does not exist”. I can’t have a belief in something I don’t have any proof of, and I’m missing the “feeling” of faith that gets people through their doubts. I’m fine with admitting that I don’t know though, it doesn’t bother me.
“No, there are theories that posit a beginning for matter and energy that do not require a creator.”
Can you share one with me? I do not see how any person who looks at things logically and scientifically could explain a beginning without a creator.
I’ve never been to Belgium, therefore I am agnostic on its existence.
Truthseeker, you’re missing the point. People who base their world view on science are okay with not knowing if there is insufficient evidence for a solid answer. Also, they are (in theory) willing to radically change their viewpoint based on new evidence. I realize some people feel better if they have a solid, unchanging opinion on things such as the universe’s beginning, but other people realize that it’s a leap of faith give how little we know, and are unwilling or unable to make that leap.
There are theories such as string theory or other multiverse theories. Quantum physics is fascinating as well. I don’t like to get into it because I’m bad at explaining it, for one thing. And it doesn’t matter, I’m not really in the business of trying to “preach” theories that are in their infancy and aren’t well supported yet. If other people believe in God as the beginning, that’s fine with me. I just don’t like it when people act as though those who don’t see the evidence for a creator are somehow stupid.
Hans, that’s a really poor analogy. You can see pictures of Belgium, have people testify to actually have been there, etc. You have multiple ways to support the existence of Belgium that don’t require faith. When it comes to God, literally the main point of it is to have faith without other evidence, and some people are incapable of that I believe.
When it comes to the origin of everything faith is all we have, because none of us were there. The reason you’re so bad at explaining the scientific “theories” is because they are too.
It’s so incomprehensible that anything exists at all that they have to come up with a multi-verse theory to overcome the odds. And it’s still a lousy fail. The overiding fact of Nature is that something can’t come from nothing. That leaves me with a Supernatural explanation.
Go ahead and believe in the Unknown God a.k.a. “We Don’t Know Yet.” That’s your leap of faith. Others leap in another direction.
I have heard and read of God many more times than Belgium. Maybe all those reports aren’t true. Don’t we have to “see it to believe it?” Hey, what’s real? Maybe this is all a dream!
I’d wager the non-believing side accuses the believing side of stupidity many times more.
Religious faith and science can and do exist in perfect harmony. The Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a physicist and Catholic priest. The list of notable scientists who were/are men of faith is long.
My theory: higher intelligence leads some to greater pride, which leads to less humility, less grace, more sin, eventually leaving the person with worship of self and denial of God.
Jack, have you ever read Orthodoxy by Chesterton? If not, I think you’d like it.
Hans I don’t call people stupid for believing in God, don’t support people who do say such things, or even think it. And just because some jerks are rude to religious people for their beliefs doesn’t mean it’s okay to do to non-religious people.
I do agree Lrning, that you can consistently agree with science and be a believer. I personally can’t see why people think evolution conflicts with Christianity, I’ve never seen why people can’t agree with them both. I wasn’t trying to say that Christians don’t believe in science, I was just stating that I think some people lack the ability to have faith in God or have that feeling of personal relationship and love from God.
Prax I haven’t read that book but I have read CS Lewis who drew a lot of inspiration from Chesterton from what I understand. I might be able to give it a whirl but I end up getting really ashamed when I read religious books, I have to kinda brace myself. What type of book is Orthodoxy (apologetics, praise book, etc)?
Jack,
I haven’t read the previous comments thoroughly, but ts didn’t call you stupid, did he? I certainly didn’t. Most people who believe in a religion think those who don’t are wrong, but not stupid.
Of course many think they’re downright evil. Especially the ones fond of beheadings or machete attacks.
I sure hope you don’t jump quickly at reading my comments. I keep having to run back and forth to edit the typos! ;)
Lol no truth didn’t call me stupid at this moment, he usually does though (not about religion usually)! :) It was more a general comment of mine that people do call non-religious people stupid a lot.
I think most religious and non-religious people respect each other’s beliefs. There are the odd few that don’t. I do know that I’ve been accused of not having morals and being evil or whatever people like going on about, and I’ve seen people accuse the religious of being stupid and easily led, and all manner of mean things. It’s not okay to do to anyone.
Jack, my comment was in response to Reality’s comment about education resulting in people believing in “science and stuff”, but I wasn’t able to quote him. Copy and paste seems not to be working again. Reading between the lines of his comment, I think reality is one of those people that think people of faith are less intelligent than atheists, despite all the evidence of highly intelligent people that have faith.
All you people having trouble with copy and paste can try this….after you paste and don’t see anything in the window; click you mouse at the top of the window and hit delete once.
“Jack, my comment was in response to Reality’s comment about education resulting in people believing in “science and stuff”, but I wasn’t able to quote him. Copy and paste seems not to be working again. Reading between the lines of his comment, I think reality is one of those people that think people of faith are less intelligent than atheists, despite all the evidence of highly intelligent people that have faith.”
Oh, gotcha, I thought it was directed at me, and I was confused. I don’t think that religious people are unintelligent in general, though I’m sure there are dumb religious people just like there are some dumb atheists.
“Is it superstitious to deny the existence of The Creator when we have no other explanation for how the world began?” – ignoring the slightly assumptive nature of your question, the answer is no. Where the superstition lies is in the claims of there being a creator as a substitute for confirmed evidence. It isn’t that hard to just say that we don’t yet have all the answers, but science resolutely takes us closer to knowing and along the way has dispatched much of the claims laid at the feet of some creator.
“But what I was alluding to is that educated/scientific people understand that you cannot create something out of nothing” – this is out of date.
“and so there must necessarily have been a being that existed at the time of creation.” – why would it need to be a being? Where did the being come from?
It’s quite obvious Hans, that not knowing something isn’t as fearful for some as it is others.
“I have heard and read of God many more times than Belgium.” – is that meant to mean anything? I’ve read more about motorcycles than god. I’ve spent more time in London than reading the bible.
If you think that ultimately you can reconcile god and science, what sort of god is that?
“I think reality is one of those people that think people of faith are less intelligent than atheists” – there are studies emerging which show just that.
“despite all the evidence of highly intelligent people that have faith.” – as opposed to general group levels. Or are those folk just pretending?
Reality says: “If you think that ultimately you can reconcile god and science, what sort of god is that?”
(thanks for the tip truthseeker!)
Interesting. I can reconcile science with the God of Christianity. How do you believe science disproves God? How does science produce “confirmed evidence” that refutes the supernatural?
“I can reconcile science with the God of Christianity.” – only to a certain point.
“How do you believe science disproves God?” – it doesn’t need to disprove god per se. Science has provided factual, tested, proven and repeatable causes for many things which were once attributable to god. It is the ever growing evidence of non-god causes itself which, as a side-effect, removes god from the equation.
“How does science produce “confirmed evidence” that refutes the supernatural?” - as above. Even when science is updated or improved, the answer is still science, not god.
Reality says: “It is the ever growing evidence of non-god causes itself which, as a side-effect, removes god from the equation. Even when science is updated or improved, the answer is still science, not god.”
Hahahaha! Sounds like you’re not looking deep enough.
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” Albert Einstein
Oh really?
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text.”
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Hahahaha!
Reality says: Oh really?
Yes, really. Einstein didn’t believe in the Christian God. Or the Jewish God. But his scientific knowledge led him to recognize that science couldn’t answer for everything. Which seems to be the opposite of what you are claiming. Scientific discoveries, instead of leading him away from belief in something supernatural and to the conclusion that “the answer is…science”, led him to acknowledge that there was something inexplicable that remained. The fact that he didn’t equate this with the Christian God is besides the point.
“Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.” Albert Einstein
This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.” Albert Einstein
I said – “Even when science is updated or improved, the answer is still science, not god.“
To which you responded with a partial quote from Einstein with no defining of what this ‘spirit’ he mentions consists of. Could it be the ‘nature spirits’ of not so ‘religious’ religions?
“But his scientific knowledge led him to recognize that science couldn’t answer for everything.” – at that stage. As still exists, albeit to a lesser extent, for scientists today.
“Which seems to be the opposite of what you are claiming.” – not at all, I did not claim that science has all the answers – yet.
“Scientific discoveries, instead of leading him away from belief in something supernatural and to the conclusion that “the answer is…science”, led him to acknowledge that there was something inexplicable that remained.” – ‘inexplicable’ does not equate to ‘supernatural’.
“The fact that he didn’t equate this with the Christian God is besides the point.” – it is the point. I said that science continues to diminish the claims for a god. You cited Einstein, who clearly stated there is no god.
“Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.” Albert Einstein – eminently understandable given the knowledge of physics, astrophysics and biology at that time. “inexpicable” – well some of it is explicable now. “veneration for this force is my religion” – the search for knowledge.
“If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.” Albert Einstein – and this means god because??
In other words “science is awesome! god? what god?”
What is it that you are trying to achieve with the quote-mining of Einstein anyway Lrning?
Are you trying to demonstrate that science, or the words of a famous scientist from the past, lead you to conclude that there is no god?
Science has provided factual, tested, proven and repeatable causes for many things which were once attributable to god. It is the ever growing evidence of non-god causes itself which, as a side-effect, removes god from the equation.
Reality,
Hmm. Truthseeker’s trick worked.
But evolution of the Universe (devolution, actually) and of Life is not testable or repeatable. Not a theory, not even a hypothesis. More like a postulation.
“Scientists” used to think fruit flies spontaneously appeared. Many of the same ridiculed the Bible’s description of the Hittites as mythological. Until archeology caught up with the fact of their existence.
‘devolution’ of the universe? How so?
“evolution…..of Life is not testable or repeatable. Not a theory, not even a hypothesis. More like a postulation.” – wow, you actually wrote this! Why?
“Scientists” used to think fruit flies spontaneously appeared.” – as I have stated more than once, science questions itself and scientists continuously attempt to disprove each others findings. And when they do the answer still isn’t god.
Yes, isn’t archeology grand. It’s found many things mentioned in various versions of the bible (and things like the Iliad) are accurate. No evidence of god though.
“Devolution” as in entropy. It’s been downhill ever since the Big Bang.
You have faith that evolution is the answer to origins, because what else could it be? A bit hard to explain what happened billions of years ago when we’re still arguing about the Kennedy assassination.
“No evidence of god though.”
There are scientists that disagree. I find the whole topic fascinating. It’s amazing how the same facts can be interpreted in such radically different ways by different people.
“science questions itself“
Hmmm. Curious phrasing there. It seems to me that science questions nature/the material world. And seeks to discover the secrets of the why behind what is.
Why did I quote Einstein? I like what he has to say. To me, he has an honesty in the way he expresses his thoughts, recognizing the inexplicable, while at the same time rejecting any of divine revelation as an explanation for it. Einstein didn’t state that there is no god, if this quote of his is accurate: “There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views.”
I can’t help but be tickled when I read Einstein and other describe those with faith in God as “childish” or “naive” or “immature” (which I think is the word Dawkins used, if I recall correctly). It’s like they’re quoting the truths contained in Scripture, as a way of debunking Scripture. I find it humorous.
“Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:3
“Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” Luke 18:17
“It’s been downhill ever since the Big Bang.” – what leads you to that conclusion?
“You have faith that evolution is the answer to origins,” – it is the fact that I don’t adhere to ‘faith’ which leads me to conclude that science offers the most rational and evidential cause.
“A bit hard to explain what happened billions of years ago when we’re still arguing about the Kennedy assassination.” – the big difference is that humans were involved in only one of these events.
“There are scientists that disagree.” – in regards to archeology?
“It’s amazing how the same facts can be interpreted in such radically different ways by different people.” – in regards to arccheology, the ‘facts’ are that something is there. The interpretation is how, why and who.
Good grief. Of course science questions nature/the material world. Then when it has come up with the why? it questions itself. Check and recheck, peer review, further testing and investigation.
“Einstein didn’t state that there is no god’ – you state this despite what you yourself have said? And quotes such as “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
“I find it humorous” – and I find that humorous.
“you state this despite what you yourself have said? And quotes such as “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Yes. I already acknowledged that Einstein didn’t believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I can handle the fact that not all people define God exactly as I do. If Einstein was truly angered by people using his quotes to support the view that there is no God, then you’ve just done what angered Einstein.
“in regards to archeology?”
No. I was thinking more of astrophysics and the scientists that see evidence of design/designer in the laws of the universe.
Then why don’t you believe in the same version of ‘god’ that you claim he did? Can you handle the fact that many other faiths don’t define god the same way you do? Which ones? To what extent, when does it become too far removed?
I don’t need to use his quotes to show there is no god. You raised his name and quote-mined him, I simply pointed out what he actually said.
Apart from which, he didn’t identify or demonstrate any evidence for any versions of god or spirituality so my statement “It is the ever growing evidence of non-god causes itself which, as a side-effect, removes god from the equation. Even when science is updated or improved, the answer is still science, not god.” still stands.
Plus, his statement “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” is manifestly inaccurate, nowadays at least.
Scientists who claim that god exists can only take their endeavours so far. Ultimately the point is reached where it’s either ‘god did it’ or it isn’t.
Then why don’t you believe in the same version of ‘god’ that you claim he did?
Perhaps I do. He said things that are consistent with my God as Creator. We differ in that he rejected Scripture as revelation of a personal God.
Can you handle the fact that many other faiths don’t define god the same way you do?
Of course. If by “handle” you mean “accept”, which is what I meant by it. Seems rather silly to reject the fact that other faiths define god differently.
Which ones?
Which faiths don’t define God the way I do? Non-Christian faiths.
To what extent, when does it become too far removed?
I have no idea what you’re asking here.
Apart from which, he didn’t identify or demonstrate any evidence for any versions of god or spirituality…
We disagree here. I think the words of Einstein demonstrate that he had a spirituality.
so my statement “It is the ever growing evidence of non-god causes itself which, as a side-effect, removes god from the equation. Even when science is updated or improved, the answer is still science, not god.” still stands. Scientists who claim that god exists can only take their endeavours so far. Ultimately the point is reached where it’s either ‘god did it’ or it isn’t.
IMO, science can never answer the ultimate why questions. The supernatural isn’t contained within the natural. So yes, I agree, ultimately the point is reached where the answer is either God or it isn’t.
What I take from his words is that he found science and nature totally awesome to the point of being spritual. Of course a whole lot more is known now. Scientists still find it just as amazing, if not even more. But the sprituality aspect less so.
So do you also accept some of the ancient religions such as those which had multiple gods?
Are there any religions now which you find so far removed from what you believe that you deem them not valid?
“IMO, science can never answer the ultimate why questions.” – while the reasons for how things happen are continuously discovered and worked out, there doesn’t necessarily need to be a singular, specific why.
“The supernatural isn’t contained within the natural.” – there is no supernatural. There is the explained and the as yet unexplained. It is all natural.
“So yes, I agree, ultimately the point is reached where the answer is either God or it isn’t.” – that’s why I keep saying that scientists who claim faith can only take their endeavours so far.
The message I get from the two verses of scripture you cited tell me that god is not meant for rational adults.
“there is no supernatural”
Seems a bold and unprovable statement from someone that supposedly requires confirmed evidence for his beliefs.
“The message I get…”
How surprising.
I’ll ignore the way your sentence is loaded…
The ‘supernatural’ is slowly but surely extinguished day by day as science reveals the causes, the reasons, the knowledge.
So what we have is evidence for things which were considered supernatural but have proven not to be and no evidence for anything actually supernatural.
Well did you read the verses?
unless you are converted and become like children
receive the kingdom of God like a little child
Speaks for itself really.
“Well did you read the verses?”
Yes.
“The message I get… tell me that god is not meant for rational adults.”
“Speaks for itself really.”
You interpret the verses to say the kingdom of God is not meant for rational adults. Because, of course, they couldn’t possibly mean God desires us to have some other child-like attribute that still allows us to retain our rational adulthood. Your interpretation isn’t supported by the text, but I’m not surprised by it.
The text itself says that people must become like little children and act like a little child before being allowed access to god and heaven. Which tells me that it is understood that no rational adult has the attributes to believe there to be a god and heaven.
no rational adult has the attributes to believe there to be a god and heaven
Which almost brings us back full circle to the discussion of intelligence and religious belief. Good to know you think that all those scientists of faith aren’t rational adults. Pfft. Smells like a conclusion based on pride, not reason.
It’s the scripture you cited saying so, not me.