Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

[Capracus]

If the soul is beyond the purview of the natural sciences, then no, it wouldn't be logical .... actually it would be the other way around, namely the soul would be essential to the existence of the (functioning) brain.

The natural sciences have logically demonstrated that everything we know and experience is a product of the material functionality of our brains. I would say that most believers in the concept of a soul here in the US would consider the soul to be a reflection of the material process of consciousness that is subject to analysis by the natural sciences.

Nature does it better, which is just another hint that it is driven by an intelligence.

Driven by an intelligence? Why not just inherently able to express intelligence on its own? Why the need for an isolated agency to drive it?

I don’t know the answer to that. Wish I could tell you but I can’t.

Considering that the experience of ourselves and the reality beyond are a product of our brains, wouldn’t you expect that the presence of a soul would be in some way linked to the functionality of our brains? And if the functionality of the brain was not present, woulnd’t you expect an associated absence of the soul? This would be the case when brain activity ceases at death, or when brain activity is absent in a developing fetus in the womb.

 

[Musika]

The natural sciences have logically demonstrated that everything we know and experience is a product of the material functionality of our brains.

That says nothing about agencies that are said to be behind the brain. At the very least, the natural sciences are at a complete loss to determine precisely what it is that distinguishes a living brain from a dead one, aside from the behaviour it exhibits.

I would say that most believers in the concept of a soul here in the US would consider the soul to be a reflection of the material process of consciousness that is subject to analysis by the natural sciences.

That's beside the point.

Driven by an intelligence? Why not just inherently able to express intelligence on its own? Why the need for an isolated agency to drive it?

What makes you think it is isolated and not inherent?

 

[Musika]

Apparently you do not quite appreciate the importance of mathematical constants in the evolution of the universe.

Mathematical constants are also there in gauging pipe diameters in plumbing .... just to take you back to the question you are evading

Interestingly the term"gibberish" is more related to religious "woo", not to the very precise and clear language of mathematics.

Your impressions on religion in no way excuses your incoherence.

 

[Capracus]

That says nothing about agencies that are said to be behind the brain.

If you physically disrupt the material processes of the brain, you get an associated disruption of mental performance, that would be a sound indication that the brain and associated states of consciousness are bound to material agencies.

At the very least, the natural sciences are at a complete loss to determine precisely what it is that distinguishes a living brain from a dead one, aside from the behaviour it exhibits.

Aside from the behavior it exhibits? What other standard of analysis is there?

That's beside the point.

The soul only exists as subjective belief, so to determine whether it's accessible to the natural sciences would depend on how it’s perceived. If the soul is thought to be conditioned by the material processes of the brain, then that would give science some understanding of its qualities.

What makes you think it is isolated and not inherent?

You made the statement that nature is driven by an intelligence, which implies an isolated agency. My counter to that is that nature inherently generates all kinds of behavior, some of which we define as intelligent, and some that we don’t. It simply behaves as it deterministically must.

 

[Musika]

If you physically disrupt the material processes of the brain, you get an associated disruption of mental performance, that would be a sound indication that the brain and associated states of consciousness are bound to material agencies.

This is correlation. Have you got anything that takes the subject to causation?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Aside from the behavior it exhibits? What other standard of analysis is there?

The qualities it is composed of, of course. Its physics (and not behavioural science) that gets major kudos in science.

The soul only exists as subjective belief, so to determine whether it's accessible to the natural sciences would depend on how it’s perceived.

You are begging the question. If there is a legitimate aspect to the soul, it certainly has broader implications than contemporary american provincialism.

If the soul is thought to be conditioned by the material processes of the brain, then that would give science some understanding of its qualities.

I find it strange that anyone besides an atheist would find it convenient to think about the subject in that manner.

You made the statement that nature is driven by an intelligence, which implies an isolated agency. My counter to that is that nature inherently generates all kinds of behavior, some of which we define as intelligent, and some that we don’t. It simply behaves as it deterministically must.

How is it that you are in a position to determine what is and isn't arising from intelligence in this universe?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

To love Abortion, to love the Slaughter of the Innocents, you have to keep yourself ignorant of the Science of the development of Life in the Womb.

So go ahead and look away... keep your Eyes Wide Shut!

 

[sideshowbob]

You, on the other hand, are not only avowedly anti-religion, but, in a manner approaching the pathological, see religion and science as diametrically opposed...

They don't necessarily have to be. I only express objections to those aspects of religion that set themselves up in opposition to science. Hence my occasional interactions with you.

As food for thought, what would you make of a group of "scientists" who were investigating the pursuit of science as but a mere psychological foray?

For one thing, I would interpret putting "scientists" within quotes as a suggestion that they were not "real scientists" - i.e. a partial confirmation of my assessment that you are anti-science.

Would it strike you as the activities of someone who is hell-bent on subverting the scientific principle to their pathological intentions?

No. I don't try to diagnose pathology.

 

[sideshowbob]

... atheists tend to look for things further abroad.

Atheists tend to be reactive rather than proactive - e.g. they react to stupid things posted by theists.

 

[Write4U]

Mathematical constants are also there in gauging pipe diameters in plumbing .... just to take you back to the question you are evading

What is that supposed to mean? I could easily answer that pages of the bible also make good toilet paper.

Your impressions on religion in no way excuses your incoherence.

I am afraid the incoherence lies entirely with you.

Your solution to scientific problems is to battle scientific knowledge with greater biblical knowledge, because "God will provide"?
Who is incoherent here?

p.s. you can also apply this answer to the OP; Is 'Progress' Good for Humanity?

 

[billvon]

To love Abortion, to love the Slaughter of the Innocents, you have to keep yourself ignorant of the Science of the development of Life in the Womb.

Agreed. And no one I know loves abortion.

Does anyone you know love chemotherapy?

 

[billvon]

Nature does it better, which is just another hint that it is driven by an intelligence.

Not in this case. Human made tiles are better than Giant's Causeway tiles.

Even if we are to accept your ideas, it happens in a timescale you are not familiar with. You are talking about events where you cannot factually establish or even name the timescale, nor the variables, nor the relationships of cause and effect between these things.

We can factually establish and name the timescale. We can name the variables. We can enumerate the relationships between the the timescale and the results.

 

[Write4U]

SetiAlpha6 said: ↑
To love Abortion, to love the Slaughter of the Innocents, you have to keep yourself ignorant of the Science of the development of Life in the Womb.

That is such an ignorant statement, it is worrysome.

People chosing to have an abortion are usually very well informed on the Science of Gestation.

It is the hysterical hilltop preachers who are ignorant of the Science of the development of Life in the Womb and are willing to kill the doctors to save the unborn life. Talking about incoherence.

 

[Write4U]

Musika said:
... atheists tend to look for things further abroad.

Atheists tend to be reactive rather than proactive - e.g. they react to stupid things posted by theists.

And unfortunately all too close to home..........

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Taking a look at the images in the top row, where would you draw the line?

How far out do you think abortions should be allowed, for any reason? With a healthy baby, a healthy Mom, and no life threatening complications for the Mom.

How many weeks out?

Early on only, someplace in the middle, or all the way out to 40 weeks?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Why don't you just post an abortion video?

 

[billvon]

Taking a look at the images in the top row, where would you draw the line?

Fetal viability. Beyond that, exceptions for health of the mother and humane treatment of the fetus only.

How far out do you think abortions should be allowed, for any reason?

A pregnancy that will kill mother or child can be terminated at any time.
A pregnancy that is viable should not be terminated unless there is a threat to the mother's health.

How many weeks out?

For healthy mother and fetus - 25 weeks. (normal threshold of viability.)

 

[Musika]

Not in this case. Human made tiles are better than Giant's Causeway tiles.

That's a joke, unless you want to factor in human aesthetics as a yardstick for determining intrinsic value.

We can factually establish and name the timescale. We can name the variables. We can enumerate the relationships between the the timescale and the results.

Another joke.
The jury is out on all these things you claim as "factual".

 

[Musika]

What is that supposed to mean?

Plumbers use mathematically consistent gauged pipes. IOW, just because something is mathematically consistent in no way precludes sentience being involved.

Your solution to scientific problems is to battle scientific knowledge with greater biblical knowledge, because "God will provide"?
Who is incoherent here?

p.s. you can also apply this answer to the OP; Is 'Progress' Good for Humanity?

For a start, I don't think I have ever quoted anything from the bible (although, on occassion, I have talked about the historical development of christianity), ... and furthermore, the only thing I have said about the notion of "God provides" (an idea you introduced to the discussion), is the suggestion that it is adequate, or at least possesses a vagueness that leaves it open to abuse.

But all this aside, when you're challenged for being incoherent, you choose to attack religion as being incoherent rather than clarify your statements. Your ideas on attacking religion do not magically clarify your ideas about other subjects.

 

[Musika]

Atheists tend to be reactive rather than proactive - e.g. they react to stupid things posted by theists.

Yet again (Write4U just did the same thing, as above), begging the question/ad homming doesn't make you brainy.
Calling the other party stupid doesn't some how magically protect the validity of your ideas.

 

[Musika]

They don't necessarily have to be. I only express objections to those aspects of religion that set themselves up in opposition to science. Hence my occasional interactions with you.

Can you locate a post of yours where, in discussing these subjects, you don't play religion as the diametric opposite of science, or vice versa?

For one thing, I would interpret putting "scientists" within quotes as a suggestion that they were not "real scientists" - i.e. a partial confirmation of my assessment that you are anti-science.

So if the quotation marks weren't there, you would otherwise have no problem with the scenario?