Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardwhat's a weak-agnostic?
I think this is all true except that buddhism knows no gods, but of course there are a lot of different forms of buddhism. I like to call myself an weak-agostic buddhist. There is a new book about this called "Buddhism without the belief" (most buddhist belief in reincarnation) I have not read it yet but it has had a lot of good reviews.
Originally posted by telerionI "believe" that a weak agnostic says that on the present, available evidence it cannot be determined whether a God exists, whereas a strong agnostic believes that the question as to whether there is a God or not is inherently unanswerable by human beings.
what's a weak-agnostic?
Originally posted by telerionWhat no1 says is correct but I would like to add that agnosticism can be applied to more then just god. And that a weak agnoctic says that HE can currently not know if god exists while a strong agnostic says that NO ONE can.
what's a weak-agnostic?
Originally posted by vistesdSound good, im sure I'll read the dutch version of it when I have the time.🙂
Buddhism Without Belief by Stephen Batchelor: excellent book. He makes an argument for strong agnosticism, so it ought to be highly interesting to you. Enjoy! 🙂
Originally posted by NemesioDo they mourn as they do with a child, even a
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]Unless you’re a woman who has had a miscarriage, I suggest you stick to talking about things that you are knowledgeable about. My experience has been that women do mourn.
Again, you refuse to read what I wrote: Do they mourn as they do with a child, even a
newborn? By and large, no they ...[text shortened]... y predicated on some Divine notion. He has never
come through on this.
Will you?
Nemesio[/b]
newborn? By and large, no they do not. And, your presumption that, because I am male, I have no experience with miscarriage is both unfounded and insulting.
I agree that you may have known a woman who had a miscarriage, but this is as much as any man can know. Two of my best friends almost got divorced because she kept miscarrying. Are there women who care less, sure. Are there women who throw their delivered baby into the trash bin, yes. My point is that for a man to say that most women feel one way or the other about miscarriage is just silly. We don’t know what a woman goes through, because we never go through it.
This whole point is pretty silly. A baby’s value is not determined by how the mother may feel about it. If this were true, all the pro-lifers would have to do is say that they care about embryos and case closed.
You mentioned that you were insulted because of this, there is no need to be and my intention was not to insult you. I’ll save that for #1moron. 😉
I asked 'even a newborn' for a reason. The woman has limited bonding experience with a newborn as with a 3 month old embryo. The former gets a funeral, the latter does not as a matter of practice. Even a baby which dies at childbirth and has no time to bond with its mother gets a funeral. And, often times, a baby which dies in the womb after
viability and is 'force labored' out gets a funeral. Again, no bonding. How do you explain this disparity?
I pretty much address this in the above paragraph. There are women who give funerals to their miscarried 3 month old embryos. One point I’d appreciate if you clarified though, what did you mean when you said “I asked 'even a newborn' for a reason”? I’m trying not to take this too literally.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
You missed the last part of my sentence there. Humans have value because they exist, and because of what it is to be human. To be human is to be conscious. To be human is to be able to reason in a way that no other creature on this earth can. To be able to contemplate things like science, God, and the nature of the universe.
So, if an alien came down with even greater powers of reason and contemplation, and wanted to enslave you because you were inferior, you would find this morally permissible? After all, you can't reason and contemplate like it can! If you disagree with that hypothetical, then your giving of status to humans and not, say, pigs, is inconsistent
I think I see what you’re getting at. No, I don’t think aliens who can reason better than we can have the right to destroy us. Two creatures who are as advanced as we would have the right to live. Plants are alive but cannot reason. So maybe we should all be vegetarians. Animals? depends how high up the food chain you go and the culture you’re talking about. There are too many examples to get into. Common sense helps here.
Here, at last, is the crux of your argument. A religous one. No American law should be founded on a religious principle, as per the tenets of the Constitution. Your justification is predicated on the Divine, which is, by definition, not rational but faith. Faith has no basis in law. A person can demonstrate using reason why theft, rape or murder of another person is immoral without the existence of God whatsoever
Again, you must have missed my last sentence. I wrote If you’re an atheist then just try to use some empathy along with common sense. This is basically what it comes down to. From what you've posted I see that you agree with this and so do I. So what is there to argue about? Religion? The same religious principles that crop up in many religions crop up in many laws.
Originally, when there was no judicial system (as in caveman times) it was the idea of God that gave us a sense of right and wrong. I believe that ultimately our ideas of morals which give us the law, come from our ideas of God. Atheists live under those same laws, but I see your point. In America there is a supposed separation between church and state. If you are an Atheist, forget all this and revert back to empathy and common sense.
Peace.
Originally posted by no1marauderYour views are logically inconsistent; you scream over and over again that abortion is murder that kills a baby AND then say a women, A MURDERER OF HER OWN CHILD IS NOT NECESSARILY A DANGER TO SOCIETY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you realize how absolutely insane that makes you sound?? You also already conceded in the other thread that women who have abortions should get long prison terms; don't worry I'll find it. I don't think you realize what you're saying when you deviate from your script.
You're a complete moron.
Your views are logically inconsistent; you scream over and over again that abortion is murder that kills a baby AND then say a women, A MURDERER OF HER OWN CHILD IS NOT NECESSARILY A DANGER TO SOCIETY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you realize how absolutely insane that makes you sound?? You also already conceded in the other thread ...[text shortened]... ce to read your posts; it's terrifying stuff that the average person doesn't want any part of.
Blah, Blah, Blah…try to keep your fanaticism down to a mild roar. I’m not surprised you have no clue about what I’ve said in the previous thread, this has basically been the same misguided lack of reason you’ve been using for the past dozen posts or so.
My point was that laws invasive of what women can do with their own bodies ARE an attempt to legislate morality and thus are more likely to be ignored.
Until you answer this question that I’ve asked you so many times now, nothing you say makes sense.
[I]Originally posted by The Chess Express [/I]
Where do you think rights and laws come from? Do you think that the law makers ascend up into heaven and receive God given laws? Seriously, where? I’ve asked this in the other thread an you just don’t have an answer.
The answer is that laws get voted into existence, amended, and abolished all because of peoples personal beliefs. That is peoples notions of morality. This is why a law is basically somebody’s legalized belief imposed on the people. This is why you contradict yourself when you say we can’t legalize morality.
Murder is morally reprehensible right? Stealing? Assault…etc…etc…what don’t you get?
You seem to think that just because the State passes a law, 99.99% of the people will stop doing it. If you truly believe that, you haven't a bloody clue.
Ok, cut and paste time.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
A law is not a guarantee. It deters crime. Murder is illegal, but it still happens. If murder was legalized it would happen far more frequently. Just look at the societies that have legalized it.
Originally posted by no1moron
What things might become in the future is of no effect legally on what they are now.
Your last example shows what an idiot you are. Someone with a bomb is a danger NOW not in an hour. a zygote ain't a human being just cuz it might become one in the future.
It is you who have lost all capacity to reason if this is the kind of logic you rely on. In the example that I used, the bomb was a danger now because of the potential explosion. A zygote is a human now because of the potential birth. This is what I talk about when I say human potential, and this is why silly statements like
“What things might become in the future is of no effect legally on what they are now.”
have no merit. Get it? I doubt it…
Listening to you anti-abortionists makes me realize what a dangerous group of loonies are out there ready to try to take away a woman's right to control her own body and life. I wish everybody in the country could get a chance to read your posts; it's terrifying stuff that the average person doesn't want any part of.
I guess this maybe the closest thing to something new that you’ve posted in a long time now, so I’ll bother to respond to it. I don’t advocate any sort of violence against pro-choicer’s or the people who support them. I mean this sincerely, I’m not being sarcastic. It’s wrong that these things happen. This issue needs to be battled out in court.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardThanks for making that distinction.
What no1 says is correct but I would like to add that agnosticism can be applied to more then just god. And that a weak agnoctic says that HE can currently not know if god exists while a strong agnostic says that NO ONE can.
HE can currently not know if god exists while a strong agnostic says that NO ONE can.
I wish more people held this view. I like the Buddhists emphasis on self effort rather than blind faith.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
I agree that you may have known a woman who had a miscarriage, but this is as much as any man can know. Two of my best friends almost got divorced because she kept miscarrying. Are there women who care less, sure. Are there women who throw their delivered baby into the trash bin, yes. My point is that for a man to say that most women feel one way or the other about miscarriage is just silly. We don’t know what a woman goes through, because we never go through it.
I am not saying that I understand what a woman goes through. I am not making an independent
evaluative statement. I am making a comparative one. A woman can and does communicate
the degree of her pain through her actions. I've spoken to women who have lost children during
various times in their lives, including those who lost children immediately at birth. I've also
spoken to women who have miscarried at varying times.
None of these women were the type to dump their baby in a garbage can (that you would bring
such a horrible thing up is distressing!). But, invariably, those who lost a newborn mourned
profoundly, whereas those who miscarried felt far less pain. None of those who miscarried had a
funeral for their embryo. In fact, I don't recall hearing about a funeral for a miscarriage ever
(although KellyJay says that his church has had events such as these).
How do you explain this?
This whole point is pretty silly. A baby’s value is not determined by how the mother may feel about it. If this were true, all the pro-lifers would have to do is say that they care about embryos and case closed.
You keep asking me to appeal to my common sense. Common sense is predicated on the actions
of the common folk. If the actions of the common folk are to not care much about miscarriages,
then common sense would indicate that the embryo has no value.
I pretty much address this in the above paragraph. There are women who give funerals to their miscarried 3 month old embryos. One point I’d appreciate if you clarified though, what did you mean when you said “I asked 'even a newborn' for a reason”? I’m trying not to take this too literally.
A mother has equally little time to bond with a baby who dies upon birth and a 4 month fetus.
That was all I was saying.
You say that women have funerals for 3-month old fetuses. What church did this take place at
and when? Women knowingly miscarry all the time. Do you admit that such action is at not
normative?
If you agree that it is not, then it is common sense that is failing you.
I think I see what you’re getting at. No, I don’t think aliens who can reason better than we can have the right to destroy us. Two creatures who are as advanced as we would have the right to live.
So, now a criterion you've added is 'advancement.' What about a super-severely retarded
person, one who is less competent than a house cat? Do we have a right to destroy him?
Plants are alive but cannot reason. So maybe we should all be vegetarians. Animals? depends how high up the food chain you go and the culture you’re talking about. There are too many examples to get into. Common sense helps here.
It doesn't 'depend' if you hold a logical position. Otherwise you are being arbitrary. If you
feel that 'reason' is a criterion worthy of consideration (as you seem to believe above), then
you must consider it in all cases where it exists, not just in the cases that are convenient for
you. This is why I do not eat poultry, beef, or pork: it kills a reasoning creature for a pleasure
that is not a necessity. I, similarly, would not kill the severely-retarded person above.
Again, you must have missed my last sentence. I wrote [b]If you’re an atheist then just try to use some empathy along with common sense. This is basically what it comes down to. From what you've posted I see that you agree with this and so do I. So what is there to argue about? Religion? The same religious principles that crop up in many religions crop up in many laws. [/b]
I don't find your sentence relevant. I am not an atheist. And, empathy means to try to feel
something vicariously. An embryo lacks the capacity to suffer. How can a person have empathy
for that? You have yet to demonstrate this. And, do you have empathy for a cow, pig, or chicken?
They have the capacity for suffering and reason. How can you look at someone with any honesty
as you kill suffering and reasoning creatures and demand that they have reverence for an entity
which lacks these capacities? And, I've already addressed the issue of common sense: people do
not act as you say they should, with a reverence for life from conception to birth.
Originally, when there was no judicial system (as in caveman times) it was the idea of God that gave us a sense of right and wrong. I believe that ultimately our ideas of morals which give us the law, come from our ideas of God. Atheists live under those same laws, but I see your point. In America there is a supposed separation between church and state. If you are an Atheist, forget all this and revert back to empathy and common sense.
Infanticide was a common part of pre-civilized human culture (I am assuming you do not
subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis here). I'm not saying it is right (indeed, it is not),
but the notion that we are programmed with a sense of right and wrong that has been corrupted in
modern times is simply not true (as those cultures who utilized infanticide show).
What you are asking the atheist to do is to respect a law that is predicated, not on reason, but
on religion. This is not reasonable for American laws. Laws are based on rights. If a
person cannot demonstrate why something should have rights, then laws shouldn't pertain to them.
Believe me, I understand your stance. But a law predicated on Divine concepts is wholly unsound
in American politics.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThanks for giving me a never ending novel. 😕🙂 I'll respond to this later.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
I agree that you may have known a woman who had a miscarriage, but this is as much as any man can know. Two of my best friends almost got divorced because she kept miscarrying. Are there women who care less, sure. Are there women who throw their delivered baby into the trash bin, yes. My point is that for ...[text shortened]... ce. But a law predicated on Divine concepts is wholly unsound
in American politics.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Halitoseeach (dis)belief puts you on a different path of "truth". Most theists err on the side of life, most atheists on the side of freedom. That is a fundamental difference and as such, "life" is not necessarily sacred within a atheistic context.
Did you notice my correction under No1's guidance? You're not shy with the ad hominems either. The fundamental difference is a belief/disbelief in God, but each (dis)belief puts you on a different path of "truth". Most theists err on the side of life, most atheists on the side of freedom. That is a fundamental difference and as such, "life" is not ...[text shortened]... heological lines (as it never makes for good discussion), but rather philosophical and medical..
Come on Halitose: you are smarter than this. Have you consulted that dictionary yet? Your support of the DCT causes you to continually insert extra assumptions into these debates that are not justified. The existence or non-existence of God carries no moral implications. Wether or not He exists, we still need to answer the really hard questions for ourselves, like "What ought I to do?" Your belief in God may cloud your judgement in these matters and bring false assumptions to the table; that is your problem, not mine. I like you, Halitose, but I am not going to concede the floor to your misguided notions here.
Let's change gears. You keep saying "life" is sacred. A plant is a living thing. So is a plant's life sacred? The question does not have to do with "life." It has to do with moral considerability. Why do you think moral considerability is conferred at conception?
Some people bite the skin off the ends of their fingers. How is that practice different from aborting the young fetus? After all, the finger skin and the young fetus have a lot in common: both are comprised of living cells, both contain human DNA, both lack the capacity for consciousness, both lack viability, neither can possibly suffer, etc. So how are the finger skin and young fetus different? Invariably, I think you will have to appeal to the potentiality of the young fetus as being the distinguishing characteristic. So, then how do potential properties alone constitute sufficient grounds for moral considerability? I don't think they do, but I am interested in knowing your thoughts here.
So far, you have not given any good reasons for your claim that moral considerability is immediately conferred at the point of conception. You have only resorted to false blanket claims concerning how us heathen atheists don't appreciate/respect the basic rights of persons. Either your claim that moral consideration is conferred at conception is arbitrary OR you have good reasons for making such a claim. So what are your good reasons? You said "Step up or step down, folks." You need to step up too.
Originally posted by howardgeeSociety decides what is acceptable and moralistic and this can be reviewed and altered in light of new evidence.
KellyJay: "Who gets to say who rates the title personhood?"
We do, Kellly, we do.
..or at least medical counsels, learned members of society and legislative bodies do.
This is why abortions are allowed at different stages of pregnancy in different countries in the world.
Such "lines drawn in the sand" are typical of all moral and ethical cons ...[text shortened]... ly, REAL life is not that simple....
It is much more complicated..
and so much more rewarding!
Of course, this is an anathema to most religious believers, who believe that morals come down from on high as dictated by God.
Would you be kind enough to explain this to no1marauder? He doesn’t seem to be getting it from me.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI don't agree with howardgee's statement any more than I agree with yours. You haven't bothered to take the time to understand what my philosophy as to the proper purpose of law is (HINT: It's the same as Locke's and Tom Paine's). This philosophy is also the stated philosophy the US is based on. Your "the majority can enact into law their personal beliefs and compel others to act in accordance with those beliefs even if they don't share them" was expressly rejected at the time of this nation's founding. You are either A) Too stupid to understand this; or B) Too lazy to verify this. That is your problem and it is a serious one when someone is proposing radical changes in the criminal law that will severely restrict someone's fundamental rights, in this case a woman's right to self-autonomy and on deciding whether to have children. By your standard, a law could be passed tomorrow that said women could have NO children or MUST have 10 children; if that's what the majority's personal beliefs were, that's that.
[b]Society decides what is acceptable and moralistic and this can be reviewed and altered in light of new evidence.
Of course, this is an anathema to most religious believers, who believe that morals come down from on high as dictated by God.
Would you be kind enough to explain this to no1marauder? He doesn’t seem to be getting it from me.[/b]
This site will interest you: http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
Race - 63% of abortion patients are white, however, black women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely. This info was from the above website....sorry for cut-n-paste...
Regardless, abortion is legalized murder in my opinion...jammer has a point, despite his admitting to being a racist. He is also right about young people mesmerized by MTV: Moronic TeleVision....the statistics are shameful. I don't know how a woman who has an abortion for birth control reasons, or a man who allows his woman to do this, or the doctors who perform an abortion for birth control reasons can sleep at night. They must be empty people, conscienceless-pitiful people who afterwards go shopping at their favorite Mall to forget the experience...I knew a woman who was pregnant and decided that she didn't want the baby because it would have interfered with her lifestyle, so she had it "terminated". Within six months after her abortion, she got pregnant again and this time carried the baby to term. Everytime I saw this woman at work, I would feel disgust and pity, not just for her aborted baby but for her and her future baby....the fact that this future child will not have a brother or sister because of this woman's selfish/stupid, but rightful by law, choice to have her previous baby aborted...KILLED. Call it what you want, but it is "lawful" murder to me, and that's my final answer....
Originally posted by chancremechanicGood that it's your final answer, as it's as idiotic as all your previous answers.
This site will interest you: http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
Race - 63% of abortion patients are white, however, black women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely. This info was from the above website....sorry for cut-n-paste...
Regardless, abortion ...[text shortened]... LLED. Call it what you want, but it is "lawful" murder to me, and that's my final answer....