I didn't know where this would best fit, but if this isn't it I assume it will be moved to the corresponding forum. This just happened to come up as a debate topic in my goverment class today, and then on another forum, I saw a court case relating to abortions.
I'll give my opinion later...
GO!
Someone restrain me or I'll pull out my soapbox!
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=3354.msg33659#msg33659 date=1129259734]
Someone restrain me or I'll pull out my soapbox!
I'm interested in hearing your views Mynd. Gogo!
It's a very tricky question, and I'm unsure where I stand on it. The main problem with abortions is people ask the wrong question.
The question isn't whether a woman has the right to choose; rather, the question is at what point a human becomes a human.
If we are a human the moment we are conceived, then I agree, abortion is wrng.
If we aren't a human until a certain point, then abortion is fine.
That's the question that ought to be answered.
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 12:20:06 AM
It's a very tricky question, and I'm unsure where I stand on it. The main problem with abortions is people ask the wrong question.
The question isn't whether a woman has the right to choose; rather, the question is at what point a human becomes a human.
If we are a human the moment we are conceived, then I agree, abortion is wrng.
If we aren't a human until a certain point, then abortion is fine.
That's the question that ought to be answered.
Yep, that's the entire issue encasing abortion. However, it's like asking the question "What's your favorite color?" It can't be answered without massive amounts of subjective data.
I believe abortion is completely wrong.
Somewhere in the bible (I'm really bad at quoting it, I'm sorry :() it says: "I've known you since you were conceived." So that's obviously where I stand. :)
Quote from: Sidoh on October 14, 2005, 12:24:27 AM
Somewhere in the bible (I'm really bad at quoting it, I'm sorry :() it says: "I've known you since you were conceived." So that's obviously where I stand. :)
The bible also says to kill homeless people, and to stone people who work on Sunday, and to not kill people.
You can't believe something because it's in the bible -- the context and meaning is very important.
But if your quote is close to right, there's another problem. The word "conceive" has multiple meanings:
Quote# To become pregnant with (offspring).
# To form or develop in the mind; devise: conceive a plan to increase profits.
Who's to say it meant the first one? Perhaps He knows them since they were merely a thought? Since He is omniscient (I think?), he would know about it. That doesn't mean it's wrong to consider having a baby and not having it. And I think it stands to reason that the bible passage
might mean that.
Anything from the Bible has to be taken with a grain of salt. The true meaning is often buried.
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 12:32:48 AM
The bible also says to kill homeless people
If you're referring to this:
QuoteIf a man will not work, he shall not eat
That's an extremely roughly translated assumption. It says he shall not eat, not to kill them.
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 12:32:48 AMand to stone people who work on Sunday
That was before the resurrection of Christ.
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 12:32:48 AM
You can't believe something because it's in the bible -- the context and meaning is very important.
You're right, but you need to take your own advice. :)
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 12:32:48 AMBut if your quote is close to right, there's another problem. The word "conceive" has multiple meanings:
# To become pregnant with (offspring).
# To form or develop in the mind; devise: conceive a plan to increase profits.
Who's to say it meant the first one? Perhaps He knows them since they were merely a thought? Since He is omniscient (I think?), he would know about it. That doesn't mean it's wrong to consider having a baby and not having it. And I think it stands to reason that the bible passage might mean that.
I think the bible assumes you're not going to overthink every sentence it gives you.
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 12:32:48 AM
Anything from the Bible has to be taken with a grain of salt. The true meaning is often buried.
My religion (Lutheranism) teaches that the Bible is the absolute word of God, not some philosophical writing. Nothing in it should be taken figuratively.
I have no clue what happened to my post SO...
I have no problem taking the life of a human being, if that human being is going to cause suffering or harm onto other human beings.
(If the parents can't handle it, the kid has to go, to save the lives of the parents.)
Quote from: Newby on October 14, 2005, 12:57:34 AM
I have no clue what happened to my post SO...
I have no problem taking the life of a human being, if that human being is going to cause suffering or harm onto other human beings.
(If the parents can't handle it, the kid has to go, to save the lives of the parents.)
That's actually the most justified argument I've heard for abortion in a long time.
However, I don't agree with it (for reasons you already know!).
Still, good job! :)
Quote from: Sidoh on October 14, 2005, 12:50:13 AM
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 12:32:48 AM
The bible also says to kill homeless people
If you're referring to this:
QuoteIf a man will not work, he shall not eat
That's an extremely roughly translated assumption. It says he shall not eat, not to kill them.
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 12:32:48 AMand to stone people who work on Sunday
That was before the resurrection of Christ.
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 12:32:48 AM
You can't believe something because it's in the bible -- the context and meaning is very important.
You're right, but you need to take your own advice. :)
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 12:32:48 AMBut if your quote is close to right, there's another problem. The word "conceive" has multiple meanings:
# To become pregnant with (offspring).
# To form or develop in the mind; devise: conceive a plan to increase profits.
Who's to say it meant the first one? Perhaps He knows them since they were merely a thought? Since He is omniscient (I think?), he would know about it. That doesn't mean it's wrong to consider having a baby and not having it. And I think it stands to reason that the bible passage might mean that.
I think the bible assumes you're not going to overthink every sentence it gives you.
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 12:32:48 AM
Anything from the Bible has to be taken with a grain of salt. The true meaning is often buried.
My religion (Lutheranism) teaches that the Bible is the absolute word of God, not some philosophical writing. Nothing in it should be taken figuratively.
Here's some other verses I like:
1 Corinthians 11:14 says "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him."
1 Samuel 17:50 and 17:51 contradict each other. In verse 50, it says David killed Goliath without a sword; in the very next verse it says he killed him with the Philistine's sword.
1 Samuel 17:50 says "So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him." Verse 51 says "David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword."
Leviticus 15:19 says "When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening."
(I'm pretty sure I touch my mom in some form every day, and as you said, you can't overthink)
1 Timothy 3:11 says "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission." 1 Timothy, chapter 3 goes on to say that women should not be allowed to teach.
Anyway, let's just make sure we're clear of my point here. My point ISN'T that the Bible is wrong or dumb or anything. My point is that the Bible can't always be taken literally, and as such, you can't prove a point by saying, "Because it's in the bible".
You need to read a lot more than just those quotes. You need to read about 30 verses before and after each one of them.
The first is an evil person (Dililah, IIRC) talking about Samson's hair.
The second is talking about David slaying Goliath, an evil person who threatened God's people.
The third is talking about preaching. And yes, Lutherans do not allow women to preach.
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 08:44:48 AM
1 Samuel 17:50 and 17:51 contradict each other. In verse 50, it says David killed Goliath without a sword; in the very next verse it says he killed him with the Philistine's sword.
1 Samuel 17:50 says "So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him." Verse 51 says "David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword."
Before I get to other things, I just wanted to point out that those two verses aren't contradictory. You should read them again.
Gamesnake: the correct phrase is "Bible thum
pers." If you're going to go out of your way to make a religiously-bigotted remark, at least do it right.
Why did you remove my opinion on abortions.. it wasn't off topic or part of the off topic part of this discussion you moved. Anyway basically my opinion and a good essay theme for a classroom debate is to be somewhat nuetral, like say you agree that a child shouldnt be killed but its the womans choice to abort the fetus in her before a said time, like for instance 3 weeks, afterwhich a brain and heart and nervous system develope and it is therefore technically considerd a human.
Quote from: GameSnake on October 14, 2005, 03:33:30 PM
Why did you remove my opinion on abortions.. it wasn't off topic or part of the off topic part of this discussion you moved. Anyway basically my opinion and a good essay theme for a classroom debate is to be somewhat nuetral, like say you agree that a child shouldnt be killed but its the womans choice to abort the fetus in her before a said time, like for instance 3 weeks, afterwhich a brain and heart and nervous system develope and it is therefore technically considerd a human.
Because it contained offensive material. Learn to state your opinions without insults contained.
Additionally, we consider "bacteria" alive, so why shouldn't we consider a zygote to be alive?
Quote from: Sidoh on October 14, 2005, 09:26:25 AM
You need to read a lot more than just those quotes. You need to read about 30 verses before and after each one of them.
The first is an evil person (Dililah, IIRC) talking about Samson's hair.
The second is talking about David slaying Goliath, an evil person who threatened God's people.
The third is talking about preaching. And yes, Lutherans do not allow women to preach.
Then, out of curiosity, what's the context of the "I've known you since you were conceived"? It seems that context is important :)
As I was trying to say, you have to be careful with quoting from the Bible :P
Hehe, you do.
Let me try to find the direct quote...
Success! I actually found a lot of material. :)
QuoteDid not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:15).
Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God (Psalm 22:9-10).
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).
This is what the LORD says--he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you ... (Isaiah 44:2).
Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4).
And now the LORD says--he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5).
The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41-42, 44).
Quote from: Sidoh on October 14, 2005, 09:26:25 AM
The third is talking about preaching. And yes, Lutherans do not allow women to preach.
They don't? I've seen at least 2 Lutheran churches where the teaching pastor was a woman.
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 06:47:01 PM
Then, out of curiosity, what's the context of the "I've known you since you were conceived"? It seems that context is important :)
As I was trying to say, you have to be careful with quoting from the Bible :P
Generally I've found that the Bible is fairly clear when it's being symbolic. For example, the Revelation is written metaphorically; undoubtedly, these are what John experienced. However, he couldn't describe what he experienced precisely; much was written using comparisons that he and we could understand.
Allright. Time for my soapbox.
Wikipedia defines life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life) as having the following 5 characteristics:
Quote
Growth
Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet separate from, itself
Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.
An embryo never ceases to exist prior a fetus coming into existence; a fetus doesn't cease to exist when an infant is born. These labels are simply states of development of the same being. The first four are obviously all possible; like it or not, a fetus or embryo is "like us." It may not have the same structures as we, but when you're building a house, you know that it's going to be a house, even when just the foundation is there.
The last criterion -- response to stimuli -- is not a commonly-known thing. It was something I had to look up. But it seems that prenatal development and stimulus-response is well-documented.
From here, it's obvious. This is not only a being -- but a being capable of intelligent life. If you leave a dog in the car in the sun "they'll fry you on the six o'clock news" (Jeff Foxworthy). The dog is just as dependent on you for life as the child is to the mother.
What it boils down to is that people don't want to take responsibility for their actions. If you want to have sex, you have to be prepared for the eventuality that you're going to have a child. The 100% guaranteed effective way at not getting pregnant is not to have sex. But another person shouldn't have to suffer because you had to get busy with someone. Once that person is alive -- once that person is conceived -- he or she has the right to live. That person can't defend himself or herself, though; and government's role is to defend the weak from the strong.
In my opinion, a secular society can't outlaw abortion in cases of rape. Threatening the life of the mother is a gray area IMO as well. It can outlaw abortion in other circumstances, though. Threatening the quality of life? Tough. Don't go having sex all willy-nilly if you don't want to face the music.
MyndFire, I'm in almost complete agreement with your views.
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=3354.msg33737#msg33737 date=1129336077]
They don't? I've seen at least 2 Lutheran churches where the teaching pastor was a woman.
Sorry, I should have been more specific.
There are several Synods of the Lutheran Church, some more liberal than others. The liberal ones are allow women to preach, unconfirmed people to commune, etc.
I'm LCMS (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod).
Here's (http://www.suite101.com/linkcategory.cfm/lutheranism/4673) a nice list of a bunch of different Lutheran Synods... I didn't even know there were that many! o.o.
The only ones I was aware of (for the most part) were:
LCWC (Wisconsin, even more conservative than LCMS)
LCMS
ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America)
Most of my Uncles on my mom's side of the family are ELCA.
Ok to help clarify my topic, I was giving a good example of a school debate script since thats kinda the topic. Second off in response to Sidoh: Bacteria is living but so is a worm. You dont really care about the millions of worms killed barbarically with hooks and such. Point is we dont care about bacteria it is simple celled organisms that have no concept of reality. Sooo my point was when is the age we consider a human human?
Quote from: GameSnake on October 14, 2005, 10:46:42 PM
Ok to help clarify my topic, I was giving a good example of a school debate script since thats kinda the topic. Second off in response to Sidoh: Bacteria is living but so is a worm. You dont really care about the millions of worms killed barbarically with hooks and such. Point is we dont care about bacteria it is simple celled organisms that have no concept of reality. Sooo my point was when is the age we consider a human human?
Do we have to consider them human even? Like I said, you can't leave a dog in your car. People get in trouble if they just go and shoot a dog. "You leave a poodle in your car and they'll fry you on the six o'clock news!"
Quote from: GameSnake on October 14, 2005, 10:46:42 PM
Ok to help clarify my topic, I was giving a good example of a school debate script since thats kinda the topic. Second off in response to Sidoh: Bacteria is living but so is a worm. You dont really care about the millions of worms killed barbarically with hooks and such. Point is we dont care about bacteria it is simple celled organisms that have no concept of reality. Sooo my point was when is the age we consider a human human?
Hehe, yep. A Human zygote is also distinguisable from any other form of zygote, though. I just thought that was an interesting point.
So does anyone care to debate when a human is a human and has a human reality-concept mind?
Quote from: GameSnake on October 14, 2005, 10:58:09 PM
So does anyone care to debate when a human is a human and has a human reality-concept mind?
Um, what?
Anyway, that's a sompletely subjective matter.
Thats why you debate it :D. I mean i'm asking when do you think a human can realize it is alive? I would say well before then should be the legal limit for abortion rights.
Quote from: GameSnake on October 14, 2005, 11:02:31 PM
Thats why you debate it :D. I mean i'm asking when do you think a human can realize it is alive? I would say well before then should be the legal limit for abortion rights.
When are your first memories? That's when I would say a person can realize they're a human.
If you ask me, that's not a very good model of when abortion is appropriate.
Although you'll piss people off by leaving a dog in a car, it's still not considered murder. Animals are killed all the time.
I have absolutely no opinion either way on this.
For it: If she was raped she shouldn't need to have a child. (Its murder!)
Against it: Its murder! (What if she was raped?)
I'll start off with my opinio on the original topic, I believe once the embryo has developed a nervous system, it then should not be allowed to be, aborted? Although the heart and actualy nervous system don't start to appear at the same time I still feel that when the nervous system and heart are both active, that it should be illegal to have an abortion after that point.
Here's what I think about the bible...
- It was written 600 years after the death of Jesus Christ, so how can any of it be 'the words of Jesus Christ', nobody he knew was alive for 600 years, sorry to burst your bubbles.
- It has 2 different stories for the creation of man, 1) Adam & Eve ; 2) God created man in a day ( or w/e it is )
And these are coming from the debates we've had in my English class ( it tends to get off topic easily ;x ), I have personally never read the bible, been in a church, or had any affiliation with any religion. But my English teacher has read the bible, new and old testaments and those two points of view we both shared.
I am reasonably sure that there is a nonphysical part of us that separates humans from other animals. Self-awareness, or sentience, are good words for it. It's impossible to see or feel or examine it, but I think it's there. Many call it a "soul", but I'm not religious, so I don't. But it's what makes a human a person.
What I don't know is when a persons soul forms. It seems very likely that it is created, or begins to be created, as conception. If this is true, then abortions are bad.
However, another point: in certain exceptional circumstances, at least in some states, it's acceptable to murder somebody. Well, they call it "execute". But it's really no different from an abortion, since it's still taking away a human life :)
Quote from: Furious on October 15, 2005, 09:52:56 AM
- It was written 600 years after the death of Jesus Christ, so how can any of it be 'the words of Jesus Christ', nobody he knew was alive for 600 years, sorry to burst your bubbles.
If God created the universe, he wouldn't create it with C14 enough to predict the age of some object. Carbon dating is a completely useless practice if you're religious and you believe God created the universe. Don't be sorry for "bursting my bubble" because you didn't.
Additionally, who's to say the copy of the bible that was carbon dated was the original one? It could have easily been a copy made and those were the first scrolls found.
Quote from: Furious on October 15, 2005, 09:52:56 AM
- It was written 600 years after the death of Jesus Christ, so how can any of it be 'the words of Jesus Christ', nobody he knew was alive for 600 years, sorry to burst your bubbles.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you think that, then you're wrong. Historically speaking, many of the new testament books / letters were written around 50 years after the death of Jesus. Many people who saw the events took place would have still been around for that. The first 4 books of the Bible were written by Moses, obviously during his lifetime (because otherwise they wouldn't be written by him); while many of the events recorded in the book of Genesis would have not been experienced firsthand by him, those following would have been. The Bible as a whole was written over a great deal of time.
Quote from: Furious on October 15, 2005, 09:52:56 AM
- It has 2 different stories for the creation of man, 1) Adam & Eve ; 2) God created man in a day ( or w/e it is )
Um.... k. They're the same story. God created Adam in a day. There is an undefined length of time between that event and the creation of woman.
Overall, IMO the Bible has very little to do with a secularist's point of view on abortion anyway. But if you're going to have an opinion about the Bible, it should be grounded at least in fact.
Quote from: Sidoh on October 15, 2005, 11:20:45 AM
Quote from: Furious on October 15, 2005, 09:52:56 AM
- It was written 600 years after the death of Jesus Christ, so how can any of it be 'the words of Jesus Christ', nobody he knew was alive for 600 years, sorry to burst your bubbles.
If God created the universe, he wouldn't create it with C14 enough to predict the age of some object. Carbon dating is a completely useless practice if you're religious and you believe God created the universe.
I hesitate to stick with you on this point. It's apparent that God created the universe "old" (as He did with Adam). Although I still think carbon dating is relatively unreliable.
Quote from: Mangix on October 15, 2005, 01:05:42 PM
*6 days
... I'm not even going to touch that one. Besides, rabbit already put it in terms nicer than I would be able to.
QuoteIt has 2 different stories for the creation of man, 1) Adam & Eve ; 2) God created man in a day ( or w/e it is )
"Adam" and "Eve" are literally the hebrew words for "Man" and "Woman". Its the same thing.
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 11:27:37 PM
Although you'll piss people off by leaving a dog in a car, it's still not considered murder. Animals are killed all the time.
Humans are animals, too.
Quote from: deadly7 on October 15, 2005, 05:27:44 PM
Quote from: iago on October 14, 2005, 11:27:37 PM
Although you'll piss people off by leaving a dog in a car, it's still not considered murder. Animals are killed all the time.
Humans are animals, too.
That's a whole other can of worms.
Quote from: GameSnake on October 14, 2005, 10:58:09 PM
So does anyone care to debate when a human is a human and has a human reality-concept mind?
We are not scientists, so there is absolutely nothing we can do to debate it except assume on a subject that we have no clue about.
I think everyone here agreed that abortion is wrong if the fetis has concept of reality, correct? So basically, there is nothing else to debate about because it's impossible for
us (the people at these forums) to decide when a fetis gets this concept of reality, which means our conclusion is that abortion is wrong unless the fetis has a concept of reality.
You think that Scientists can determine that? I think you're wrong.
The necessary characteristics to debate this topic well:
a) Willing to give up their most basic beliefs
b) Not religious, but willing to consider religion
c) Willing to accept that what they see might not be all that exists
d) Attempting to discover the Truth, not looking to prove their own beliefs
(note: c and b are basically subset of a)
That is exactly what Philosophers strive for. It's also known as "Free Thinking". I know very few people like that, and I don't think any of you (or myself) fits into that. You're all out to prove yourselves right, not to understand the issue. That's the first mistake.
Quote from: Sidoh on October 15, 2005, 08:23:18 PM
You think that Scientists can determine that? I think you're wrong.
I never said they could, I was just trying to prove that we don't even have a chance.
QuoteThe necessary characteristics to debate this topic well:
a) Willing to give up their most basic beliefs
b) Not religious, but willing to consider religion
c) Willing to accept that what they see might not be all that exists
d) Attempting to discover the Truth, not looking to prove their own beliefs
(note: c and b are basically subset of a)
That is exactly what Philosophers strive for. It's also known as "Free Thinking". I know very few people like that, and I don't think any of you (or myself) fits into that. You're all out to prove yourselves right, not to understand the issue. That's the first mistake.
Is that directed towards me or other people? I just quickly skimmed the topic and read what most people believe, then came up with a conclusion. Anyways, I totally agree with you here, it's really hard to do and I've been trying to do it for a while.
Quote from: MetaL MilitiA on October 15, 2005, 11:31:09 PM
I never said they could, I was just trying to prove that we don't even have a chance.
Hehe, I really don't think anyone stands a chance without some omniscient advice.
The Bible is a collection of stories, there is no singular author, and if you are going to say Moses wrote the bible, show some scientific evidence, and show me that there was a man named Noah who herded 2 of every animal in the world on a big arc and lived for 600 years, and how X(I forget her name) conceived if I remember correctly, mutliple hundreds of children. Nothing in the bible makes any sense, it was written by some drunk who heard stories. This topic was meant for abortions, split it and keep on topic please :(
Stay on topic, this has nothing to do with the bible.
http://everystudent.com/features/bible.html
No, this discussion is closely related enough to not split it.
Secondly, Religion is FAITH you're not supposed to be able to explain everything about it.
Quote from: MetaL MilitiA on October 15, 2005, 11:31:09 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on October 15, 2005, 08:23:18 PM
You think that Scientists can determine that? I think you're wrong.
I never said they could, I was just trying to prove that we don't even have a chance.
QuoteThe necessary characteristics to debate this topic well:
a) Willing to give up their most basic beliefs
b) Not religious, but willing to consider religion
c) Willing to accept that what they see might not be all that exists
d) Attempting to discover the Truth, not looking to prove their own beliefs
(note: c and b are basically subset of a)
That is exactly what Philosophers strive for. It's also known as "Free Thinking". I know very few people like that, and I don't think any of you (or myself) fits into that. You're all out to prove yourselves right, not to understand the issue. That's the first mistake.
Is that directed towards me or other people? I just quickly skimmed the topic and read what most people believe, then came up with a conclusion. Anyways, I totally agree with you here, it's really hard to do and I've been trying to do it for a while.
It wasn't directed at anybody, it was directed at everybody in this thread, including myself. Nobody here is qualified to discuss this and come to a useful conclusion.
FAITH is dumb. I'd prefer to see proof. Read St. Augustine and Decartes.
And yes, this issue has plenty to do with the Bible.
Quote from: Furious on October 16, 2005, 12:52:35 AM
The Bible is a collection of stories, there is no singular author, and if you are going to say Moses wrote the bible, show some scientific evidence, and show me that there was a man named Noah who herded 2 of every animal in the world on a big arc and lived for 600 years, and how X(I forget her name) conceived if I remember correctly, mutliple hundreds of children. Nothing in the bible makes any sense, it was written by some drunk who heard stories. This topic was meant for abortions, split it and keep on topic please :(
No. You can't expect to make your bible-bashing point, get away with it, and then claim other people are going off-topic. Show me the drunk who heard stories. The Bible has stood up to much more rigorous literary critique than most other ancient texts. Do you know how many thousands of copies, in whole or in part, of the Bible there are in various languages? I didn't say that Moses wrote the Bible; I'm saying he wrote the first
four books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers). These were during times in which he was alive starting (IIRC) around Exodus 12. Other books are credited to other authors such as prophets (Daniel, Ezekiel, etc. come to mind); David and Solomon, among others (Psalms and Proverbs); Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament; and the gospel authors.
Quote from: iago on October 16, 2005, 03:38:23 AM
FAITH is dumb. I'd prefer to see proof. Read St. Augustine and Decartes.
I would agree that
blind faith is dumb. But as I've said before, I don't believe that Christians need to have
blind faith.
Quote from: iago on October 16, 2005, 03:38:23 AM
And yes, this issue has plenty to do with the Bible.
I disagree. If the Bible isn't true, then it frankly has nothing to do with the Bible. From a practical point of view, in a secular society, we're not going to base laws off of the Bible anyway.
I would say this: my principles are guided by my faith. However, I'm not going to impose those principles on others unless I can come up with a reasonable, secular argument.
I'm not religious in any way, I have no faith, and if it can't be logically explained then the bible is a load of shit. I didn't bring up the bible, someone else did, abortions have nothing to do with the bible, or any other religious book at all. The morals of a human being aren't based on a book, you don't learn morals, you shouldn't have to have some book trying to explain why everything is, if incest is a sin, how is it that Adam and Eve were the 'creators', as Carlos Mencia pointed out :P "..someone had to bone their sister."
Quote from: Furious on October 16, 2005, 08:10:24 AM
I'm not religious in any way, I have no faith, and if it can't be logically explained then the bible is a load of shit. I didn't bring up the bible, someone else did, abortions have nothing to do with the bible, or any other religious book at all. The morals of a human being aren't based on a book, you don't learn morals, you shouldn't have to have some book trying to explain why everything is, if incest is a sin, how is it that Adam and Eve were the 'creators', as Carlos Mencia pointed out :P "..someone had to bone their sister."
You realize, bashing the Bible won't get you anywhere? If you want people to respect your opinion, you have to respect theirs.
I have a quite simple view on abortion, first I'd like to say this: I would never want someone to have an Abortion. If I knocked some girl up, I personally wouldn't want her to have an abortion. I'm not to sure how far I would go with this view, I don't think I can say with certainty. With that said, here is my opinion on Abortion.
I have no right to tell someone weather or not to have an Abortion, neither does the Bible, or it's followers. Nobody does. This choice is a choice that should be made, and only be made by a childs parents.
I realize what people are going to say next, "what about that mother/father who puts the baby in a garbage bag and throws it in the trash"? Well, all I can say about these people is that they're not fit to be parents in the first place, I'd also question their humanity.
Quote from: TheSickEmpire on October 16, 2005, 10:24:45 AM
If I knocked some girl up, I personally wouldn't want her to have an abortion.
...
I have no right to tell someone weather or not to have an Abortion, ... This choice is a choice that should be made, and only be made by a childs parents.
?
Quote from: rabbit on October 16, 2005, 10:28:17 AM
Quote from: TheSickEmpire on October 16, 2005, 10:24:45 AM
If I knocked some girl up, I personally wouldn't want her to have an abortion.
...
I have no right to tell someone weather or not to have an Abortion, ... This choice is a choice that should be made, and only be made by a childs parents.
?
Did you forget how to read?
I said the child parents, if I knocked up a girl, I would be the parent.
Fucking idiot.
You said you didn't have the right. Just clarifying. Thank you, Mr. Ass.
Quote from: Furious on October 16, 2005, 08:10:24 AM
I'm not religious in any way, I have no faith, and if it can't be logically explained then the bible is a load of shit. I didn't bring up the bible
Read "Confessions" by "Saint Augustine" -- he logically proves the existance of the Christian God.
Augustine was a "bad" kid, didn't believe in religion, and was of loose moral virtues, so to speak. When he grew up, he became a Philosopher, and decided that it IS possible to logically prove the existance of God.
As I said, unless people here are prepared to give up their beliefs, as Augustine did, we aren't going to go anywhere in the argument.
Quote from: iago on October 16, 2005, 03:38:23 AM
FAITH is dumb. I'd prefer to see proof. Read St. Augustine and Decartes.
There are things in this world (asside from religion even) that humans are unable to understand, explain or logically rationalize why they behave the way they do. The way I see it, I have to have faith.
Based on the types of responses in here about religious-based and non-religous-based, we're going to have to come up with 2 conclusions. One for all the non-relgious people, and one for Christians who look at both the bible and some logic for their answers. Perhaps a thread split? We're obviously not gonna go anywhere with these arguements about religion.
Quote from: MetaL MilitiA on October 16, 2005, 12:56:12 PM
Based on the types of responses in here about religious-based and non-religous-based, we're going to have to come up with 2 conclusions. One for all the non-relgious people, and one for Christians who look at both the bible and some logic for their answers. Perhaps a thread split? We're obviously not gonna go anywhere with these arguements about religion.
Hehe. I think we should just drop the religion argument out of this thread. =)
Quote from: MetaL MilitiA on October 16, 2005, 12:56:12 PM
Based on the types of responses in here about religious-based and non-religous-based, we're going to have to come up with 2 conclusions. One for all the non-relgious people, and one for Christians who look at both the bible and some logic for their answers. Perhaps a thread split? We're obviously not gonna go anywhere with these arguements about religion.
What about people who are religious and not Christian?
I was actually referring to christianity as a whole, which includes the Jewish religion.
My views on abortion are basic. If the parents both agree that they want an abortion, more power to them. Especially if it's in a situtation where the child being born would hurt the parents. For instance, a sixteen-year-old teenager, it would ruin her life to have a child, and the fathers life. I believe abortion is up to the parents, at this time of my life, if I was ever in that situation, I would want my partner to have an abortion.
Quote from: MetaL MilitiA on October 16, 2005, 07:07:28 PM
I was actually referring to christianity as a whole, which includes the Jewish religion.
Not all religions that believe in God are based on Christianity. In fact, not everybody who believes in God is religious. :P
The reason I left people of other religions out is because they're in the minority and there isn't enough of them at these forums to even discuss it.
QuoteIn fact, not everybody who believes in God is religious.
Then they would fall into the first arguement, which is based off of pure logic and reasoning, compared to religion, which would throw in some faith as well. Why do you keep making me need to defend myself? You get what I'm trying to say.
Quote from: iago on October 16, 2005, 03:38:23 AM
Quote from: MetaL MilitiA on October 15, 2005, 11:31:09 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on October 15, 2005, 08:23:18 PM
You think that Scientists can determine that? I think you're wrong.
I never said they could, I was just trying to prove that we don't even have a chance.
QuoteThe necessary characteristics to debate this topic well:
a) Willing to give up their most basic beliefs
b) Not religious, but willing to consider religion
c) Willing to accept that what they see might not be all that exists
d) Attempting to discover the Truth, not looking to prove their own beliefs
(note: c and b are basically subset of a)
That is exactly what Philosophers strive for. It's also known as "Free Thinking". I know very few people like that, and I don't think any of you (or myself) fits into that. You're all out to prove yourselves right, not to understand the issue. That's the first mistake.
Is that directed towards me or other people? I just quickly skimmed the topic and read what most people believe, then came up with a conclusion. Anyways, I totally agree with you here, it's really hard to do and I've been trying to do it for a while.
It wasn't directed at anybody, it was directed at everybody in this thread, including myself. Nobody here is qualified to discuss this and come to a useful conclusion.
FAITH is dumb. I'd prefer to see proof. Read St. Augustine and Decartes.
And yes, this issue has plenty to do with the Bible.
Renee Descartes (how it should be spelled) has some fascinating works. I've read some of his stuff. I'd recommend it to anyone with any intelligence.
Quote from: deadly7 on October 16, 2005, 10:00:15 PM
Renee Descartes (how it should be spelled) has some fascinating works. I've read some of his stuff. I'd recommend it to anyone with any intelligence.
Now you're saying because I dont want to read something that says faith is dumb (or at least that's what I'm understanding what it's implying) that I'm not intelligent? I think you're incorrect.
I think you interpreted it wrong.
By "anyone with any intelligence" I mean that you don't tell someone that doesn't understand things, and doesn't question anything.. basically just someone that accepts everything that's said to them.
Quote from: deadly7 on October 16, 2005, 10:15:45 PM
I think you interpreted it wrong.
By "anyone with any intelligence" I mean that you don't tell someone that doesn't understand things, and doesn't question anything.. basically just someone that accepts everything that's said to them.
Are you saying you possess those traits?
Deadly, you're stupid. Did you accept that? :D
Sorry, you set yourself up for it, buahhaah.
Anyway, I guess I did. I don't think I should have interpreted it differently, but oh well. ^_~
Quote from: Sidoh on October 16, 2005, 10:03:45 PM
Quote from: deadly7 on October 16, 2005, 10:00:15 PM
Renee Descartes (how it should be spelled) has some fascinating works. I've read some of his stuff. I'd recommend it to anyone with any intelligence.
Now you're saying because I dont want to read something that says faith is dumb (or at least that's what I'm understanding what it's implying) that I'm not intelligent? I think you're incorrect.
He doesn't say faith is dumb; however, he rejects it at the start (in the book "Meditations on First Philosophy
In which the existence of God and the real distinction of mind and body, are demonstrated"). He starts by considering the fact that everything we see, hear, smell, taste, and feel might be wrong. In the style of The Matrix, type thing, that we're ruled by "The Evil Deceiver". If you assume that everything you sense is false, what's left? Just your own thoughts. And those have to exist, he reasoned, which is where "Cogito Ergo Sum" ("I think equals I exist"; often translated "I think therefore I am") comes from (most of you have probably hear "cogito ergo sum" before):
I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me ... the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.Based on that, and what has come to be known as the
ontological argument, he proves that it is necessary for a God to exist for the rest of the world to exist. Note, however, that he isn't talking about the Christian God, but it is an idea with certain characteristics that I dont remember all of (omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, unmaleable, etc.), and follows with the distinction of the "Mind" and of "Matter", and how they aren't the same (which I've argued here before). It's really a very good read.
References I used for quotes and to jog my memory (since it's been over 2 years since I read this):
http://www.evsc.k12.in.us/schoolzone/schools/EMPOWER/harrison/th/decartes.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rene_Descartes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
I see.
Nice explanation, by the way.
iago, do you happen to have a link to an eBook I could read this from? I'm in need of something to keep me interested, other then games, so if you would be able to that'd be great.
How many books does he have on this, is it sequals or all into one book, by the way? I was baptised Christian, but my actual beliefs stray from normal Christian beliefs (which I wont go into, since religions are such a touchy subject apon most)
I don't have it in eBook, I have it in hard copy. It's one of the cheaper books I had to buy for school. The entire religious argument is in the one book I mentioned, but I warn you that it's not an easy read :P
It's $7.95 on Amazon, or starts at $2.96.
Quote from: iago on October 17, 2005, 08:37:13 AM
I don't have it in eBook, I have it in hard copy. It's one of the cheaper books I had to buy for school. The entire religious argument is in the one book I mentioned, but I warn you that it's not an easy read :P
It's $7.95 on Amazon, or starts at $2.96.
How big it is is not problem, I need something that's atleast 800+ pages, would you be able to give me a general idea of what the font size is? I can't stand small print.
Quote from: Scr33n0r on October 17, 2005, 08:47:42 AM
Quote from: iago on October 17, 2005, 08:37:13 AM
I don't have it in eBook, I have it in hard copy. It's one of the cheaper books I had to buy for school. The entire religious argument is in the one book I mentioned, but I warn you that it's not an easy read :P
It's $7.95 on Amazon, or starts at $2.96.
How big it is is not problem, I need something that's atleast 800+ pages, would you be able to give me a general idea of what the font size is? I can't stand small print.
You don't have to buy it, just go to the library. They should have it. Hell, they may even have it in big print for the old people.
Quote from: Scr33n0r on October 17, 2005, 08:47:42 AM
Quote from: iago on October 17, 2005, 08:37:13 AM
I don't have it in eBook, I have it in hard copy. It's one of the cheaper books I had to buy for school. The entire religious argument is in the one book I mentioned, but I warn you that it's not an easy read :P
It's $7.95 on Amazon, or starts at $2.96.
How big it is is not problem, I need something that's atleast 800+ pages, would you be able to give me a general idea of what the font size is? I can't stand small print.
It's not long, it's probably ~150 pages. I don't think I've ever seen a Philosophy book over 150 pages. But it's just dense, and not an easy read.
You can probably actually find the entire book online if you look. It was written hundreds of years ago, before the whole copyrighting thing.
Quote from: iago on October 17, 2005, 02:56:40 PM
Quote from: Scr33n0r on October 17, 2005, 08:47:42 AM
Quote from: iago on October 17, 2005, 08:37:13 AM
I don't have it in eBook, I have it in hard copy. It's one of the cheaper books I had to buy for school. The entire religious argument is in the one book I mentioned, but I warn you that it's not an easy read :P
It's $7.95 on Amazon, or starts at $2.96.
How big it is is not problem, I need something that's atleast 800+ pages, would you be able to give me a general idea of what the font size is? I can't stand small print.
It's not long, it's probably ~150 pages. I don't think I've ever seen a Philosophy book over 150 pages. But it's just dense, and not an easy read.
You can probably actually find the entire book online if you look. It was written hundreds of years ago, before the whole copyrighting thing.
You mean smart man eyes closed? :( Dis make scwreenor sad.
Quote from: iago on October 17, 2005, 02:56:40 PM
I don't think I've ever seen a Philosophy book over 150 pages.
I was thinking about this, when I rememberd: Plato's The Republic is probably around 500 pages. But it's painful++ to read.
Ahh yes. Apology, written by Plato about Socrates, is much, much shorter, and much easier to digest. ;)
So this is clear, I wasn't looking for a book that went like this:
Page1: "The cow jumped over the moon."
Page2: "The cow jumped over the fence."
Page3: "The farmer finds the cow."
Page4: "The farmer crabs the cows bloody ass and rips out it's toung with a bloody dagger shot from his wrist."
Page5: "The farmer eats good that night."
The End.
:P
Quote from: Scr33n0r on October 18, 2005, 10:25:35 AM
So this is clear, I wasn't looking for a book that went like this:
Page1: "The cow jumped over the moon."
Page2: "The cow jumped over the fence."
Page3: "The farmer finds the cow."
Page4: "The farmer crabs the cows bloody ass and rips out it's toung with a bloody dagger shot from his wrist."
Page5: "The farmer eats good that night."
The End.
:P
Or were you!? DUN DUN DUN!
Quote from: Scr33n0r on October 18, 2005, 10:25:35 AM
So this is clear, I wasn't looking for a book that went like this:
Page1: "The cow jumped over the moon."
Page2: "The cow jumped over the fence."
Page3: "The farmer finds the cow."
Page4: "The farmer crabs the cows bloody ass and rips out it's toung with a bloody dagger shot from his wrist."
Page5: "The farmer eats good that night."
The End.
:P
Why not? You should have. It would teach a good lesson: don't make grandiose claims about your jumping ability.
Check out the quotes posted by MyndFyre at what is currently the end of the "Good or Bad" thread. Those are examples of some moderate-difficultly passages. Many of the books I've had to read are much, much more difficult than that, to the point where it's almost impossible to know what the heck they're talking about :)
Quote from: iago on October 18, 2005, 07:59:19 PM
Check out the quotes posted by MyndFyre at what is currently the end of the "Good or Bad" thread. Those are examples of some moderate-difficultly passages. Many of the books I've had to read are much, much more difficult than that, to the point where it's almost impossible to know what the heck they're talking about :)
Somewhat like your signature, eh?