Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"A fetus is life too! How else do you think it grows?"
An onion grows and is alive, so by your rationale we should assign it the same importance as a human.
You seem very confused, but if you try to get your morality from iron age superstition this is bound to happen.
@Sheldon
@Sheldon
You said: “An onion grows and is alive, so by your rationale we should assign it the same importance as a human.”
So you are equating a human fetus with onion? Is that right? So according to you, if a man pulls my onion bulb from my garden, or thrashes my pregnant wife’s stomach and kills the fetus… both are somehow to be seen as equal crimes. Yea?
You are the one who is confused. Actually, the question is at you… on what basis do you say that a fetus is less valuable than a woman’s career (as per the example of the lady who does the abortion for reasons of career)?
No YOU ARE, or are you saying an onion isn't alive, and doesn't grow? Those were your criteria for valuing a foetus as equal to the woman carrying it, not mine. That's why I said "by your rationale". Look:-
I never made that claim, so again you are very confused, and pretty dishonest.
@Sheldon
"You said: “No YOU ARE, or are you saying an onion isn't alive, and doesn't grow? Those were your criteria for valuing a foetus as equal to the woman carrying it, not mine. That's why I said "by your rationale". Look:-
You are getting mixed up with the arguments. I was not stating anything about my opinion on life here. I was just trying to question David Killen’s moral standard where he stated that ‘life is more important.” If life is important, then even fetus has life. That was my rebuttal. I was interested to know how Killen would differentiate between the two forms of life.
Moreover, according to the ‘fetal abortion’ example, it was not even a question of life or death for the mother. For the mother it was only a career issue. So the choice was between the life of a fetus and a job. That makes it even worse, doesn’t it?
Don't be silly ROYISM, you cant make a comparison setting criteria for life then claim you were not stating anything about life, that's absurd, and it's right here.
Well there you go, are you saying an onion isn't alive? You're all at sea here again, with another complex moral issue you have no moral compass to use to evaluate the complexities of the dichotomy with. This is what happens when you abandon all reason for blind adherence to archaic superstitious dogma.
I'll help you along, David was differentiating between what he considered to be a human life, and something that is simply alive. You seem unable to recognise the distinction, which is why your sloppy rationale could as easily equate the value of any living thing with human life, including my example of an onion. Its sweet you think I'm confused though, but very wrong.
Worse? That's a poisoning of the well fallacy if ever there was one. Why is terminating a pregnancy immoral in your opinion? Do take your time with this one, and don't simply parrot archaic superstitious dogma, as it is meaningless in any moral sense to simply do as you're told, even if it were a deity telling you. Though of course you can demonstrate no objective evidence that any deity exists. You can't even offer ten examples of objectively moral actions you claim exist.
You're way out of your depth here again, and given you've admitted you see nothing wrong with 50+ year old adults marrying and having sex with 9 year old children, or committing cold blooded murder by way of retribution for murder, as if murder is only selectively wrong, your views on morality are stinking up the place.
Your religion is not being championed very well by you, and it takes some doing to lower my opinion of monotheistic morality.
@Sheldon
You said: “Don't be silly ROYISM, you cant make a comparison setting criteria for life then claim you were not stating anything about life, that's absurd, and it's right here.”
Please read my posts carefully. I did not say I “I did not state anything about life.” I only said “I was not stating anything about MY OPINION on life.” I am only attacking your (David Killens) view on life. What is my opinion about the life of a fetus and the mother etc. I will clarify below.
You said: “I'll help you along, David was differentiating between what he considered to be a human life, and something that is simply alive.”
Well he didn’t make that clear in his post. Even if that’s what he meant, you can’t compare the life of fetus with the life of an onion. Because one is a potential human life, and thereby (according to your human-centric view) must have greater value than an onion bulb.
Secondly, I am still waiting to hear on what basis you consider “human life” more valuable than “a potential human life.”
You said: “You seem unable to recognise the distinction,”
Please explain the distinction… why is
You said: “which is why your sloppy rationale could as easily equate the value of any living thing with human life, including my example of an onion.”
If you don’t explain the basis on which you value ‘human life’ over a ‘potential human life’… then you could attach value to anything over anything else (because they have no basis anyways). Therefore an onion bulb could be more valuable than a fetus or vice versa. I am just trying to make you understand this logical flaw in your way of thinking. But you are retorting by way of baseless assertions. Yes, I understand your sentiment. But in a discussion of this nature, sentiments and popular opinions don’t matter. Give me your basis for your moral standard.
You said: “Why is terminating a pregnancy immoral in your opinion? Do take your time with this one,”
Here is where I am going to spell out MY OPINION on the matter. I am not saying that terminating a pregnancy is immoral. The life of the mother is more valuable than the life of a fetus. Therefore, if continuing a pregnancy could put the life of the mother at risk, then the fetus has to be aborted. However, if it is for reasons of career and job, then it’s wrong to kill the fetus. Because life of a fetus stands above career.
So on what basis am I saying this? As I have explained in other posts, my basis is my religion. How is that objective? It’s objective in the sense that the ‘rules of chess’ are objective (as explained in another post in this thread).
You said: “Though of course you can demonstrate no objective evidence that any deity exists. You can't even offer ten examples of objectively moral actions you claim exist.”
The proof for the deity is another question altogether. We can have a discussion on that as well. Why don’t we start another thread? And I did offer 10 examples of objective morality. I also explained why it is objective.
You said: “… you see nothing wrong with 50+ year old adults marrying and having sex with 9 year old children,”
I have explained that in great depth and instead of responding to my points you are just repeating the assertion… at least you have given up saying ‘rape’ and are now calling it ‘marriage’… to that extent I am glad.
You said: “… or committing cold blooded murder by way of retribution for murder, as if murder is only selectively wrong,’
You just are not getting it. Blood money does not make murder selectively wrong. It is wrong and there’s no two ways about it… which is why arbitrations of blood money begin after conviction. It’s just that the victim is given the right to decide how the guilty is to be punished.
This is what you wrote.
So its beyond asinine to claiming anything about life. I have no idea why you've inserted the word opinion in there, as you wrote the claim, so it is axiomatically your opinion, whose else could it be?
You made a claim in response to David's post, the claim was your opinion, and it stated, once again "A fetus is life too! How else do you think it grows?"
So once again your sloppy assertion equated all living things that grow as life, in a facile attempt to ignore the fundamental difference between a woman and the clump of insentient cells developing inside here.
It was perfectly clear, you just didn't understand it, as I said.
Oh ffs ROYISM, I NEVER MADE THAT IMPARISON, YOU DID. Sadly I can't dumb it down for you anymore, but the sole criteria you offered was that a foetus grew and was therefore life, are you being deliberately obtuse?
The rest of your disjointed and dishonest rant is hard to follow, but again David clearly was trying to make you understand the difference between a human and an insentient unfeeling lump of cells, because you claimed the foetus was also a life, you then added that this was evident because it grew.
I've made no assertions, baseless or otherwise, only pointed out the manifestly obvious fact that your sloppy rationale could as easily apply to an onion. Sadly this seems to be hurtling above your head, and now has you lying about what I've said.
ROYISM
Another claim, you dont seem to be able to offer any cogent moral reason for it? Why is it immoral to terminate a foetus, I dont want bare claims, or moronic loaded analogies. What is the basis on which you value human life for a start, have you anything beyond religious dogma and doctrine? Your claims I'm afraid are facile, and don't encompasse any cogent reasons beyond repeating your own beliefs.
Why you keep using the word proof, but cant demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity, and this is not separate to your unevidence claims for objective morality, its central to it.
No you didn't, you just asserted subjective beliefs. Its beyond dishonest tongue about it now. Though this is a typically dishonest tactic I've seen apologists use again and again.
You've explained you think it's perfectly moral for a 50 year old to marry and have sex with children as young as ten, that is axiomatically rape to any vaguely moral person.
Yes it does, and it's you is simply not getting it. Either murder is objectively wrong or it is not. You're trying to claim both simultaneously.
As I said you're all at sea.
@Caliasseia
You said: “I note with interest how that other posted ignored [1] my remarks about the axiomatic foundations of ethics as currently constructed,”
No, I didn’t ignore them. I was only trying to impress upon you that even if you are able to make an objective judgement of ‘harm’ that would still leave your morality subjective. Even after the initial axioms.
You said: and [2] my remarks about the need for much preparatory work in order to make any tests rigorous. I'll note the evasion of those points accordingly.
The preparatory work will only tell you whether something is harmful or not. But that would still not clear the moral ambivalence detailed in my example.
In short, you failed completely to understand what I posted. The fun part being that others here did understand, and as a corollary, almost certainly find your intervention superfluous to requirements.
Answer the thread questions please....
You are dishonestly asking atheists how they can be moral if their morality is subjective, but refusing to show any examples of objectively moral acts yourself. I already accept human morality is subjective, I have said so many times.
You are being very dishonest and evasive, but then this has always been your MO I'm afraid.
Really?
Where did you get that quote/summary from?
I asked him for links to posts by atheists making all those claims and he ignored it completely.
He'll be objecting to being called dishonest again shortly.
@ Sheldon
I previously gave you the two that were direct quotes from you.
What did you say about science being the best way to understand reality?
More dishonest evasion, please link the atheists making ALL the claims you assigned them.
Science is demonstrably the best method we have for understanding reality, you'd have to be bat shit crazy to think otherwise.
Though what that has to do with your lie that atheists claimed "
Jo - Science can answer all questions." is anyone's guess.
I fear well need a fire extinguisher to put your pants out if this continues Jo.
@ Sheldon
Thank you for confirming, and reiterating the statement you made - "Science is demonstrably the best method we have for understanding reality, you'd have to be bat shit crazy to think otherwise."
When you say reality do you mean nature? If yes, than I agree with you.
When you say "reality" is it meant to be all encompassing?
Do you define it as "the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
Can science address every issue, even God?
Thank you for ignoring AGAIN your lie that I said...
Jo - Science can answer all questions.
You are a shocking liar Jo, sorry but I think we are done if you can show no integrity.
I don't know what you mean by god, or in this context address, or issue, but it is axiomatic that science can't study anything that is not real, including things like unicorns, leprechauns, or mermaids, do you really imagine this represents a limitation of the scientific method?
I think you have outdone yourself here Jo.
To reiterate I said that science is demonstrably the best method we have for understanding reality, you lied and misrepresented me as having claimed that "science can answer all questions", and this is just one of the claims you made, you have failed entirely to address any of the others. This is shockingly dishonest Jo, and Nyarl has also asked you to evidence some of those claims...try and imagine how such duplicity appears to atheists that you are trying to espouse your beliefs to.
@ Sheldon
I stated at the beginning that some were in my own words.
It was a summary of what some had said.
I never said it was a direct quote form you.
To settle this, why don't you answer the question.
Can science answer all questions?
Can science determine if God does or does not exist?
They are simple and straight forward questions and can be answered with a simple and straight forward answer.
In fact they could be answered with one word. I would answer them with a "no".
How say you?
I'll add one more point to this that I've mentioned earlier, but is apposite here. Namely, that since science deals with the observable, the only way that supernaturalists can prevent their mythological entities from being amenable to scientific investigation, is if they make said entities unobservable. Which immediately causes a problem for any supernaturalist assertion, to the effect that said mythological entities intervene in the physical universe, because such intervention would be by definition observable.
Though I'm used to supernaturalists trying to have their cake and eat it, usually by peddling additional assertions to the effect that their mythological entities are only observable if you're predisposed to accept supernatural entities beforehand. The "sensus divinatus" drivel being an example thereof. Or, even more duplicitously, by claiming that their mythological entities are only observable when it's apologetically convenient.
@ROYISM
Your notion that this girl was sexually mature at age 9 is troubling; and I think that is putting it mildly.
@Nyarl
Well that's what we understand from the hadith sources.
No, that is apparently what you believe; and probably marks the place where new users realize that you are a lunatic. The older users already know this from your past statements.
@Nyarl
You said: “No, that is apparently what you believe; and probably marks the place where new users realize that you are a lunatic. The older users already know this from your past statements.”
You can’t be selective in taking info from the Islamic sources. This info about Aisha marrying at 6 and consummating it at 9 comes from a book called Bukhari. That same book also reveals the following the facts.
Aisha was very happy in the prophet’s household.
She was a healthy woman who died very old.
She was a leader of the community and even led a war commanding several hundreds of soldiers.
She grew up to become a scholar from whom several great imams learnt the religion.
All these don’t paint the picture of a girl who was abused. Rather it only shows how healthy her relationship with the prophet was.
Greetings Valiya …..
How are things with you ….. ?
Just quickly logged in to advise those of my co-unbelievers that the "Bukhari hadith" you refer to was written some 222 years after the events they were supposedly reporting on..... so lots of room for error.....
Hi Watchman
Such a pleasure to catch up with you again.
Yea, you are right Bukhari was recorded about 2 centuries after the prophet... but every single information in it goes through an unbroken chain of reporters back to the prophet's time. It's not as though hadith were recorded for the first time in Bukhari. It was a continuous process since the time of the prophet, and every hadith in bukhari is already available in various earlier sources. Bukhari is just a compilation of select hadith taken from these earlier sources.
Valiya……. good to see you too..... its been a while..... how are the kids ?
...any way back to business...… you say the hadith "goes through an unbroken chain of reporters back to the prophet's time."
now I know you are going to be expecting this ,but I've just got to post it...…
"Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'The (people of) Bani Israel used to take bath naked (all together) looking at each other. The Prophet (ﷺ) Moses used to take a bath alone. They said, 'By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.' So once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away with his clothes. Moses followed that stone saying, "My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone! till the people of Bani Israel saw him and said, 'By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body. Moses took his clothes and began to beat the stone." Abu Huraira added, "By Allah! There are still six or seven marks present on the stone from that excessive beating."
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/5/30
Soooooo ….if as you suggest the hadith are beyond reproach then we are to believe that there were at one time "clothes stealing rocks" perambulating around the deserts of the middle east.
or is it just possible they are nothing more than glorified folk tales modified and adapted for the new religion...?
Hi Watchman…
All are fine, hope the same on your side.
You said: “Soooooo ….if as you suggest the hadith are beyond reproach then we are to believe that there were at one time "clothes stealing rocks" perambulating around the deserts of the middle east.’
It’s not just this one event, there are tens of other events like these. The question is whether you accept the supernatural or not. If you are faulting hadith based on the supernatural, then you can also take issue with the Quran, the authenticity of which is at far higher level than the hadith. Is the splitting of the sea or staff turning into a snake acceptable to you?
My argument is that you cannot particularly attack the hadith corpus because it contains narrations of supernatural events. Such events are there in the quran as well. So it wouldn’t be an appropriate premise to critique the authenticity/textual preservation of the Islamic sources.
@ Royism
One just has to laugh at a comment like this.
Valiya...
"My argument is that you cannot particularly attack the hadith corpus because it contains narrations of supernatural events."
But ,my old freind , that is precisely why I must attack the Hadith..... I am ,after all ,a sceptic .... I am compelled to oppose the (in my opinion) folly of beleif in a supernatural.
"Such events are there in the quran as well."
Indeed they are .... and for that very reason I must oppose the veracity of the Quran also.
"So it wouldn’t be an appropriate premise to critique the authenticity/textual preservation of the Islamic sources."
Ah ...there we have it .... it would not be appropriate for YOU ... but eminently appropriate for myself .......
You afterall are a beleiver ,that is your curse (& posibly your blessing) while I am an Atheist and that is my blessing (& possibly my curse..).
We are I'm afraid destined to be perpetual opponents ..... but at least we can contend with a degree of civility and some understanding.
Thankyou for another enlightening encounter.....
I'm sure we will cross lances again ...
take care mate .
HI Watchman
You said: "But ,my old freind , that is precisely why I must attack the Hadith..... I am ,after all ,a sceptic .... I am compelled to oppose the (in my opinion) folly of beleif in a supernatural.
If it was to attack the folly in hadith, you need not have brought in the 2-century delayed recording of it… That’s why I thought your issue was with the reliability of its preservation. In which case the supernatural contents in it is a misplaced argument.
But now that you’ve clarified it… supernatural events by definition is that which is outside the productive capacity of nature, or in other words those that cannot be explained by natural laws/causes. That being the case, there is no way that it can be falsified. Moreover, if supernatural is your issue, you don’t have to dig so deep into the details of hadith… supernatural begins with the belief in God. You can simply begin at God belief.
Waiting to hear your view on that. As always.. it’s an honor to engage you.
@ROYISM
"My argument is that you cannot particularly attack the hadith corpus because it contains narrations of supernatural events. Such events are there in the quran as well. So it wouldn’t be an appropriate premise to critique the authenticity/textual preservation of the Islamic sources."
Actually, this is why such pieces of literary crap need to be attacked and criticized.They pretend to mirror the real world, yet in them are fantastic tales that are obviously fiction.
Pages