The pointlesness of trying to support religion with science.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The fact that it is still considered acceptable to circumcise infant males is mute testimony to the double standards which pervade this society, and not all in the PC manner the media would have you believe.

I wonder what the headlines would read if this practice were done to females rather than males?

[Girlysprite]

I also do not find circumcision on males acceptable when the subject has no real choice in the matter. However, circumcision of young boys, performed in a sterile and professional environment doesn't nearly cause the amount of trouble for the boys as removing the clitoris does for girls.

[Geoff]

I also do not find circumcision on males acceptable when the subject has no real choice in the matter. However, circumcision of young boys, performed in a sterile and professional environment doesn't nearly cause the amount of trouble for the boys as removing the clitoris does for girls.

True, but that's not anatomically comparable. Male circumcision is analogous to removal of just the clitoral hood, not the clitoris.

[Feck]

I also do not find circumcision on males acceptable when the subject has no real choice in the matter. However, circumcision of young boys, performed in a sterile and professional environment doesn't nearly cause the amount of trouble for the boys as removing the clitoris does for girls.

Why would cutting up the sexual organs of a child ever be acceptable. And do please explain why it is less 'trouble' .

[camoguard]

I dunno Feck. I agree that both are forms of "mutilation" but it is fair to suggest that cutting off the foreskin is less dangerous. Plus I don't think circumcision is done with the express purpose of de-sexualizing the boys. I think it's meant as a form of nurture.

I don't like circumcision. But I think mutilating female genitalia is worse because it is correlated with other problems like suppressed female equality or women as cattle and stuff.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The two may be moral equivalents, but they clearly have vastly different practical ramifications.

[Feck]

I dunno Feck. I agree that both are forms of "mutilation" but it is fair to suggest that cutting off the foreskin is less dangerous. Plus I don't think circumcision is done with the express purpose of de-sexualizing the boys. I think it's meant as a form of nurture.

I don't like circumcision. But I think mutilating female genitalia is worse because it is correlated with other problems like suppressed female equality or women as cattle and stuff.

Wasn't arguing that one was better than the other and female circumcision is FUCKING horrific ( I wouldn't want to beat the shit out of a parent if they said they had circumcised a boy and I would a girl ) but female circumcision is not just the removal of the clitoris ,and in fact it is the other things that are done that makes it a serious (ly harmful) procedure . And I would disagree that circumcision of boys is not meant to de-sexualize them .

[Svartalf]

Oh, I hear you. I was just on a different track.

You're right in what you say. When a theist says "'Darwinism' is just a belief," he doesn't even realize that he's damned his own point with that one little word, "just".

Not at all. Darwinism is just a belief, but a Good Religion is a faith
(liberally adapted from R Kipling)

[Svartalf]

who are we to judge what another culture finds of value in it's own context? I certainly don't have enough knowledge of African culture to render judgment on their cultural practices or needs.

Exactly! Who the hell did we think we were, judging the German people on their cultural practice of exterminating Jews!
Your logic is SO impeccable!

There you go forgetting about that "consent" thing again and erecting straw men all over the place.

Because those African kids give informed consent to the genital mutilations they receive? (not to mention the unsanitary manner in which they are usually performed)

[Svartalf]

Can you point me towards the nearest natural god then?

No, I can only point out the logical flaw in your reasoning, which I call the "Atheist's Fallacy."

The Atheist's Fallacy takes the general form "God cannot exist because God is a supernatural being, and nothing supernatural can, by definition, exist, because there is only nature."

The fallacy, the logical failure, is that such arguments depend upon accepting the unsupported premise that God must be a supernatural being because that is what theists claim.

P1 Theists claim that God is a supernatural being
P2 Supernatural beings do not exist
C1 Therefore, God does not exist

The flaw in this reasoning should be obvious. What if theists are wrong about God being a supernatural being? What if their understanding of God is flawed and incorrect? What if God is not supernatural, but merely of such advanced nature and technology that we humans cannot understand he/she/it?

Arthur C. Clarke, the noted science fiction author said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To recast slightly, "Any sufficiently advanced technology or intelligent entity is indistinguishable from deity."

Therefore, I challenge you to present your critically robust scientific evidence that God is in fact supernatural. And you don't get to reiterate the Atheist's Fallacy by saying "Well, that's what theists say..."

Nice straw man, but as has been debated many times, the question is not a predicate of deific existence, or lack thereof, but the complete lack of evidence for such existence as well as for all the pretenses of theists who would make you buy into their system. Leading to the logical conclusion that life is better lives like there was no supernatural, until evidence that there is arises.

[camoguard]

Wasn't arguing that one was better than the other and female circumcision is FUCKING horrific ( I wouldn't want to beat the shit out of a parent if they said they had circumcised a boy and I would a girl ) but female circumcision is not just the removal of the clitoris ,and in fact it is the other things that are done that makes it a serious (ly harmful) procedure . And I would disagree that circumcision of boys is not meant to de-sexualize them .

I can't easily say all male circumcisions aren't for purposes of desexualization. But I can say that rites of passage rituals are done to acknowledge masculinity and maturity in boys. I think in the boneheaded ways of the ignorant, Most parents are just doing what was done to them as a way to say "ata boy". I think it's mutilation by negligence in a way.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

[Gallstones]

I am inclined to conclude, based on what we do know, that if there is a deity it either doesn't give a fuck what we do or it approves of what we do.

[Gallstones]

In every group there are people who buck the norm, challenge expectations and refuse to just go along. That is a good thing. We need such people.

Progress is brought and bought by exceptionalism, not by submission.

[egbert]

Wasn't arguing that one was better than the other and female circumcision is FUCKING horrific ( I wouldn't want to beat the shit out of a parent if they said they had circumcised a boy and I would a girl ) but female circumcision is not just the removal of the clitoris ,and in fact it is the other things that are done that makes it a serious (ly harmful) procedure . And I would disagree that circumcision of boys is not meant to de-sexualize them .

I can't easily say all male circumcisions aren't for purposes of desexualization. But I can say that rites of passage rituals are done to acknowledge masculinity and maturity in boys. I think in the boneheaded ways of the ignorant, Most parents are just doing what was done to them as a way to say "ata boy". I think it's mutilation by negligence in a way.

Why do the religious nutbars have this obsession that REALLY bothers them - the notion that somewhere, someone else is ENJOYING sex, and they MUST put a stop to it.