THE STRAW GOD FALLACY
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.
@ Wheezy Breezy
"Ignoring all that, I do think you fell into the same pit that other's fell into throughout this conversation. You turn things political without reason. I personally do not care at all about politics. I don't care who decides on the abortion, and I don't care if people are allowed or prohibited euthanasia. Those conclusions are only interesting once the premises have been established."
You answers have proved that they are not reason based but on something you keep hidden. " you don't care who decides about abortion" because you have already decided that it is unreasonable and I suggest you think it is a "sin". Similarly with euthanasia, you can afford not to care because you care not about humans and humanity but about a concept of suffering you have rationalized to exclude compassion and justify your naked theology..
That is what both TM and I were saying about your lack of "humanity" and compassion in your answers and debates. As if humans are ciphers to be judged by your loftier and unworldly standards based on some criteria we mere mortals must not know about lest we argue its basis.
The foundation of arrogance is fear of exposure.
I honestly don't know why you bother lol; you already know I think your opinions are so wrong they don't even merit correction. Let this thread die already, grab a book, and prepare yourself for the next one.
@ Breezy Wheezy, his own cheerleader
"I honestly don't know why you"
Every time Breezy, like a client in the chair, every time you speak you allow more illumination on your personality and beliefs.
I know you think its an awful lark to play with the peasants as you are so very bright and we, well, just here for amusement. I have seen your attempts to divide opinion on these forums.
We know you lack humanity, empathy and compassion, we know many of your core beliefs, what I don't know is why you think you can keep them secret? Surely your study would have prepared you for the basics of communication and how any partially competent practitioner of several relateddisciplines can unmask the deceits? Can your youthful arrogance really not comprehend that?
I do enjoy your argumentation but your dishonesty is tiresome.
Still trying to dictate what people can say, I see. OMS's post nailed it for me, as I imagine it did for many others. Like most people who oppose abortion on religious grounds you're not interested in discussing the moral dichotomies of abortion. As OMS's post just pointed out you've made your mind up, and your evasion in this thread is ample proof of that. Then again this is a hallmark of how you behave across the board here. Let's not forget you started multiple threads to try and claim the bible forbade slavery, and in every one of those threads you refused to even acknowledge any post that cited biblical texts that actually contained the word slavery.
You can type lol after every dismissive response if you want, all it shows is you have no cogent answer to the facts, facts you are determined though to continue to misrepresent with naught but hyperbole and rhetoric.
If you don't have the integrity to admit you're simply adhering to faith based doctrine then you certainly don't get to tell others who have consistently offered facts that you refuse to even acknowledge, that they should leave the thread die.
A blastocyst or foetus is not a human being IN THE SAME SENSE as a baby, child, infant, adult etc is, and the reason as stated innumerable times is that a blastocyst lacks key characteristics that define us as human. Which include sentience and the ability to store and recall memories, a fully functioning central nervous system that enable us to feel pain, and the cognitive ability to experience both physical and emotional pain.
Please note these are not REASONS for a termination, so drawing parallels with murdering people who are catatonic, such as coma patients is a straw man argument. The reasons for terminating a pregnancy are often complex, and separate from the moral arguments that may or may not justify it.
An astonishing post, I'm lost for words. I want to thank you but it seems somehow inappropriate, I want to sympathise but anything I am minded to say seems somehow trite and insufficient.
All you've done is repeat the same assertions, you're still dishonestly ignoring the facts that what is being terminated is not a human person, but a pregnancy, and that the foetus, again not a fully formed human, dies because it not viable without the woman's body. You've latched onto the phrase continuous identity but have ignored the facts that show it isn't true, since firstly there is no continuity without the woman's body, and secondly there is no identity at all in the sense we apply it to a human being. No sentience, no ability to experience pain, pleasure, emotion of any kind. The DNA can be found in toenail clippings.
" Abortion is evil insomuch that it deprives someone of life"
No it isn't, because there is no "someone" only something that might become a someone.
Was your deity evil when it killed every living thing on the planet on a global flood? Was your deity evil when it tortured a newborn baby to death over 7 days, just because it was angered that the baby was conceived in an adulterous affair? Tour refusal to answer these questions means we can infer 2 things. Firstly your sententious claims for objective morality are destroyed, secondly histrionics over a blastocyst is nonsense if you can simultaneously hold the belief that these murders were morally ok.
Since you have relentlessly refuse to acknowledge the questions as well, we can only infer you know how dishonest you're being and what your answer would do to your arguments here, thus i reject your assertions utterly, as they have no basis in fact, and destroy even your own moral claims. You're all at sea here, wheezy.
Whilst humans may not be able to experience death, those they care for and who care for them will experience it in a very profound way. As opposed to an insentient blastocyst of course, that can't and has not stored any memories or formed any attachments. This argument also seem to ignore that there are cogent reasons to terminate a pregnancy, whereas murdering a fully formed human being less so, in fact the defence of yourself or others is the only reason I can think of that carries any moral weight, as I don't include assisted suicide in the same category as murder.
Of course another flaw in this argument is that a person can live and not be murdered without demanding that the body of another person is used against their will, something we would never allow of course in a fully formed human being, yet some want to grant this right to a blastocyst or developing foetus.
I've never had an argument go the way you say, certainly not with an atheist. We'd rather have a giggle at evolution's FUBARs regarding consciousness, morality and evolution than waste our time on fantasies:
John - Hey, let's talk about consciousness!
Others - No, prove God first
John- Hey, let's talk about morality!
Others- No, prove God first
John - Hey, let's talk about evolution!
Others - No, that doesn't prove God
I have, on the other hand, had conversations with theists go this way quite a lot:
Me - Hey, let's talk about consciousness!
Theist - Consciousness comes from God.
Me - Hey, let's talk about morality!
Theist- Morality comes from God.
Me - Hey, let's talk about evolution!
Others - Evolution is Intelligent Design and it comes from God/evolution is unproven and just a theory/evolution is a wicked atheist lie perpetrated by scientists who are trying to control the world/perpetrated by Satan to test the faithful/perpetrated by God to test the faithful.
Who's strawmanning who?
Either that, or you thought you were talking to atheists, but were actually talking to theists- specifically Christian theists - from one of the other 40,000+ Christian sects or other faiths/beliefs you're not a member/believer of, John. Apparently it's pretty common, Christians pretending to be atheists to make real atheists look bad and unreasonable.
Then let's hope the atheists in this forum are just undercover theists. Though, I'm tempted to believe they are not.
An excellent post Sushisnake, if I may say so, erudite, eloquent, concise, cogent, and of course above all factually correct. Wheezy thinks he can preach theistic ideas and beliefs to atheists and use them to question atheism, but that any mention of his motives being religious is a straw man. How many atheists dispute scientific facts, any of them? Only theists cherry pick scientific facts they don't accept, and they do so because those facts have destroyed religious myths that form part of their beliefs.
Thank you, Sheldon, but I must give credit where credit is due. I've noticed opponents of euthanasia fall back on arguing better pain and psychoactive medication will eliminate the need for euthanasia before, but it took John's refusal to see outside that box for me to understand why they do it. They MUST dismiss any other kind of human suffering or their argument collapses. You can't medicate all suffering away. So what are you left with? Religion imposing it's will on secular society.Religion imposing suffering on others because god.
Well lets just profile our beloved brother Wheezy Breezy shall we?
Here's a summary of comments passed. Please chime in if I have missed any.
TM your expertise is needed here.
Believes in physical resurrection ( at 'Last Judgement' one presumes)
Believes 'Jesus' is divine
Is anti abortion
Believes rapists should have say in their unwanted embryo's fate
Believes a woman loses control of her body if she conceives.
Anti choice of time of death even if in intense pain and not a theist.
Dismisses any other religion except his narrow view of 'Christianity' as false.
Has Pastors' advice on call
Is educated but not in social graces
Believes he has a superior intellect
Believes his limited life experience has equipped him to deal with future challenges
Displays no empathy or compassion
Ignores difficult questions
Attempts to rationalise his theology by reverse engineering logic
Denies his theology has any bearing on the positions he takes on any subject
I'm getting a picture . It isn't flattering and probably a candidate for a diagnosis.
Only 16.67% is correct. Make it to 80% and I'll give you a silver star.
I make it 88.5% but then I don't have an axe to grind or a theology to hide.
And that is based is based on admissions and statements in your very own posts. The other minor percentage is extrapolation.
Your mendacious, nature is showing, child.
Very well put again, and as you say that kind of cogent reasoning can either be acknowledge or blindly ignored as Wheezy is doing, it can't be refuted. His lengthy post seemed to dwell mostly on what might have been, as if this is a cogent argument, or even a moral one. One has only to examine the unhealthy obsession religions have with sex to see this nonsensical argument taken to it's obvious conclusion.
"rebutting a Christian's argument, by attacking a Christian's beliefs."
Because as we know a christian's arguments are never motivated by, or based on their beliefs. Sigh....
You.. let's discuss my objections to the scientific fact of species evolution...
Everyone else...why, It's a scientific fact. If your objection are valid publish them and win a Nobel prize
You...wah wah wah, that's like so not fair...