Feeding our new “Pro-Life Atheists in Media” category are two recent podcast episodes that raise the issue of atheism and pro-life.
In the December 1st, 2013 episode of The Atheist Experience (episode #842) hosts Russell Glasser and Martin Wagner take a call from a man who asks “why are most atheists pro-choice?” I think you’ll quite enjoy what they have to say about the intersection of religion and culture on social issues.
And in THIS episode of The Non-Prophets Podcast, around 21:20 abortion enters discussion. (“Abortion – which is a religion issue, folks!“) Don’t miss the golden statement from the female host Julie Larsen, shortly after 30:30. She declares: “Yeah there’s no secular reason to be against abortion”, and one of the hosts responds that “there are arguments you can make that *pose* as non-religious arguments, to try to make it seem…”.
Feel free to write in to the Non Prophets to let them know you are a pro-life atheist and why (post your response here if you wish)
My belief is that most atheists are skeptical by nature. I also believe that most progressives are “join the bandwagon” and “believe things if they make you feel good” personalities. I believe conservatives tend to be more skeptical, except when it comes to religious beliefs. If this is correct, then how come most atheists are democrats? Is it because conservatives tend to have hard held religious beliefs? Are atheists uncomfortable around religious people?
I find I get harassed and and sneered at all the time by the “bandwagon” people (green people, organic people, fad diet people, supplement people…) due to my skepticism, but rarely get harassed by republicans and religious people. I find most republicans and most religious people are usually exceptionally warm, mostly non-judgemental, extremely giving, and rarely discuss religion while the bandwagon people can’t ever stop talking about themselves and their current bandwagon.
Is non-religion that big of a rudder in an atheist’s life? If so, non-religion sounds like it is very similar to religion (like anti-matter is to matter, I guess).
Keep up the good discussions.
I’m not convinced that atheists and progressives aren’t skeptical. What makes you believe that? Also I would suggest that one of the reasons you don’t get harassed by republicans and religious people is that your views of skepticism about organic food and environmentalism seem to be more in line with many of theirs to begin with.
Non-religion tends to go inline with skepticism in most of the atheists I know. I imagine we all like to believe ourselves to be reasonable, skeptical, critical thinkers, but no one is immune to blind-spots and emotional conclusions.
PLH doesn’t take official political positions on issues not pertaining to abortion. Most of us tend to lean left, but there are a handful of conservative atheists among us. We try to be hospital to everyone and I’ll be happy to hear your thoughts if you feel we’re being unfair or misrepresenting anyone. On the Pro-Life Atheists in Media page, the intent is merely to post what others have been saying about us. Commentary on these videos and podcasts may come at a future date when we launch our own podcast, hopefully later this year.
Kristine
I think that you are completely wrong about republicans and their religiosity. I think they have less group-think than democrats by a long shot. Most republicans are reserved by nature as the word “conservative” would infer. They don’t speak out. The highly religious and evangelical (ideologists who do have a high amount of group-think) are naturally louder and pushier. Those who don’t mingle closely with the religious will mostly see religion from those views. Most religious republicans have views that reside somewhere between the middle and middle/right politically, and they are the most accepting people.
Most democrats I know are completely entrenched in group-think, and more than just the far left. The democratic party have hooked themselves with a very oppressive group of people. I can’t anything from a skeptical or politically incorrect viewpoint without fear of losing friends or even my job. Things like “men and woman tend to think differently in this way…”, “women have an advantage now in many ways now”, “Monsanto can make a huge difference in the life of so many 3rd world people”, “organic foods have little to no nutritional value over non-organic foods”. On top of that, they are trying to make laws based on fallacies.
For example, over the holidays as I was walking in a high end Hotel with my brother-in-law who is a headmaster at a prestigious school in Hollywood. We were discussing education and I mentioned that girls in K-12 have the advantage over boys these days, which they do in education (not in sports). He looked shocked, moved two steps away and said to be careful what I say. Now he is the nicest guy you ever want to meet, but he wanted the conversation to end immediately. He did not want to know why I would say that. I believe he was scared someone would hear the discussion. I have had this reaction often when I am saying things that run against the current ingrained democratic thought. That pretty much scares the hell out of me. I have never had that happen when voicing skepticism with someone religious. They have never wanted the conversation to end immediately for fear of someone religious hearing the discussion.
So, my belief is that ideology is the demon whether you are religious, ant-religious, politically correct, progressive or conservative.
I hereby submit that the republican party is by far the lesser demon.
BTW, when a religious person says they are going to leave something to God or look to God for an answer, that means that they are going to pray about it instead of fretting about it so that there subconscious work on it. Then their subconscious will eventually come up with something that works, and if it is good, they will attribute it to God. It is a very good system that usually brings very good results, even if the person’s understanding of the mechanism is misguided. There are many ways to do the same thing, meditation, Yoga, hot tub, long walks. etc. “Leaving it to God” does not mean that a religious person thinks that they are a robot being guided by God and are going to hear voices. For the rare exception that might hear voices, I would think it would not usually bring good results.
Disclosure. I come from a religious background and I am not skeptical about the results and peace religion can bring in one’s life, but am skeptical about the existence of a thinking entity behind it.
Thanks for your thoughts Tom. The above videos are from video and podcasts from within the atheist community and are not necessarily what we at PLH believe. I’m Canadian so I can’t really comment on how religious the Republican community is, other than from what I’ve observed from social and public media.
Generally speaking, I’m not opposed to prayer. What I resent is people who use “I’ll pray about it” as an excuse to call the job done. More often than not, after people have “prayed” about it, their god doesn’t seem too pressed to guide them to lifting a finger to help change the tide on abortion. I don’t doubt that religion brings people peace. Sometimes it may bring them a little too much of it. Why worry about changing society for the better if Jesus is going to come back soon and whisk us all off the planet anyway?
I’m an ex-Christian, so I’ll admit to judging Christianity more harshly than many outsiders might. I’ve witnessed far too much Christian complacency. In fact it was one of the factors that drove me to question Christianity in the first place.
Look forward to interacting with you again in the future, Tom. Thanks for saying hi and please feel free to connect on FB/twitter as well 🙂
“Feel free to write in to the Non Prophets to let them know you are a pro-life atheist and why (post your response here if you wish)”
When you invite us to post here, do you mean that you can forward writings to them that will get their attention, or get someone’s attention? The last comment on the YouTube page for this podcast was a month ago, so maybe no use posting there. Here is what I would say to them, starting with a quote from the man on the right (Kristine, please fill in two http’s and www’s for me below):
“. . . there are a lot of [political] positions where there are many different objections, but the only remotely convincing ones are religious. . . . when we’re talking about abortion . . . from a straight-up scientific standpoint, there’s not that much difference between, like, a separate sperm and egg, and a sperm and egg that just two seconds ago hooked up with each other.”
You wouldn’t deny that you are a person, so personhood has some meaning. And wherever ethics and morality and law are considered to have meaning, the life of a person is given a high value. And for ethical, moral and legal purposes, obviously personhood has to be conceived as beginning somewhere.
In biological processes uninfluenced by acts of human violence or the violence of nature, we never see a sudden cataclysmic change. Even following the moment of death, despite the fact that it’s easier to destroy than to build, the organism remains almost intact for some time. So it is just a truism for ALL biological changes to say “from a straight-up scientific standpoint, there’s not that much difference between [any stage] and [the stage that follows within] two seconds.”
To make that statement misses the point. Personhood has to be conceived as beginning somewhere, and the question is, which of the multitude of changes, ALL of them small and incremental, is most meaningful to think of as the beginning? You claim the authority of science in saying that the “hook-up” of the sperm and the egg is not that change. But are you aware that SECULAR pro-life arguments come to exactly the opposite conclusion about the verdict of science? At —
prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/
Kristine Kruszelnicki states that “in fact scientific evidence strongly backs the pro-life claim that [quoting Dr. Keith L. Moore’s textbook] ‘This highly specialized, totipotent cell [the zygote] marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.’”
At —
http://clinicquotes.com/category/quotes/scientists-speak/
— Sarah Terzo has published a List of Quotes From Medical Textbooks/Scientists Proving Life Begins at Conception.
At —
thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/12/7300/
— Dr. Maureen L. Condic writes:
“Structures capable of new functions are formed throughout embryogenesis. For example, grasping becomes possible once hands have formed. But the fundamental process of development proceeds continuously, both prior to and after hand formation, and the onset of this function reflects an ongoing developmental process. Given the continuous nature of development, to argue that embryos and fetuses become humans once some anatomical or functional landmark such as “consciousness” has been achieved is to assert some kind of magical transformation; i.e., that at some ill-defined point, a non-human entity spontaneously transmogrifies into a human being, without any change whatsoever in its behavior, its molecular composition, or any other observable feature.
“I reject this argument. For something actually to transform into a different kind of thing, a change must take place in its composition or in its pattern of biological activity. For example, sperm and egg are two specific human cell types that fuse to produce a distinct cell (the zygote) with unique molecular composition and with a pattern of organismal behavior that is distinct from the behavior of either sperm or egg. A clear, non-magical, scientifically observable transformation from one kind of entity (two human cells) to another kind of entity (a distinct human organism) has occurred. . . .
“Building the complex architecture of the brain is a continuous process that is initiated at sperm-egg fusion and proceeds through orderly steps under the direction of a ‘builder,’ that is, a human organism that is present from the beginning. The presence of an agent capable of constructing the mature body, including the brain, is the only sustainable definition of a human being. This agency should not be misconstrued as some kind of mystical or spiritual element that is merely attributed to an embryo or fetus based on personal or religious belief. The fact that the embryo acts as an agent is entirely a matter of empirical observation; embryos construct themselves. . . .”
(I do not know what Dr. Condic’s religious or philosophical views, if any, might be, but her argument claims the authority of science.)
See also the article “Personhood”: http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/personhood
“Feel free to write in to the Non Prophets to let them know you are a pro-life atheist and why (post your response here if you wish)”
When you invite us to post here, do you mean that you can forward writings to them that will get their attention, or get someone’s attention? The last comment on the YouTube page for this podcast was a month ago, so maybe no use posting there. Here is what I would say to them, starting with a quote from the man on the right (Kristine, please fill in three http’s and www’s for me below — for ClinicQuotes no www):
“. . . there are a lot of [political] positions where there are many different objections, but the only remotely convincing ones are religious. . . . when we’re talking about abortion . . . from a straight-up scientific standpoint, there’s not that much difference between, like, a separate sperm and egg, and a sperm and egg that just two seconds ago hooked up with each other.”
You wouldn’t deny that you are a person, so personhood has some meaning. And wherever ethics and morality and law are considered to have meaning, the life of a person is given a high value. And for ethical, moral and legal purposes, obviously personhood has to be conceived as beginning somewhere.
In biological processes uninfluenced by acts of human violence or the violence of nature, we never see a sudden cataclysmic change. Even following the moment of death, despite the fact that it’s easier to destroy than to build, the organism remains almost intact for some time. So it is just a truism for ALL biological changes to say “from a straight-up scientific standpoint, there’s not that much difference between [any stage] and [the stage that follows within] two seconds.”
To make that statement misses the point. Personhood has to be conceived as beginning somewhere, and the question is, which of the multitude of changes, ALL of them small and incremental, is most meaningful to think of as the beginning? You claim the authority of science in saying that the “hook-up” of the sperm and the egg is not that change. But are you aware that SECULAR pro-life arguments come to exactly the opposite conclusion about the verdict of science? At —
prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/
Kristine Kruszelnicki states that “in fact scientific evidence strongly backs the pro-life claim that [quoting Dr. Keith L. Moore’s textbook] ‘This highly specialized, totipotent cell [the zygote] marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.’”
At —
http://clinicquotes.com/category/quotes/scientists-speak/
— Sarah Terzo has published a List of Quotes From Medical Textbooks/Scientists Proving Life Begins at Conception.
At —
thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/12/7300/
— Dr. Maureen L. Condic writes:
“Structures capable of new functions are formed throughout embryogenesis. For example, grasping becomes possible once hands have formed. But the fundamental process of development proceeds continuously, both prior to and after hand formation, and the onset of this function reflects an ongoing developmental process. Given the continuous nature of development, to argue that embryos and fetuses become humans once some anatomical or functional landmark such as “consciousness” has been achieved is to assert some kind of magical transformation; i.e., that at some ill-defined point, a non-human entity spontaneously transmogrifies into a human being, without any change whatsoever in its behavior, its molecular composition, or any other observable feature.
“I reject this argument. For something actually to transform into a different kind of thing, a change must take place in its composition or in its pattern of biological activity. For example, sperm and egg are two specific human cell types that fuse to produce a distinct cell (the zygote) with unique molecular composition and with a pattern of organismal behavior that is distinct from the behavior of either sperm or egg. A clear, non-magical, scientifically observable transformation from one kind of entity (two human cells) to another kind of entity (a distinct human organism) has occurred. . . .
“Building the complex architecture of the brain is a continuous process that is initiated at sperm-egg fusion and proceeds through orderly steps under the direction of a ‘builder,’ that is, a human organism that is present from the beginning. The presence of an agent capable of constructing the mature body, including the brain, is the only sustainable definition of a human being. This agency should not be misconstrued as some kind of mystical or spiritual element that is merely attributed to an embryo or fetus based on personal or religious belief. The fact that the embryo acts as an agent is entirely a matter of empirical observation; embryos construct themselves. . . .”
(I do not know what Dr. Condic’s religious or philosophical views, if any, might be, but her argument claims the authority of science.)
See also the article “Personhood”: NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/personhood
Sorry, from your (Kristine’s) “THIS episode of The Non-Prophets Podcast” I got the impression that the preceding The Atheist Experience episode and “THIS episode” were two different episodes of the same show. Now I understand they are different shows.
Your invitation was to write to The Non-Prophets. But what I quoted above (“. . . there are a lot of [political] positions . . .”) starts at 2:21 of the Atheist Experience episode. And my response was to that.
Thanks for speaking up in either case. Anytime we let these podcasters know we’re out there it makes a difference! 🙂
Thanks for your reply. But I don’t think my message got through to them. As I wrote, I had understood that you might have some way to forward writings to them, and I had thought “maybe no use posting on their YouTube page.” Do I understand correctly now that you don’t have any way to forward it to them?
They have an email address for the podcast. I can dig it up for you if you wish.
This is in reply to your February 6, 2014 at 1:31 am “They have an email address for the podcast. I can dig it up for you if you wish.”
Yes, please.
Did you want Atheist Experience or Non Prophets or both?
This is in reply to your February 18, 2014 at 5:28 am “Did you want Atheist Experience or Non Prophets or both?”
I meant Atheist Experience, having watched that and already prepared a reply. Non-Prophets might be useful in the future, but if digging up both would cause delay, please dig up only Atheist Experience.