:glare:

Third icon from the left, at the top of panel when quoting.

No one is saying dismissing xian theology refutes all theism. What we're saying is that refuting xian theology generally satisfies the curiosity of the person asking, simply and for no other reason than because it's the theology that matters to them.

Cheeky answer: Serious answer, "New Atheism" is a term used to denote a recent trend in response to the longstanding, and generally protected promotion of theism. In general, theism was tolerated by atheists in social arenas (with notable exceptions, ie Madalyn Murray O'Hair or George Carlin). After 9/11, people began to speak out against the idea that relying on faith based claims is a beneficial, or at worst, a benign element within society. People started writing books and speaking in public against the privilege religion has in public policy and private behavior. It overlaps with anti-theism, but isn't the same. New Atheism is the trend of exposing irrational claims and challenging faith-based beliefs when they arise, whereas anti-theism is arguing that religion is by it's nature detrimental to society and individuals.

What is "fallen prey to scientism"? I think that's mostly a matter of brevity. Most xians are atheistic against all the other gods already, knock out the god of the bible and there's no one left to carry the torch. Obviously that's not 100% true, as we can see former xians do convert to other religions altogether (ie, islam and paganism are popular destinations for disgruntled xians), but in general I suspect the practice you see derives from practicality. It's simply by far the most common consequence to holding one's theism accountable to reason and rational arguments, and so it's the one generally assumed. I think in communities like this, it's the most practical approach. Obligatory reminder for the OP that atheism isn't a philosophical idea, it's simply the lack of belief in gods and goddesses. Some atheists are materialists, while others carry on a significant belief in some kind of woo. If you were to exchange the word "a-theism" for "a-leprechaun-ism" (a lack of belief in leprechauns), you'd get the same thing - categorized by lack of a specific belief in the existence of this thing. Full stop.

Yes (older now), and we did just as you are doing. We took these things at his pace, ever so gently, and intermittently, introducing mildly uncomfortable topics to help him learn how to process his feelings. Along the way, we gave him vocabulary to describe his feelings so that he could learn to identify what he was going through, articulate himself, and advocate for his needs in a socially appropriate way (ie, polite, age appropriate "escape phrases" to avoid something that was too uncomfortable). We talked about what a big heart he has, how very sympathetic he is to other people. We did this in order to help him understand why he reacted this way, as well as in hopes of steering him towards activities and events that would take his innate sense of justice and help him do something practical with it. In part, we did this by exposing our own thoughts and feelings along the way so he could see the practical application of what we were talking about. For example, I might exclaim how someone said something at playgroup that really made me sad. I wouldn't say what it was, but just mentioned how sad it made me. When my kids asked what I did, I'd say I nodded my head politely, said, "I'm sorry," because sometimes that's all you can do. Then I excused myself to get a drink. That way I was a friend to the person who needed to talk about something sad, but I didn't get myself in over my head. Baby steps, you know?

I wouldn't feel the least bit guilty for ignoring these texts, and the drama that follows. The people being drawn into this person's pretend righteous indignation can hold her hand, clutch pearls, and tutt-tutt with her, or ignore her as they wish. I think you don't need to be complicit in being taken advantage of in the sense of mollycoddling another adult's emotional immaturity. Let the temper tantrums fall where they may, hold your head high, and do right by your immediate family. That includes not being unnecessarily distracted, both in time with regard to school, and emotionally with regard to feeling undue guilt. That's emotionally manipulative, and you don't need to comply with it.

These are not illegal. Editing a video to create the illusion that this is the focus of the services is unethical, inaccurate, deceptive, and slanderous, and the courts will decide if it was obtained illegally as well. I hope you'd consider the same request I asked debinindia, and begin a new thread to discuss your opinions about abortion in general, so as to leave this one open, as is seemingly the OP's intended purpose.

debinindy, would you please consider starting a new thread to explore your opinions. People would like to continue discussing the journalism issue, and continued comments about abortion will likely get the thread shut down. That's not fair to those who are playing by the rules, even when that takes considerable effort to sit on fingers to do so.

The collection and sale of fetal tissue for scientific research is not illegal. PP is not conducting illegal operations. That's the point that keeps getting missed. This post is an example of the point being missed, presumably in favor of opening up the discussion to the "shocking" services PP does provide, despite nearly everyone's attempt to not open that can of worms.

I understand your point, and I responded that this point is, predictably, irrelevant. It may not matter to you, but it's a motivating factor in this event, I'll wager. One side of this argument is finding that despite all its heartfelt beliefs, the laws simply aren't favoring their wishes. The hope was to show these are more than religious wishes to be favored, but illegal crimes to be exposed and stopped. That would certainly influence law, right? The problem is, that's a complete lie. And they got spanked for it. As well they should.

Me too. That's like saying the Bundys circus has scary implications for actual peaceful protests.

I disagree with both points. Watergate was about exposing crime. This event was not about exposing crime, but providing the illusion of crime. Calling out slander doesn't reflect on anyone's "ox." It's an issue unto itself.

If they were journalists with any professional integrity they shouldn't have been deceitful, xian or not. Once again, one's faith (or lack thereof) is of no indication of their moral behavior. These people had an agenda, to outrage a population that is increasingly persuaded by arguments to protect a woman's legal right to obtain medical attention of her choice. The American population are not convinced of the value of reducing opportunities for safe and legal termination of pregnancy. People who have abortions are not only clearly grateful for the opportunity (to the tune of 95% of women who report they don't regret their abortions), they are increasingly outspoken about it, working to show the lies that have been told for generations. People deserve to hear the truth, even if it doesn't correspond to their religious beliefs. People who engage in illegal work to ruin services that protect the health and welfare of Americans ought to be punished to the full extent of the law, whether or not they call themselves journalists.

That wasn't whistle blowing. It was fabricated lies intended to slander innocent parties in order to serve a personal agenda. I hope the judge throws the book at them.

We do. We also prevent them from biting humans, from knowing the value of removing standing water, to chemicals, to wearing clothing and using screens, humans learn to co-exist with nature. We also need to share practical, relevant, accurate information regarding birth control, and termination of unwanted, or dangerous pregnancies. By that same token, so do humans. Humans kill a lot of people every year, and they don't even do it necessarily for the purpose of feeding offspring. Humans often kill in order to defend superstitious beliefs, appease charismatic scaremongers, and simple greed. This is something completely foreign to the mosquito's nature, and completely innate in human nature. Or, one might argue, by this logic, the ONLY purpose of humans is to spread pollution. We have NO reason to perpetuate the species that is choking a living planet to death. And if those scientists didn't tell you what you wanted to hear, what would you do with the information? Ignore it? Replace them with scientists who agree with you? Pay scientists to agree with you? Or would you incorporate new-to-you information into your proposals? This country was able to put a man on the moon because science was valued, regardless of how little it may make sense to those who may not have significant scientific education and training. Today, not only is science undermined at an alarming rate, politicians advocate the idea that one's sincerely held beliefs are of more value than a systematic method of gaining actual knowledge. Because people who are intimately familiar with the complexities of the issues haven't come to the same conclusion you have.

It put enormous stress on my marriage. I did things now I wish I hadn't. It changed the way I looked at my husband, at my kids. We were not on the same page any more, and that created strife I was not expecting. I know you probably only want to hear encouraging stories, but they aren't the only ones that exist. At the very least, you should be aware of the possibilities that your family may not be receptive.

Absolutely. It's so hard to figure out what to do when the goal is "Don't make people mad." When the goal is "Come within 30 seconds called," or "Respond to request with 'yes,' 'please wait,' or 'I'd rather not because...," then it's easier to hit the target. Be very specific. "Don't be bad" is really amorphous, arbitrary, and subjective. Punishing for being "bad," consequently, is confusing, belittling, and realistically less effective.

A behaviorist will help with this. We applied the notion that no stick is as motivating as a good carrot, and no carrot was worth considering if there was no hope of it being internalized eventually. With that in mind, our resolve was to ignore inappropriate behavior and reward the appropriate choice. In this case, not brushing hair wouldn't be met with punishment, but the reward would be lessened, or she would have to wait or otherwise earn it through compliance elsewhere.

Sometimes, hypocrisy is born in cognitive dissonance.

I think Finicum was a perfect example of a man who held a belief, no matter how ill conceived or devoid of logic, with such sincerity that he was willing to die for it in the mistaken hope that his "sacrifice" would be assumed as proof that his beliefs had a credibility to them worth defending. Someone had mentioned at the very beginning of this thread that the Bundy supporters are not jerks. It grieves me to see people risk their welfare and even lives, to encourage others to risk their welfare and even lives in pursuit of a belief that is unfounded, based on an emotional need for it to be true. "Jerk" is not the right word. "Fool" is too lighthearted. To support people and actions and ideas without sufficient reason is not reason enough to interpret a person a "jerk," but I have precious little sympathy for people encouraging others, and none whatsoever when it comes to conditioning naturally gullible children, to follow illogical, irrational belief systems simply because it serves emotional needs artificially and selfishly applied.

Not according to medical science, specifically the Endocrine Society, the world’s largest association of people with formal, legitimate training in the treatment of adrenal disorders. That doesn't stop people from believing it's real, and that they have it. While the symptoms are real, "adrenal fatigue" is not a legitimate diagnostic explanation. When you search, look for information from peer reviewed journals, not an office, a doctor, a health practitioner, a really healthy mom, etc. The peer review process is what makes the difference. That's what separates science from speculation.

That sounds all kinds of dysfunctional. What did he demand she do that she couldn't? Why would she make his abuse public if not to lash out at him?

Keep the data anyway. You might find a pattern in there that you wouldn't have noticed relying on your memory alone. I've discovered the value of looking at inappropriate behavior as a means of solving a problem. I'd think to myself, what problem did the cat produce in her opinion, and how would shutting it away have been a solution? "Every behavior has a function" was the mantra drilled into my head. Figure out the function of the behavior - the purpose of it - and you're half way there. If not more. When we discovered the function of ds' behavior, we discovered the inspiration behind his behavior, it was eye-opening to see the least. We probably assumed two or three ideas before ultimately concluding the most accurate one. Nevertheless, I fully agree with CM and medication that curbed that impulsive behavior made all the difference in the world. It allowed ds to apply all the things he had been learning. Before, he could understand the value of certain behaviors (like using words instead of action), but couldn't stop himself because his brain simply responded before his mind had time to think it through. I think of it like hiccups. When we have them, we know another one is coming, we just don't know when. We can learn to keep our lips closed to muffle the sound, but that doesn't stop the spasm. Only when the diaphragm is relaxed and working properly can we continue breathing and talking without those impulsive hiccups that really are very much out of our control. Our kids with ADHD can't help themselves as much as we'd like, but if we can help suppressing some of the inappropriate impulses, we give them the opportunity to apply what they know. We empower them to be in control.

Find a local advocacy group and they'll help you navigate the insurance rodeo.