Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Into statistics? Curious what everyone else thinks? Then start a poll here.

Were you always an Atheist/Agnostic?

I was born a skeptic.
21
29%
I had a Christian upbringing, but then I saw the light.
48
66%
I was an Atheist, then I was deluded into Christianity, and luckly found my way out again. Hallelujah!
4
5%
 
Total votes : 73

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby whoosanightowl » Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:40 pm

Sorry, but I just can't equate taking the life of an unborn child with taking photographs of a gay couple. Sure they might both be considered morally objectionable, but reason tells me that one is much worse than the other.
Alice:`There's no use trying, one can't believe impossible things.'
Queen:`...you haven't had much practice, When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
User avatar
whoosanightowl
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:05 pm
Affiliation: atheist

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby Rian » Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:31 pm

Sorry, I didn't mean to say they were the same at all - I was trying to say that I think they're in the same category. A dentist wants to take care of teeth. I see what you're saying, but I still think it's in a different category.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby lorryfach » Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:46 am

I think they're both bad comparisons, really, but I might actually be agreeing with Rian here. :P It's generally accepted that people need dental care, and your choice of dentists can be quite limited due to insurance, finances, geography, etc. That's quite different from the luxury of having photographs of one's wedding and the fact that you aren't so constrained in who could be your photographer.

I think a better comparison would be a business owner denying to serve you because of your attire. Obviously not a perfect comparison, since attire can be changed, but the point is that ultimately it's a lame excuse to deny a non-necessary service, but legally a business owner doesn't need a good excuse to avoid taking your money. If Dan's Hardware won't sell you a wrench because you're barefoot, no matter how stupid that might be, it doesn't put your life or your health in danger. You can go to Pete's Hardware instead. Problem solved. That's quite different than denying dental or health care.
Hi. I'm Lorry.
It's is a contraction of it is or it has.
Its is the possessive of it.
Thank you.
lorryfach
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:51 am
Location: Denmark
Affiliation: agnostic atheist

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby whoosanightowl » Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:58 am

Lorry said:
I think a better comparison would be a business owner denying to serve you because of your attire. Obviously not a perfect comparison, since attire can be changed, but the point is that ultimately it's a lame excuse to deny a non-necessary service, but legally a business owner doesn't need a good excuse to avoid taking your money. If Dan's Hardware won't sell you a wrench because you're barefoot, no matter how stupid that might be, it doesn't put your life or your health in danger. You can go to Pete's Hardware instead. Problem solved. That's quite different than denying dental or health care.


I think the difference for what constitutes discrimination is when service is being denied because of who people are or what their lifestyle choice is, rather than what they are or aren't wearing. Imposing dress codes is legitimate in some places of business or some social affairs, and although it may be seen as ridiculous by some, it's not considered discrimination since it is not exclusive to certain minority segments of the population.
Also, we see many patients in our practice who do not have insurance and have the ability to choose from many other dentists in the area, yet if we were to deny treatment to any of them due to personal moral objections about their lifestyle, we would be looking for a lawsuit.
Now if they came to us and asked us to do something we don't normally do (such as tooth monograms or gems or whatever), we have the right to refuse on the grounds that we don't provide that service. This is how I see Rians example of the doctor who is asked to perform an abortion. If he's an licensed abortionist, then he would be wrong to deny the woman his services even if he didn't approve of her lifestyle. But if a doctor who does not perform abortions is asked, he would be within his rights to say no since it is not something he does under other circumstances.
Alice:`There's no use trying, one can't believe impossible things.'
Queen:`...you haven't had much practice, When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
User avatar
whoosanightowl
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:05 pm
Affiliation: atheist

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby NH Baritone » Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:19 pm

whoosanightowl wrote:Now if they came to us and asked us to do something we don't normally do (such as tooth monograms or gems or whatever), we have the right to refuse on the grounds that we don't provide that service. This is how I see Rian's example of the doctor who is asked to perform an abortion. If he's an licensed abortionist, then he would be wrong to deny the woman his services even if he didn't approve of her lifestyle. But if a doctor who does not perform abortions is asked, he would be within his rights to say no since it is not something he does under other circumstances.

Funny ... I'm not aware of a single state in the US that licenses "abortionists." Are you?

However, I am aware of doctors who are licensed as physicians & board certified as obstetricians or gynecologists, and who are therefore bound by the ethical guidelines of their profession to perform the services that are necessary. These are regulated not by churches, and most often not even directly by states, but instead by the professional boards that oversee the practitioners they license AND tangentially (but effectively) by the insurance companies that help pay for their services. An abortion may be a medical procedure that OB-GYNs provide under a given insurance plan, and so any OB-GYN that is under contract with that insurance plan may be required to provide that service. Otherwise, they can kiss their contract bye-bye.

There are multiple implications for this kind of regulation: (1) Doctors who are not paid by insurance will not be able to afford to practice long-term ... particularly gynecologists, who have the highest malpractice insurance premiums among medical practitioners. They therefore have a financial incentive to perform abortions if they are covered by an insurance plan. (2) Medical insurers lay out less money for an abortion than for ongoing pre-natal care, child birth, and another baby on their insurance roles. (3) Employers have a vested interest in keeping health insurance premiums low, and so, to reduce the number of dependents that they have to cover, they have an incentive to list abortion as a contracted service within their insurance plans.

Given all these financial pressures to provide abortions, it is a testimony to our progressive society that we still allow pregnant women to make independent choices regarding their own bodies and reproductive plans.
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby Rian » Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:31 pm

NH Baritone wrote: al boards that oversee the practitioners they license AND tangentially (but effectively) by the insurance companies that help pay for their services. An abortion may be a medical procedure that OB-GYNs provide under a given insurance plan, and so any OB-GYN that is under contract with that insurance plan may be required to provide that service. Otherwise, they can kiss their contract bye-bye.
I'm not so sure about this, NHB - I know an ob/gyn on another board who refuses to provide abortions for personal reasons. I think as long as there are other providers in the area, he is free to do this. I'll try to get ahold of him and ask for details.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby lorryfach » Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:52 pm

whoosanightowl wrote:I think the difference for what constitutes discrimination is when service is being denied because of who people are or what their lifestyle choice is, rather than what they are or aren't wearing. Imposing dress codes is legitimate in some places of business or some social affairs, and although it may be seen as ridiculous by some, it's not considered discrimination since it is not exclusive to certain minority segments of the population.

Attire can be directly related to lifestyle choice. Furthermore, privately-owned businesses have the legal right to deny service for any number of reasons that are clearly lifestyle choices or who people are. They can refuse to serve children, they can refuse to serve adults, they can refuse to serve women who are nursing babies. I could open a café and declare that all customers must wear trousers, and deny service to anyone wearing a skirt, dress, or kilt, even if some people are required by their religion to wear dresses, and even though trouser-wearing has nothing to do with eating at a café. That's still different than denying medical treatment.
Hi. I'm Lorry.
It's is a contraction of it is or it has.
Its is the possessive of it.
Thank you.
lorryfach
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:51 am
Location: Denmark
Affiliation: agnostic atheist

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby whoosanightowl » Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:11 pm

NHB,
I found this information on National Abortion Federation's website:
Timeline of events

1973: Physician Assistants at the Planned Parenthood of Northern New England in Burlington, Vermont (formerly the Vermont Women's Health Center) have provided abortion care since its legalization in 1973. Currently physician assistants and nurse practitioners provide 1st and 2nd trimester abortion care in Vermont and New Hampshire.

1994: The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) obtained a Declaratory Ruling from the New York Department of Health (NYDH). The NYDH issued a Declaratory Ruling (December 20, 1994) stating that physician assistants can provide first-trimester abortions in New York under their practice act, despite the state's physician-only law. The ruling recognized that the intent of the physician-only requirement and the physician assistant legislation are the same - to provide access to safe medical care. This ruling paved the way for similar research in other states. (On file with New York Civil Liberties Union)

1999: Montana's prohibition against physician assistants providing abortion was struck down by the Montana Supreme Court in 1999 in Armstrong v. State. The court held that the statute violated the right to privacy, because the statute was a disguised attempt to limit patient access to abortion, and the legislation was not justified by a compelling state interest. (Armstrong v. State, 1999 MT 261.)

2000: Rhode Island Department of Health issued new regulations, which allow licensed health care practitioners to provide medical abortion.

2001: Connecticut's Attorney General issued an official opinion stating that Connecticut law permits advanced practice registered nurses, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants to provide medical abortions.

2002: California passed the Reproductive Privacy Act, which permits any authorized health-care professional to provide medical abortion. The passage of this law was a culmination of years of background preparation by Planned Parenthood Action Committee and California affiliates. This was the first state law to affirm the right of non-physicians in providing abortion care.

2004: Washington State Attorney General issued an official opinion stating that nothing in State law prohibits nurse practitioners from providing medical abortion.

2006: The Oregon State Board of Nursing determined that the performance of manual suction/aspiration abortions was not outside the scope of practice of a Family Nurse Practitioner given that she is both educationally prepared and clinically competent.


I have no idea how many states allow someone other than a medical doctor to perform abortions today, but it appears at least some do.

I also found this concerning the legality of OB-GYN's refusing to perform or refer women for abortions: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=88650797
Alice:`There's no use trying, one can't believe impossible things.'
Queen:`...you haven't had much practice, When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
User avatar
whoosanightowl
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:05 pm
Affiliation: atheist

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby whoosanightowl » Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:09 am

Lorry wrote:
Attire can be directly related to lifestyle choice. Furthermore, privately-owned businesses have the legal right to deny service for any number of reasons that are clearly lifestyle choices or who people are. They can refuse to serve children, they can refuse to serve adults, they can refuse to serve women who are nursing babies. I could open a café and declare that all customers must wear trousers, and deny service to anyone wearing a skirt, dress, or kilt, even if some people are required by their religion to wear dresses, and even though trouser-wearing has nothing to do with eating at a café. That's still different than denying medical treatment.

I don't know, Lorry, I still see it differently, but I do understand your point. Sure business owners can refuse to serve children, still, I think if they were to refuse service to just girls or just boys because of personal preferential biases toward one gender or the other, rather than a justifiable reason (such as it's a girls club or a boys team), it might be considered discrimination. As for not serving nursing women, well if it's alcohol, it's a health issue for refusing, not simply because the sight of nursing women disgusts you or you find the practice of breast feeding morally objectionable.
Dress codes may be viewed as inconvenient and ridiculous, but I still don't consider them discriminatory except possibly the example you gave where religious requirements are concerned.
But in the end, I think I would probably vote to protect the rights of the business owners to deny services on grounds of moral conscience, although I think it would be more professional and commendable on their part to just do the job like any other without casting judgment. One thing I would like to ask them however is whether they question all their customers about their sex lives before deciding to photograph their weddings since anyone could have a long history of illicit sexual endeavors that they would find just as objectionable if they knew about them.
Alice:`There's no use trying, one can't believe impossible things.'
Queen:`...you haven't had much practice, When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
User avatar
whoosanightowl
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:05 pm
Affiliation: atheist

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby NH Baritone » Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:32 am

whoosanightowl wrote:NHB,
I found this information on National Abortion Federation's website:
Timeline of events

1973: Physician Assistants at the Planned Parenthood of Northern New England in Burlington, Vermont (formerly the Vermont Women's Health Center) have provided abortion care since its legalization in 1973. Currently physician assistants and nurse practitioners provide 1st and 2nd trimester abortion care in Vermont and New Hampshire.

1994: The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) obtained a Declaratory Ruling from the New York Department of Health (NYDH). The NYDH issued a Declaratory Ruling (December 20, 1994) stating that physician assistants can provide first-trimester abortions in New York under their practice act, despite the state's physician-only law. The ruling recognized that the intent of the physician-only requirement and the physician assistant legislation are the same - to provide access to safe medical care. This ruling paved the way for similar research in other states. (On file with New York Civil Liberties Union)

1999: Montana's prohibition against physician assistants providing abortion was struck down by the Montana Supreme Court in 1999 in Armstrong v. State. The court held that the statute violated the right to privacy, because the statute was a disguised attempt to limit patient access to abortion, and the legislation was not justified by a compelling state interest. (Armstrong v. State, 1999 MT 261.)

2000: Rhode Island Department of Health issued new regulations, which allow licensed health care practitioners to provide medical abortion.

2001: Connecticut's Attorney General issued an official opinion stating that Connecticut law permits advanced practice registered nurses, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants to provide medical abortions.

2002: California passed the Reproductive Privacy Act, which permits any authorized health-care professional to provide medical abortion. The passage of this law was a culmination of years of background preparation by Planned Parenthood Action Committee and California affiliates. This was the first state law to affirm the right of non-physicians in providing abortion care.

2004: Washington State Attorney General issued an official opinion stating that nothing in State law prohibits nurse practitioners from providing medical abortion.

2006: The Oregon State Board of Nursing determined that the performance of manual suction/aspiration abortions was not outside the scope of practice of a Family Nurse Practitioner given that she is both educationally prepared and clinically competent.


I have no idea how many states allow someone other than a medical doctor to perform abortions today, but it appears at least some do.

I also found this concerning the legality of OB-GYN's refusing to perform or refer women for abortions: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=88650797

Superb research on your part! Thanks.

People who spread fertilizer are seldom called "fertilizists." They're usually called gardeners (or cows). My remark about "abortionists" was in recoil against the term itself. "Ms. Salzman, this is Ms. Pepperdine. She'll be your abortionist." People who perform medical procedures are usually called doctors or nurses (or their own professional specialties). I work as a "psychotherapist," and I'm licensed as a "clinical mental health counselor." My specialties include helping clients cope with bi-polar disorder, but I've never been called a bi-polarist or a manic-depressionist. It would make an interesting (and highly limiting) attribution on my business card.

I am genuinely surprised that PAs & NPs are entitled here to perform what in most instances is considered a surgical procedure. But live & learn. My personal dealings with Planned Parenthood in VT & NH (I've done some training for them) has never suggested that Nurse Practitioners could perform abortions. (Our local offices have no PAs, only NPs.) They frequently do pre-op and prescribe birth control, but in the local offices, but as I understand it, abortions are performed only by MDs.
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby whoosanightowl » Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:28 pm

People who spread fertilizer are seldom called "fertilizists." They're usually called gardeners (or cows). My remark about "abortionists" was in recoil against the term itself. "Ms. Salzman, this is Ms. Pepperdine. She'll be your abortionist." People who perform medical procedures are usually called doctors or nurses (or their own professional specialties). I work as a "psychotherapist," and I'm licensed as a "clinical mental health counselor." My specialties include helping clients cope with bi-polar disorder, but I've never been called a bi-polarist or a manic-depressionist. It would make an interesting (and highly limiting) attribution on my business card.

NHB,
I think if someone is a medical doctor (or nurse practitioner or physicians assistant) who, as part of his/her job, occasionally performs abortions, then they would not be referred to as an abortionist since it is not their primary duty. Also if they did not need further training in their field or require different licensing in order to perform abortions.
I work for a general dentist. However in the dental field there are also endodontists who specialize in root canal therapy, oral surgeons who specialize in extractions and surgeries in the mouth, orthdontists who specialize in straightening teeth, prosthodontists who specialize in making prosthetic appliances such as dentures, and periodontists who specialize in treating the gum tissue and bone supporting the teeth. These specialists may also perform other dental related duties on occasion, but since their main work is in just one field of dentistry, and they required extra education and licensing, they are commonly referred to as Dr. so and so followed by their specialty title.
Alice:`There's no use trying, one can't believe impossible things.'
Queen:`...you haven't had much practice, When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
User avatar
whoosanightowl
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:05 pm
Affiliation: atheist

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby flawedprefect » Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:34 pm

Born and raised Catholic, but saw religion having less and less an influence in my day-to-day life. Eventually, I questioned my beliefs, and couldn't find a compelling reason to keep considering myself a Catholic/Christian.

Also, I do not agree with many of the teaching of the church, and historically, I find it a faith which has predominantly been used in a race for colonization. While many of my own family members are "pick and choose" Catholics, I strongly believe that you either accept all the teachings of a way, or don't.

I don't believe in the banning of contraception; I have a gay relative and love him very much, so I do not agree with the church's stance on homosexuality. Those are just two examples where I feel that I cannot just pick the bits I like and disregard the bits I don't and still consider myself a Catholic.

So why not convert to a religion other than? Well, I felt that any religion is a means to know God, no matter which you choose... save perhaps Buddhism. The more I questioned, the less proof I could muster to prove beyond a doubt that God actually exists as a creator, a force with a purpose, and as a rule-maker.

I have more in common with atheists in general, so therefore, consider myself as such.
My Karma ran over your Dogma
flawedprefect
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:16 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Affiliation: Pan-Athiest

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby Raven » Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:21 pm

I will make this short. I was raised christian. To many different preachers saying different things. To many questions unanswered.
Raven
new recruit
new recruit
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:01 am
Location: California

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby Aught3 » Sun Jan 03, 2010 3:17 am

Skeptic all the way (so far).
League of Reason - Freethinkers Unite!
Aught3
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:52 pm
Location: New Zealand
Affiliation: Freethinker

Re: Life-Long Atheists vs. Converts to Atheism

Postby Dr Mundo » Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:23 am

The question [Do you believe in God?] has a peculiar structure. If I say no, do I mean I'm convinced God doesn't exist, or do I mean I'm not convinced he does exist? Those are two very different questions. [Dr. Arroway]
User avatar
Dr Mundo
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:31 am
Location: Central California
Affiliation: Chuck-e-Cheese

Previous

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest