I wonder why. Would there be some hidden secret to the discipline of psychiatry and psychology which discourages (or disillusions) religious beliefs?
^ Perhaps because psychiatry deals with so many "craps" in ppl's lives that they wonder is there really a God out there?
^spam....<_< Maybe they've learned so many ways to explain the human nature/mind that they automatically find ways to explain religion for themselves and can only conclude there's nothing more after life?
well they question everything, so I guess that it makes sense they would question the existence of God
Psychology turns people into Atheists hahaha.... Well i wouldn't mind those obsessed God worshipers getting a daily does of psychology then hehe.
im suprised its not a coroner or pathologist lol choppin dead bodies up all day must really make u wonder about the possibility of an afterlife
Hmm, my guess would've been abortion doctors. And the pope ^ reminds me of the possessed girl in the movie "Exorcist". Or an evil leprechaun.
Can't say I agree with that logic, being religious is the spiritual aspect, a chopped up body doesn't mean that it's not going to some happy afterlife <_< Many abortion doctors (abortionists?!) are religious with a humanistic view. Not NECESSARILY a conflict of interest there...
Abortionist, yes, the word escaped me, thank you. The reason I would've guessed abortionist is because a large number of religions share the one arguably most important rule and it is to appreciate life. So it's only logical for me to choose a person that takes life as oppposed to a person that thinks about life. The lesser of two evils, as they say. http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
At the same time, many humanists (does not necessarily means that they are NOT religious) do believe that abortions are called for under certain circumstances. And since many abortionists do partner up with psychiatrists (for patient care, not "seeing a shrink" themselves), they are not just "taking away a life" (from the viewpoint of the so-called life called the fetus), but "giving an already existing life another chance" (from the viewpoint of the pregnant woman).
Being a humanist is one thing. Being a religious person is another because there are laws that one has to abide by if he/she accepts a religion. Religion isn't a part time commitment so I would assume that a religious person would respect all life all the time. Taking a life would pretty much be the exact opposite of that.
I don't know, my thinking is that there are people who are religious humanists. It all comes down to how one define killing (or for that matter, HUMAN). I do not believe that there is anywhere in religious canons that states "no abortion". If there's no such thing specified such as "no abortion", it all boils down to how one defines HUMAN (because only killing human or animals constitutes killing, as far as my knowledge, which isn't very far, goes).
Well, I guess we need to ask all religions if they consider an unborn baby, life. And if one would consider a fetus, human. But for me, to respect all life is to respect all life. Life is life. A spark is a spark. I would no sooner hurt an ant than I would a human being. I'm definitely not perfect in that regard but that's my belief.. However, that belief doesn't always apply to people that try to hurt me. Do unto others, right?
I can understand, but who said an animated life is more sacred than an unanimated one? I can understand the two extremes in defining human/life: either everything is sacred (including trees, flowers, plants etc) and refuse to take anything except the already-dead ones as food; or nothing is sacred except for what/who can tell one that it is living and sacred (cynicism, I know, but it serves the purpose).
Yeh, I rambled abit there. I guess the point I was trying to make is that life is life no matter how small or how insignificant one may think it is or whatever form it's in.
