RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian

Page: << < prev 15 16 17 [18] 19 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/29/2008 4:30:26 PM

Posts: 3432
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27438353/
Neb. governor moves to change safe-haven law He calls special session after more children abandoned by parentsNebraska has a loosely worded law, but most states have a law in place that says you can drop a newborn infant off at any hospital, firehouse or police station, no questions asked, no papers signed, no medical history, nothing..just drop it off and walk away.. Please tell me how this is any better than not having the child to begin with? Worse even with these laws in place, AND Government sanctioned abortions available, infants are still found in dumpsters, garbage cans, hotel bathroom toilets, and alleyways.

poenkitten

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/29/2008 6:43:27 PM

Posts: 9318
Joined: 11/3/2005
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackPhx

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27438353/
most states have a law in place that says you can drop a newborn infant off at any hospital, firehouse or police station, no questions asked, no papers signed, no medical history, nothing..just drop it off and walk away.. Please tell me how this is any better than not having the child to begin with?

Well, this way, the child has an opportunity for life, love, and all of the things we've been given. Killing it negates any of those possibilities.

No, this is not an argument against every abortion. It's an argument against some.

_____________________________

~Christina

A nice girl with a disturbing hobby

My femdom findom blog: http://www.MistressAvarice.com

(in reply to BlackPhx)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/29/2008 6:53:56 PM

Posts: 525
Joined: 9/8/2007
From: Australia
Status: offline

greetings to all,

Me, pro-life and anti-christian? you betcha (though I am only pro life for myself, everyone else is free to do as they wish).

well wishes,

(in reply to xxblushesxx)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/29/2008 11:59:30 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Of course religious people won't agree with that but when have religious people ever tried to be rational anyway, the mere fact they are religious means they have given up on trying to be rational.

Care to take that one outside?

From my perspective, as a religious person that many deem too rational, using our capacity for rational thought is as much a divine commandment as anything found in the dusty pages of a much-redacted series of scrolls from way back when. And rational thought dictates that there be axioms in order for any lines of reasoning to be possible. For instance, the religion we call science includes three basic tenets in its faith: the belief that we exist; the belief that there is a shared, observable, objective, external reality; and the belief that scientific method is valid. If you find a neat way to bootstrap the process so that the dependence on those axioms will disappear without leaving self-referential arguments, then you're a brighter scientist than any I have met.

Perhaps you're simply finding irrational people offensive? I certainly used to.

Or perhaps you find some religions offensive? That's not unusual.

I'd hate to think you're equating one to the other.

That would be irrational.

Health,
al-Aswad.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/30/2008 12:03:15 AM

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/14/2004
Status: offline

Hmmmm...i have to agree.being an anti christian myself. That garden of Eden stuff was jive ala mole.

(in reply to Elisabella)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/30/2008 12:05:18 AM

Posts: 52100
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Savannah, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Of course religious people won't agree with that but when have religious people ever tried to be rational anyway, the mere fact they are religious means they have given up on trying to be rational.

Care to take that one outside?

From my perspective, as a religious person that many deem too rational, using our capacity for rational thought is as much a divine commandment as anything found in the dusty pages of a much-redacted series of scrolls from way back when. And rational thought dictates that there be axioms in order for any lines of reasoning to be possible. For instance, the religion we call science includes three basic tenets in its faith: the belief that we exist; the belief that there is a shared, observable, objective, external reality; and the belief that scientific method is valid. If you find a neat way to bootstrap the process so that the dependence on those axioms will disappear without leaving self-referential arguments, then you're a brighter scientist than any I have met.

Perhaps you're simply finding irrational people offensive? I certainly used to.

Or perhaps you find some religions offensive? That's not unusual.

I'd hate to think you're equating one to the other.

That would be irrational.

Health,
al-Aswad.

*nearly worshiping Aswad*

*grin*

_____________________________

polysnortatious
Supreme Goddess of Snark
CHARTER MEMBER: Lance's Fag Hags!
Waiting for my madman in a Blue Box.

(in reply to Aswad)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/30/2008 2:35:14 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Of course religious people won't agree with that but when have religious people ever tried to be rational anyway, the mere fact they are religious means they have given up on trying to be rational.

Care to take that one outside?

From my perspective, as a religious person that many deem too rational, using our capacity for rational thought is as much a divine commandment as anything found in the dusty pages of a much-redacted series of scrolls from way back when. And rational thought dictates that there be axioms in order for any lines of reasoning to be possible. For instance, the religion we call science includes three basic tenets in its faith: the belief that we exist; the belief that there is a shared, observable, objective, external reality; and the belief that scientific method is valid. If you find a neat way to bootstrap the process so that the dependence on those axioms will disappear without leaving self-referential arguments, then you're a brighter scientist than any I have met.

Perhaps you're simply finding irrational people offensive? I certainly used to.

Or perhaps you find some religions offensive? That's not unusual.

I'd hate to think you're equating one to the other.

That would be irrational.

Health,
al-Aswad.

You do know that writing in a pseudo-philosophical way betrays your lack of grasp of the subject?

You know what happened to the French philosopher who questioned gravity and jumped off a very tall building. He said everything was fine as he passed the sixth floor window. Sadly, they had to scrape him off the tarmac and bury him but he might well still be alive because he was a religious man out to prove a point.

As the philosopher Gustav Borgmann, said, I wouldn't stake my professional reputation on it by saying it but I would stake my life on the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I really don't need it explaining that the sun doesn't actually rise, people know what is meant by it without any pseudo-philosophical translation.

You are just involved in sophistry.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 10/30/2008 2:47:03 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Aswad)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/30/2008 2:45:05 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

There was an American scientist about two years ago, wrote a thesis for a top French philosophical magazine and it was hailed as an intellectual tour de force and reprinted in many philosophical journals around the world because of its quality. Later he said he didn't have a clue what he had written, he just wanted to prove that most philosophers are up their own arse and will believe anything as long as it involves sophistry.

Aswad, if you doubt your existence, get a hammer, put your balls on the table and start hammering.

Then let's us know if you still think there is an element of doubt about your existence.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 10/30/2008 2:51:21 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/30/2008 5:21:56 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

I meant to add earlier. Aswad, science doesn't believe we exist, it makes the assumption we exist, just like you make the assumption I exist by answering my post.

I thought someone like you wo is quite particular about the accuracy of language would have realized that.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/30/2008 7:16:13 AM

Posts: 52100
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Savannah, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

You do know that writing in a pseudo-philosophical way betrays your lack of grasp of the subject?

You know what happened to the French philosopher who questioned gravity and jumped off a very tall building. He said everything was fine as he passed the sixth floor window. Sadly, they had to scrape him off the tarmac and bury him but he might well still be alive because he was a religious man out to prove a point.

As the philosopher Gustav Borgmann, said, I wouldn't stake my professional reputation on it by saying it but I would stake my life on the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I really don't need it explaining that the sun doesn't actually rise, people know what is meant by it without any pseudo-philosophical translation.

You are just involved in sophistry.

um, if they scraped him off the tarmac, how did he talk about the 6th floor?

just sayin'

lol

_____________________________

polysnortatious
Supreme Goddess of Snark
CHARTER MEMBER: Lance's Fag Hags!
Waiting for my madman in a Blue Box.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/30/2008 10:00:44 AM

Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline

Perhaps the fall didn't kill him immediately and he maintained consciousness long enough to utter a few last words.

Uncle Nasty

(in reply to GreedyTop)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/31/2008 1:05:48 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreedyTop

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

You do know that writing in a pseudo-philosophical way betrays your lack of grasp of the subject?

You know what happened to the French philosopher who questioned gravity and jumped off a very tall building. He said everything was fine as he passed the sixth floor window. Sadly, they had to scrape him off the tarmac and bury him but he might well still be alive because he was a religious man out to prove a point.

As the philosopher Gustav Borgmann, said, I wouldn't stake my professional reputation on it by saying it but I would stake my life on the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I really don't need it explaining that the sun doesn't actually rise, people know what is meant by it without any pseudo-philosophical translation.

You are just involved in sophistry.

um, if they scraped him off the tarmac, how did he talk about the 6th floor?

just sayin'

lol

Because as he passed the sixth floor window he shouted "I'm not falling, I'm flying!"

Anyway, Aswad said science is a religion because it has three beliefs "the religion we call science includes three basic tenets in its faith: the belief that we exist; the belief that there is a shared, observable, objective, external reality; and the belief that scientific method is valid."

For someone with pretentions of being a philosopher, this is poor philosophical enquiry because he confirms his belief that his statement is true without seriously examining it and because science doesn't believe in any of the above and science is not a person that could state a belief in the first place and I've never heard a serious scientist state belief in any of the above when specifically questioned about belief rather than just speaking in general but what the hell, klet's pretend science is a person that can state its beliefs for the sake of argument.

1. Science believes we exist. Science makes the assumption we exist

2. Belief in a shared observable, objective, external reality. I don't think any serious scientist would believe this as we know there is no shared observable, external reality and could pretty well prove it. Science makes predictions based on experiments. Though one can't prove anything to a sophist because arguing the toss is their raison d'etre.

3. Belief that scientific method is fact. This Aswad should have realised since he prides himself on his accuracy of language. A method isn't a fact, its a means of procedure. Like all science, its method of inquiry like scientific predictions are open to challange and scientists are encouraged to challange scientific methods and predictions.

So Aswad is 100% wrong. Science isn't a religion because it isn't belief based, its about inquiry and making predictions and open to challenge.

Religion is a belief in a truth and since there are countless religions and only one can be right, all but one must be wrong. Most believers must be aware of this so have an irrational belief.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 10/31/2008 1:11:22 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to GreedyTop)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/31/2008 1:10:42 AM

Posts: 52100
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Savannah, GA
Status: offline

quote:

Science isn't a religion because it isn't belief based, its about inquiry and making predictions and open to challenge.

which describes Judaism, if I'm not mistaken......

_____________________________

polysnortatious
Supreme Goddess of Snark
CHARTER MEMBER: Lance's Fag Hags!
Waiting for my madman in a Blue Box.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/31/2008 1:12:17 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreedyTop

quote:

Science isn't a religion because it isn't belief based, its about inquiry and making predictions and open to challenge.

which describes Judaism, if I'm not mistaken......

Doesn't Judiaism believe in one true god?

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to GreedyTop)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/31/2008 1:16:24 AM

Posts: 52100
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Savannah, GA
Status: offline

yes.. but...

quote:

its about inquiry and making predictions and open to challenge.

If I am not mistaken, within Judaism, it is ENCOURAGED to question, and challenge...

without that, (iirc), the religion becomes stagnant.. yanno, much like science without the same exploratory attitude..

(and on that note, I am haulin off to bed... early voting tommorrow!)

_____________________________

polysnortatious
Supreme Goddess of Snark
CHARTER MEMBER: Lance's Fag Hags!
Waiting for my madman in a Blue Box.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/31/2008 1:52:57 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

I think you are mistaking religion for culture. There is no mistaking that within the Jewish culture, education and inquiry are seen as a very important values. However, the belief in one god, is an irrational belief to an inquiring mind in my view. Not that only Jewish people possess this irrationality, this irrationality seems to be a flaw that is common and spread right across the human race.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 10/31/2008 1:53:51 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to GreedyTop)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/31/2008 6:00:42 AM

Posts: 3486
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline

I cannot begin to 'discuss'. I'm not a biblical scholar...frankly cannot remember what was in the Garden of Eden....and do not especially care nor see it as relevant to the issue of reproductive rights.

What does upset me is the continuing battle of the Religious Right and the Catholic Church in America to advance an agenda which *they* feel will result in a society which best suits *their* faith....where the hell does anyone get off telling me I must abide by the dictates of their faith if I do not subscribe to them myself?

And what they seek is not to eliminate abortion....which a rational person would do by educating people about reproduction and giving them access to quality sexual health care...but to make the poor and disenfranchised suffer the ills of *illegal* abortions. To me this is the absolute height of hypocrisy....if we cannot get you to agree we'll just cut down on your numbers with the good old rusty coathanger?

candystripper

(in reply to philosophy)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/31/2008 8:08:34 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

You didn't say it to Rule, you said it to me. You can scroll up and verify that. It does get confusing when we are both on the same thread with similar screen names.

My apologies for the confusion. I can't even recall whether it was you or him I was trying to reply to. The content was styled for him.

quote:

Yes, as I said, there is and probably never will be a clear answer. You say that the question of when life begins is not the issue but you don't state what you believe the issue to be.

I have two beliefs on the matter, one of which is personal morals, the other of which is pragmatic ethics.

The latter one is that the central issue cannot be decided at this point and that, accordingly, the matter should be resolved by generalizing other ones to universal principles that cover it. Essentially, that foeticide is morally equivalent to any other killing, and thus subject to the question of circumstances. A killing in self-defense, for instance, is generally recognized as morally sound. Killing under duress or while mentally unbalanced is morally mitigating in most cultures. Premeditated killing for convenience is usually considered morally reprehensible. By dealing with the abstract principles, one is assured that one does not do additional wrongs over what is already sanctioned in other contexts, and that one does not reject what is already sanctioned, either.

The former one breaks down to the "beggars can't be choosers" issue. Until such time as the vessel is capable of sustaining its own life, it is reliant on what others choose to give it, and my views place no moral obligation on one life to sustain another, although my aesthetics favor it in many instances. Accordingly, by my view, the procedure should be designed such that it does not, in itself, kill the vessel, but rather seperates the vessel from what it needs to live when the host is unwilling to provide it. That is little different from disconnecting life support equipment, except that the equipment in this case happens to be another life, who happens to be the one recognized as having the authority to make the decision as to whether or not to withold life support. A generalization of the principles of passive euthanasia, although my view also encompasses postpartum abandonment as morally sound, if not exactly an aesthetically sound choice.

For a typical society, I believe the "peg it on something else" approach is most sound.

For one that strives for integrity, the other choice is the only one I've found that resolves the dilemma of providing a moral basis for parenting and imprinting a new vessel with values, norms and other artefacts of the parents' (or their host society's or culture's) preferences and traditions. There probably are others, but this one doesn't need as much bootstrapping, and is somewhat more elegant than other possible resolutions I've considered.

Health,
al-Aswad.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to rulemylife)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/31/2008 8:10:04 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

(Just for the record...most fetuses haven't had an ongoing history of shooting a 7-11 clerk for a pack of smokes).

Give 'em time...

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)

RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian - 10/31/2008 9:49:38 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

You do know that writing in a pseudo-philosophical way betrays your lack of grasp of the subject?

I don't see how that constitutes a betrayal.

Are you suggesting I should lie in order to pass myself off more favorably?

Sorry, that would constitute a betrayal, the way I see it.

quote:

You know what happened to the French philosopher who questioned gravity and jumped off a very tall building. He said everything was fine as he passed the sixth floor window. Sadly, they had to scrape him off the tarmac and bury him but he might well still be alive because he was a religious man out to prove a point.

In other words, this man lacked faith in gravity, which proved to be detrimental to his survival.

If you start from the axiom that there is such a thing as gravity, and that he wanted to live, then he acted irrationally.
If you negate either one of those axioms, however, then the action becomes rational in that frame of reference.
So far, I've found no viable frames of reference for day to day living that exclude some notion of mechanics.

quote:

As the philosopher Gustav Borgmann, said, I wouldn't stake my professional reputation on it by saying it but I would stake my life on the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.

In other words, he has a set of beliefs- including the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow- that he is willing to die for, but notes that it isn't something he could prove, due to the inherent limitations of the field (antinomies have been known for quite some time, and if I am not mistaken, we are reasonably certain that we have pegged down all the antinomies that apply to philosophy and science/epistemology at the moment). Which is essentially the same thing I'm saying, except I'm noting that I have some additional beliefs which do not adversely impact my survival or quality of life.

quote:

You are just involved in sophistry.

Actually, no. There are no deliberate attempts at confusion, deliberate logic flaws or other deliberate errors in my argument.

But, sure, if you want to keep it "down to earth," I could just leave the argument at "you are still outnumbered, and have both history and the natural inclinations of the human animal against you, along with national and international legislation." Which would be a pretty down to earth treatment of the matter of religion, and the rationality issue can be supplemented by noting that rationality in a "down to earth" sense is defined by consensus, which is something that includes the prevalent beliefs of a culture.

I prefer not to cut corners that way, however.

Health,
al-Aswad.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Page: << < prev 15 16 17 [18] 19 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Pro-life Anti-Christian

Page: << < prev 15 16 17 [18] 19 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.109