Write4U
Valued Senior Member
If it's deliberate, it is, IMO. It's called "spin" and is dishonest. Fox commentators are experts at this technique.Is deliberate obfuscation not lying?
If it's deliberate, it is, IMO. It's called "spin" and is dishonest. Fox commentators are experts at this technique.Is deliberate obfuscation not lying?
Is deliberate obfuscation not lying?
In the abortion situation, there are two "others" involved: the mother and the unborn child. I am interested: in what circumstances, if any, would you preference protecting the life of the mother over the life of the child, if you had to make the choice?I do have an obsession to protect life, out of love for others, and because I value life.
Great! What does that have to do with abortion?I do not believe we should throw others out in the garbage so we can experience pleasure
Hmm... I'm not sure that the woman who has 12 children due to the unavailability of birth control would necessarily agree with you. You're not offering to look after all the blessed children. You expect the mothers to do that, while denying them a choice in the matter.Children are a blessing not a curse.
Then how can you blame people for following their God-given instincts and wanting to participate in this super fun and beautiful activity, even though it might risk an unwanted pregnancy? Shouldn't God have anticipated the problem in advance? Shouldn't God have made sex super-fun only when it was intended for procreation? Why didn't he do that?Sex was created by God to be a great blessing to His creation on every level. God created it to be super fun and beautiful.
Tell me who is willing to kill their own children to get sex.But we have trivialized it, corrupted it, and perverted it to the point where we are willing to kill our own children to get it.
Do you consider it an act of love to deprive women the right to choose what happens to their own bodies?We have corrupted ourselves, and become depraved of basic morality, and love for each other.
I agree. Murdering children is bad. I don't think you'll find anybody here who wants to murder children.I think God’s creation is good but that we have corrupted it, so I wish we did not murder any children period.
There's a lot of misconception hidden in that word "only" that you wrote there. Okay, so let's run with it and assume that human beings are "only" biochemical robots. We are apparently biochemical robots who can love, who can live, who can create meaning for ourselves. What more do you want?A purely deterministic universe is all an atheist has. There is nothing else, making the atheist only a biochemical robot.
I don't understand how your God gives you meaning that you wouldn't otherwise have. Can you explain?The atheist only has contrived, temporary, and self created meaning, that is predetermined by the atoms of the Universe. There is no ultimate meaning to life without God. Only pretend fantasy meaning.
There's a separate thread on this topic that you might like to read.Only..., Naturalistic Evolution does not provide any way for there to be an actual Free Will. Only deterministic robotic chemical brain reactions that have the appearance of Free Will, because the complexity is so off the scale.
Free Will makes no sense in Atheism and Naturalism, but it does indeed exist as you have said, it has to be borrowed from theism.
I see. Tell me how this Soul can interact with the material world, such as to determine how your physical body acts, for instance. Also, please tell me how we can recognise the difference between soulless creatures and ones with souls. These questions are only the tip of a very large iceberg.No, same brain, theism adds the Soul. Which is not part of this Naturalistic Existence.
The Soul is the real you, a Spirit, living in a body, not constrained by Naturalistic Determinism.
That is the only way Free Will exists!
Slime mold and bacteria are nowhere near as complicated as humans, in purely physical terms. Add complexity and you get more complex behaviour. Not so hard to understand, is it?Please explain Free Will from a purely Deterministic Naturalistic belief system point of view. Slime mold and bacteria would all be robots as well, no help there.
The theory of evolution never said that the complexity of life arose by chance. If you think that's what it says, you're missing half the theory.The latest efforts in science, I have seen, are selling evolution from determinism not from chance. They finally figured out that chance has no causal properties whatsoever. Took them long enough!
I see. Your argument is "It's obvious!" Or rather, you're telling us that because it is not obvious to you how free will could come from a deterministic naturalistic universe, you simply assume that it does not do so.If Free Will exists, it cannot come from a Deterministic Naturalistic Universe. You know this deep inside. It is self evident to everyone on Earth.
Quantum physics provides a good counter-example to your claim.Nothing in the Atheistic Natural Universe is random in actuality, it only looks that way because we are currently ignorant of the Deterministic cause behind it. Science believes that as an article of faith.
What does it do, separately from nature? Please explain. And the previous question: how does it interact to make anything happen in nature, if it is separate?We are all exempt from the Naturalistic Only View because we have a spirit that operates separately from nature.
You have yet to make an argument as to why determinism precludes free will.The Naturalistic Only View of our brain cannot produce Free Will, only determinism.
Evolution depends on two things: variation and selection. Variation occurs randomly. Selection mechanisms are very much non-random.As I said earlier, Evolutionarily Science is headed this way. Determinism!
The Genesis account is a myth.If the Genesis account is accurate...
In the beginning, there were a bunch of chemicals floating in a primordial sea. They came together due to natural chemical affinities, thus creating life on Earth. Natural evolutionary processes caused the primitive life forms to evolve to greater and greater complexity. Life eventually migrated out of the oceans onto land, and further evolved, eventually resulting in the existence of many human beings who diverged from earlier primate ancestors.In the beginning there were only two humans, Adam and Eve both created by God, and we had intimate knowledge and fellowship with God, and He asked us to not do only one thing.
Life is a natural struggle. Human beings compete with one another, and with other life, and with the environment, in order to eke out a living for themselves. Humans demonstrably do not "rule" the world, as many forces on the planet are beyond current human ability to control or influence, even though human beings, in their billions, now have great influence over many aspects of the planet on which we live.Not a hundred things, just one. They disobeyed God and did that one thing, and so rejected His authority over them. The creatures rejected their Creator.
But He loved them, and seeing them in their state of rejecting Him, He did not want them to remain in that state forever as a race. Forever lost to Him, forever apart from Him. He really wanted an intimate relationship with them. But they had broken the relationship, were ashamed, and did not even want to be in God’s presence. They hid themselves from Him. So he granted their wish.
Because they rejected Him, He separated Himself from them and placed them on the Earth and gave this planet to them to rule over. And He placed limits on them, the length of their lives was limited, limiting the length of His separation from them.
The difficulty of living on Earth has no necessary connection to any God. It is more about limited resources and powers.The Earth, is not impossible to live on, but can be difficult. And can cause, heartache on multiple levels. Either driving us back to God, creating a longing for a restored relationship with Him, or driving us away from a restored relationship with Him if we continue to blame Him for our choices.
There is no collective guilt of the whole of humanity. There never has been. Children are not born tainted by some "original sin" of Adam's; they are born innocent.I had to leave a few things out but that is apparently, more or less how we ended up here as a race. It began when we rejected His authority over us. Our choice in Adam and Eve, was our fault not individually but as a race.
We know what is right through experience, instruction and socialisation, as well as having certain in-built moral intuitions that we have inherited because they have proven to be evolutionarily successful. God need not be involved.We know what is right from the conscience God has given us.
There is no "evil", only evil acts. Similarly, there is no "sin", because sin is disobedience to the will of an imagined God.But we choose evil, we choose to sin against God and our fellow man.
The gospels were all written by people. They are part of the legacy of human literature, nothing more.And I assume you know the gospel account after that and have rejected it, right?
Are you saying you refuse to accept the science because you think that doing so would amount to rebellion against your God?The Theory of Evolution is a mixture of fact and philosophy. Some of it is provable and grounded in the empirical side of science, but not all of it is.
The other side, or philosophical side of science, is a human attempt to explain the the existence of life without God. It is another form of rebellion against God.
How did you go about estimating the probabilities? Do you realise that, in trying to estimate the probabilities (of it happening by chance) you are actually adopting a scientific attitude? Aren't you afraid your God will strike you down for your act of rebellion? You're not supposed to consider the idea that maybe life started without God. Or so you say.The Genesis of life from non-life has never been seen anywhere on Earth. Not once. Not empirical. And the probabilities against it happening are frankly mind blowing and off the scale.
Doesn't it take faith to believe that life can come from Special Creation by God? I'd say that requires quite a bit more faith than the alternative.It would take either faith or desperation to believe that life can ever come from non-life.
Sorry, you lost me. One minute you were talking about evolution, and the next you moved on to moral implications of something or other. The theory of evolution isn't a theory of morality. Evolution teaches mankind nothing about morality.*There are also things like, the hopelessness and despair it creates in the heart, the moral implications it teaches to mankind. The illogic of it, etc.
Are you still talking about the theory of evolution?And it also throws out human experience and history, declaring it to be myth.
It's a good thing that evolution by natural selection is not a chance mechanism, then, isn't it?I think of it like this, the fact that intelligence can make something extremely complex, designed and highly organized like a Stealth Fighter does not mean our even imply that a Stealth Fightet can be created by chance mechanisms, no matter how large the universe is, or how much time has gone by, or how many dimensions of other Universes their are.
Oh, I see. You're under the impression that abiogenesis could only be a chance process, if your God doesn't exist. What about the laws of chemistry? Do you think those might affect the chances of chemicals coming together in particular ways, for instance? Or is chemistry random, according to you?The probability of this happening could certainly be calculated. And it would be extremely remote, similar to the probability of life creating itself.
And in Religious Education classes, as I'm sure you'll agree.Fairytales do not belong in school, accept perhaps in English classes, taught as fiction or as science fiction.
I admit I have no complete explanation at this time.Now explain to me how life began, and prove it empirically.
And do not give me one of those, “well it may have, or it could have” theories, that other scientists with their own personal opposing pet theories debunk.
You're right that society has a long way to go towards "protecting" women, and according due respect and equality.Society is not protecting women right now.
I agree. This is why we as a society need to rethink in some fundamental ways how we structure work and family etc. It's a big task, and progress is very slow.A woman should never feel like she has to choose between having her baby and success in life.
The vast majority of legal abortions do not injure women.Abortions injure women, sometimes making it impossible for them to have children later even if they want to.
It can also lead to feelings of relief and happiness.It also can lead to depression and thoughts of suicide.
Why would you want to dictate what a woman can choose regarding her own life and her own body?Why would you ever want to do that to women?
The beauty is that this natural function has practical uses for human consumption. We have and are applying the principles of evolution (selection for desirable traits) in a host of activities designed for human comforts.And you know what? The theory of evolution works as advertised, very well, and all without mentioning God even once.
This is indicative of the ignorance or duplicity of "kneejerk responses" like, "the jury is still out" and "misuse of scientific knowledge". How about misuse of the English language?It's inconsistent of you to misuse scientific knowledge on which the jury is not out, and falsely claim that it is epistemologically identical to other scientific claims which are yet to safely depart the realm of mere speculation.
No one will blame you for arguing in favor of pro-life. People will blame you when you start killing doctors to save an unborn fetus, which does not argue for pro-life at all. Nor does it argue for pro-choice, it argues for murder if you don't get it your way.Will you even blame me for trying to say something against this wickedness?
And people know carseats fail, yet they put their children in them all the time. Cold hearted murdering bastards!They know their contraception methods fail, but they sell them for their own profit anyway.
Some do; most don't.People act like the animals that Evolution tells them they are.
Sometimes yes. When a woman is raped and ends up pregnant, sometimes she can't deal with the shame she feels.Mothers hire others to kill their own children in secret, so the family will never know the awful thing they have done.
See above.If they really think they are doing nothing wrong, why then do they hide it?
See above.The father has no say, he has no rights whatsoever regarding the fate of his baby. His son or his daughter! He is declared to be forcing her. His heart will be broken because of it, for life! No one cares!
Yep. Some women are incapable of that. Better for their children that they are either aborted or adopted (preferably adopted.)The God given intuition of the mother and her natural love for her baby is openly discarded for convenience and even greed.
It is done to be accurate.Paid counselors, openly counsel mothers to murder their own children calling their baby a fetus instead of what it is, a baby. This is done to deceive them.
Probably. But then again, I've never met an abortion lover, and I doubt you have.Abortion lovers use comparatively rare exceptions, that occur in the thousands, to justify their real goal, abortions at will for any reason in the tens of millions. This is a deliberate deception and miss direction.
Nope.Do you Harden your own heart, make up excuses for your own Sin, and even justify the murder of the innocents by the millions?
It's not wicked, there are no children or mothers involved. Mind your own fucking business.Will you even blame me for trying to say something against this wickedness?
Oh, come on, you know you want to...
Go ahead!!!
I think most people go into a sexual encounter thinking about potential pregnancies and how to prevent them. So at least the thought is there. Often they don't think very deeply about potential outcomes and how they will deal with all of them.I don't imagine many people go into a sexual encounter thinking about this.
Of course, but it's wise to have a birth control method in place, and that might be discussed. But, the thread topic just seems odd to me, that a couple would think their only option is to have an abortion, before they have sex.I think most people go into a sexual encounter thinking about potential pregnancies and how to prevent them. So at least the thought is there. Often they don't think very deeply about potential outcomes and how they will deal with all of them.
Agree with you there, although it would be a good idea to at least consider it (i.e. "if I do end up pregnant how am I going to deal with that?")Of course, but it's wise to have a birth control method in place, and that might be discussed. But, the thread topic just seems odd to me, that a couple would think their only option is to have an abortion, before they have sex.
What about yourself? Will you tell a woman who was raped that she must bear the rapist's child, and then let him have dominion over her and her baby as the Bible requires?
Will you tell a woman whose unborn child is already dead that she must risk her life to bring a dead baby into the world?
Will you tell a woman that she cannot have a selective reduction to try to maximize the chances of her children being born healthy - or will you condemn them to likely death to satisfy your unfeeling, hateful religious agenda?
Great! So you will let these women choose whether to have abortions or not. We agree on that.No!What about yourself? Will you tell a woman who was raped that she must bear the rapist's child, and then let him have dominion over her and her baby as the Bible requires?No!Will you tell a woman whose unborn child is already dead that she must risk her life to bring a dead baby into the world?No!Will you tell a woman that she cannot have a selective reduction to try to maximize the chances of her children being born healthy - or will you condemn them to likely death to satisfy your unfeeling, hateful religious agenda?
Uh - you just said you wouldn't stop the "murders of the babies" listed above.None of these justify the murder of any baby, on demand, for any reason!