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.
Excellent post I must say.
" I think the most important definition, which I don't have a straightforward answer to, is what defines a human."
Yet you are determined to dishonestly ignore such traits and characteristics as sentience, the ability to experience pain, the ability to experience emotions, the ability to store and recall memories etc etc. Too inconvenient to your intransigent religious dogma are they?
"There is a logical mandate to address the arguments that are on the table. "
Now that made me spill my drink laughing.
Do you think your god was moral when it tortured a newborn baby to death over 7 days, because it was angered that the parents conceived in an adulterous affair? That's been 'on the table' for quite a while now, do you have a logical mandate to address it? Only you keep ignoring it in threads you have started ostensibly about morality, just as you ignored the biblical texts endorsing slavery in your multiple threads that were supposedly to address slavery as a theological issue.
You disingenuously only want to address very narrow topics that you think paint atheism and atheists in a bad light.
"I crave the right type of attention. So I would appreciate receiving a lot less of the wrong type of attention."
I thought you were indifferent? Now do you think it was *OBJECTIVELY* moral when god tortured a newborn baby to death over 7 days in the bible, because he was angered it was conceived in an adulterous affair?
I been gone a while so maybe at the moment I am more eager to debate. It is what I come here for. I feel debating theist is an "easy win" debate and enjoy watching theist twist themselves into pretzels defending their faith from fact, solid reasoning and logic.
Me - Hey, let's talk about consciousness!
Me - Hey, let's talk about morality!
Me - Hey, let's talk about evolution!
I love debating and talking about those things. But if the core of your argument on these things is god, then you must prove god first. You cannot work backwards and try to prove god on those subjects.
If you simply want to talk these subjects minus god, I think we can have a good fun debate. I think these subjects are fascinating, but: it feels like a tired "cheap shot" if the core of someone's argument on these subjects ends up being their version of god.
Very well said, I made a similar point on another thread debating the idiotic belief in the universe being fine tuned.
I am very happy to talk about the universe (its my favourite subject lol) but secreting god into gaps of knowledge in a regressive manner as more learnt is just too frustrating.
Everything we struggle to understand or don't quite yet know is far more likely to have naturalistic reasoning behind it,
rather than an unproven deity that is either outside of reality and created all and completely unproven and never can be.
Or better yet, a deity that can interact with matter (implying, within reality) and yet cannot be observed, tested, measured and so on.
mind numbing.
@LucyAustralopithecus
Thanks. I just started posting on this board again and already noticed you have excellent posts.
In my own experience I went from:
"dont care agnostic"
- to: "god probably does not exist"
- to: god definitely does not exist, but a bit of worry on my part I may be biased
- to: nope! no chance I am even biased, to be worried I was biased is to be worried that I am biased in assuming the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. The amount of evidence, reasoning, history, logic, basic math, basic science, basic experience all so strongly point to the fact there is no god, it is like knowing the sun rises from the direction we all agree to call east, no one worries they are biased in thinking the sun rises in the general direction of east every morning.
In the face of all this, like you say, naturalistic reasoning for explanations of things we do not yet fully understand is infinitely more likely than some person's version of "god."
thank you very much, and I am glad you are back to post :)
that is interesting, I always find it intriguing how others came to their worldviews.
I was raised roman catholic but I never had the major connection/bond with it.
it is deeply frustrating that the debate from theists is now trying to rare its ugly face within the sciences,
but the good thing is we have logic, reason and the scientific method which all simply and rationally dismiss the claims.
I very much believe anything within what is known as reality can be explained via naturalism.
"Everything we struggle to understand or don't quite yet know is far more likely to have naturalistic reasoning behind it,"
Well we also know for a fact that natural explanations are real, until someone demonstrates objective evidence for anything supernatural why would we assume things we can't explain don't have a natural explanation rather us just not knowing what it is yet? It's a logically fallacious use of argumentum ad ignorantiam to assume supernatural causation, nothing more.
Conclusion:
This thread had about a 15.91% success rate. I counted about 14 comments that were either constructive or addressed the OP, out of about 88 total comments.
Most Valuable Commentators: Kataclismic and LogicForTW
Honorable Mentions: LucyAustralopithecus, Fishy1, Tin-man
Ah Breezy, you just love setting yourself up in judgement...on women, on debates, on all sorts of subjects.
You do realise that you have a 0% success rate in answering pertinent questions?
Does a balstocyst feel pain? Can it experience emotional trauma? Is it sentient? Can a blastocyst survive independent of the mothers womb? If you're prepared to ignore all that, and dishonestly claim terminating a pregnancy which means a nonviable blastocyst can't survive, is the same as murdering a newborn baby then why should anyone discuss the topic with someone that dishonest?
Also you have refused to say whether you think it was objectively moral for a deity to torture a newborn baby to death in the bible, just because it was angered that the baby was conceived in an adulterous affair. So again your hypocrisy and dishonesty is on display for all to see.
Conclusion: Breezy has a 0% success rate at answering questions.
To all your questions, why do any of those things matter? The only thing that does matter is, Is the blastocyst a human being. Coz if it is, then it should have rights.
I say it’s a human being during one of the earliest parts of development, which is scientifically accurate.
@JoC Re: "To all your questions, why do any of those things matter?"
Lame.
@ JoC " do all thjose ythings matter?'
The I pose the same question to you that Breezy ducked.
"At the precise moment of conception a woman loses control of her body and cedes it to some theist committee?"
Is that your stance JoC?
What theist committee? You are aware though that abortion isn't a theist vs atheist debate. secularprolife.org is an example of this. Many Christians as well are pro-choice.
I'm saying that at the precise moment of conception, we have two individual people who need care and attention - the mother and the baby.
"@ Joc
I'm saying that at the precise moment of conception, we have two individual people who need care and attention - the mother and the baby."
So I will simplify...so the mother loses control of her body at the precise moment of conception?
Who then takes control?
What do you mean who takes control? It’s still the woman. Control has nothing to do with whether the action should be acceptable or not.
It's not the woman's body. At the moment of conception they are two genetically distinct beings. Not only that but as it grows it'll even have it's own blood supply.
A cancerous tumour has it's own blood supply, are you going to start affording cancer tumours rights now? No doubt you'll be outraged by the comparison, so I'll cut right to it and point out it was you who prompted the analogy and not me.
Now a blastocyst is insentient, can't feel pain, can't experience emotional trauma, so in what way is it comparable to a child in the way you keep implying? Or do you intend to continue lying with immunity, then ignoring those who question your duplicitous comparisons?
While you're here, and since you insist on getting so bent out of shape over the rights you'd like to afford a clump of insentient cells that you keep insisting it is no different to a child. Do you think it is objectively moral to torture a new born baby to death over 7 days, as the bible claims your deity did, because it was angered that the baby was conceived in an adulterous affair?
What do you think of this?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/science-embryonic-autonomy-and-the-...
A tumor does not have its own blood supply, not one independent of the body the way a fetus does from its mother. That's why a mother with HIV will not necessarily transfer the disease to the child, and why on rare occasions the mother's immune system may attack the baby's blood cells because of the difference in blood type.
Ok, John, then tell us all how that fetal blood supply provides necessary oxygen and nutrients.
Through the placenta.
So, this fetal blood supply is not adequate for sustaining life, eh?
Of course not. The purpose of blood is transportation of oxygen and nutrients. Both need an external source of oxygen and nutrients to survive. The mother's blood gets oxygen and nutrients by eating and breathing. The baby's blood gets oxygen and nutrients through the placenta.
Secondly, my claim is that the baby is not the mother's body; dependence on the mother doesn't alter that.
So, I’ll reword it a tad, but you are saying that a fetus is not the woman’s body. So what? A bot fly larvae isn’t either.
You can't comment on a post intended for someone else, and then ask so what. Obviously, its implications are meant for another.
You responded to a post from me saying, “Secondly, my claim is that the baby is not the mother's body; dependence on the mother doesn't alter that.”
I reworded it, changing baby to fetus and mother to woman and asked, “so what”.
Now you say I can’t comment on a post intended for someone else. So, for whom was that response intended then? Second, I can comment on any fucking post I want and ask whatever I like. You, John, are not the arbiter of forum etiquette.
I'm not saying you can't physically do it. I'm saying you can't logically do it. Old Man has used 'woman's body' with an apparent reference to the baby. The 'so what' of my comment is to make sure he is aware of the distinction. It isn't meant for you.
Pages