A pro-life atheist

BMS

Well-known member
You have presented no evidence whatsoever. Your opinion is not evidence of observable reality. Existing science, dictionary definitions, laws, and societal customs are observable evidence. You have denied all of these.
You have presented no evidence whatsoever. Period. All you have done is deny the observable reality
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I have just told you that.

you did. You responded
"what authority do you have to impose your beliefs on others? " etc.

You dont even know what you are posting. Its a deluded haze of woke fantasy
It is the consequences of his belief that he is attempting to force on others. He is not trying to force us to believe what he does, but to conform to his beliefs in our actions. As is abundantly clear, explicitly and implicitly from my posts. Is English your first language?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
You have presented no evidence whatsoever. Period. All you have done is deny the observable reality
Lol! Says the person who cannot tell the difference between an acorn and an oak tree and has failed to observe that acorns do not make good building material. Dream on.
 

puddleglum

Well-known member
Lol! Says the person who cannot tell the difference between an acorn and an oak tree and has failed to observe that acorns do not make good building material. Dream on.

Acorns make excellent building material if they are planted and allowed to grow to maturity.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Acorns make excellent building material if they are planted and allowed to grow to maturity.
No, those are trees. British sailors do not proudly boast of having "hearts of acorn". People who cannot tell the difference between acorns and oak trees are doomed to disappointment when they come to put up owl nest boxes. Squirrels bury acorns. They live in trees.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Sometimes an acorn that is buried by a squirrel may grow to be a tree that squirrels can live in.
Actually not true, as squirrels bite the end of nuts before burying them. It is jays that are responsible for planting the vast majority of oak trees. Every day is a school day.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Lol! Says the person who cannot tell the difference between an acorn and an oak tree and has failed to observe that acorns do not make good building material. Dream on.
Classic false accusation. The acorn is the seed of the oak tree. In what way can that not possibly lead to your suggestion.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Classic false accusation. The acorn is the seed of the oak tree. In what way can that not possibly lead to your suggestion.
The seed is not the tree, in exactly the same way that the foetus is not the person. It becomes a tree in time, just as a foetus becomes a person in time. It passes through various stages until eventually it is recognised as a tree. Just as the foetus goes through various stages before being recognised as a person. Your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
 

BMS

Well-known member
The seed is not the tree, in exactly the same way that the foetus is not the person. It becomes a tree in time, just as a foetus becomes a person in time. It passes through various stages until eventually it is recognised as a tree. Just as the foetus goes through various stages before being recognised as a person. Your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
It is the tree at its seed stage. Why cant you admit that? Because it tòo obviously makes abortion killing the person, which of course it is.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
It is the tree at its seed stage. Why cant you admit that? Because it tòo obviously makes abortion killing the person, which of course it is.
As sensible as saying that an adult is a corpse at its alive stage.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
So my consistent position is untenable, while your inconsistent position is tenable in what way? You have posed various scenarios without showing why those scenarios are impossible or untrue, just that they are unpalatable. That's life, sunshine. We don't get to decide what is true based on what is palatable, but on what is consistent and in accordance with the evidence. That's my position, which you are pleased to call moral relativism. Your position is what exactly?
That there are objective moral values.

For example: Racism is wrong------because it is evil, morally bad. In other words--people have a moral duty not to be racist. They also have a moral duty to combat racism and hatred wherever it rears its ugly head. And this is becasue fighting racism is morally right and good. However people subjectively come to know this is irrelevant. There is right and wrong, good and evil. Thus, we can rightly say that those who are racist---are---wrong---not because we subjectively believe this, but because they are, in fact, wrong. This is as certain as 2+2=4. If I answer "2+2=5" I would be wrong. If I say "Racism is a good thing." I would be wrong.

We do not just fight racism because some evolutionary biologist somewhere said "Well, shucks, I mean, you know, like---societies that tolerate racism don't survive to pass on their genes. Thus from a biological perspective, racism is bad." Note, what the biologist says might be true. Who knows? But-----racism is also morally evil. It isn't about just passing on our genes, it is about what is morally right vs. what is morally evil.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
You consider them to be facts, I do not. A great many people do not. A waning number of people do. Unless you can establish these facts through evidence that disbelievers can accept, then what authority do you have to impose your beliefs on others? Would you accept the authority of any other religion to impose its beliefs on you? Should Jewish dietary requirements be legally enforced on everyone, for example? What you believe God has commanded you to do, applies to you. If you try to force it on other people who don't accept even the existence of God, then you will be rejected.

Of course, since there are a great many God-fearing Christians who nevertheless accept the need for legal abortion, your point is moot. You need to convince not just non-believers, but also Christians that you particular interpretation of what God's alleged wishes on abortion is the correct one. When Christians cannot agree amongst themselves, you can hardly expect non-Christians to fall in behind you without a murmur. You have to come up with something better than God's will.
One thing I have always wondered about you atheist types--is that you demand evidence for what Christians believe. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with asking for evidence.

The problem is that you define what constitutes evidence so narrowly as to conveniently rule out the evidence Christians provide. You arbitrarily state that the only evidence you will accept is scientific evidence--as if scientific knowledge and scientific evidence is the only kind of knowledge and evidence that there is. The problem is that God is not something you can put under a microscope--anymore than you can put concepts like "love" or "justice" under a microscope.

My point? How can Christians provide evidence of God when you get to define what constitutes evidence?

It would be like me demanding that an evolutionary biologist prove that we evolved. Then when the scientist produces a fossil, me saying "No. I do not accept fossils as evidence of anything. Prove that we evolved without using anything you accept as evidence that we evolved."
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Well-known member
That there are objective moral values.

For example: Racism is wrong------because it is evil, morally bad. In other words--people have a moral duty not to be racist. They also have a moral duty to combat racism and hatred wherever it rears its ugly head. And this is becasue fighting racism is morally right and good. However people subjectively come to know this is irrelevant. There is right and wrong, good and evil. Thus, we can rightly say that those who are racist---are---wrong---not because we subjectively believe this, but because they are, in fact, wrong.
How do you propose to show that this is objectively true, as opposed to being your opinion?
This is as certain as 2+2=4. If I answer "2+2=5" I would be wrong. If I say "Racism is a good thing." I would be wrong.
Mathematics is an objective tautology. We can prove that maths theorems are correct, using mathematics. But was mathematics invented, or discovered. Mathematicians themselves are not certain. What about morality?
Is that invented or discovered? How do you account for moral views changing from one society to another? Are we gradually discovering that racism is wrong, in the teeth of those who believe otherwise? In what way is this gradually discovering that forbidding reasonable abortion is wrong, in the teeth of those who (like you) believe otherwise? How are you proving your moral theorem that morality is objective? More importantly, how are you proving that your views on morality are objectively correct, while mine are objectively incorrect?

We do not just fight racism because some evolutionary biologist somewhere said "Well, shucks, I mean, you know, like---societies that tolerate racism don't survive to pass on their genes. Thus from a biological perspective, racism is bad." Note, what the biologist says might be true. Who knows? But-----racism is also morally evil. It isn't about just passing on our genes, it is about what is morally right vs. what is morally evil.
It is exactly about passing on our genes, but not in the way you think. Being a social animal is in our genes. We behave in a way that makes society work. In particular the way that makes our own society work. Societies differ, so do moral views. If your society depends on slavery, slavery is a good thing. If your army fights best when homosexual lovers fight side by side, then homosexuality is a good thing. If your society is dominated by priests who demand human sacrifice, then warfare and the slaughter of enemy prisoners is a good thing. There is no objectivity in this. A Spartan brought to our society would be as disgusted by our practices as we are at his. Yet Spartans were held up as the archetypes of moral rectitude of their time, infanticide and homosexual paedophilia and all. You cannot just declare "Racism is objectively wrong". You are just expressing an opinion and trying to give it more validity. Where is your evidence?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
One thing I have always wondered about you atheist types--is that you demand evidence for what Christians believe. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with asking for evidence.

The problem is that you define what constitutes evidence so narrowly as to conveniently rule out the evidence Christians provide. You arbitrarily state that the only evidence you will accept is scientific evidence--as if scientific knowledge and scientific evidence is the only kind of knowledge and evidence that there is. The problem is that God is not something you can put under a microscope--anymore than you can put concepts like "love" or "justice" under a microscope.

My point? How can Christians provide evidence of God when you get to define what constitutes evidence?
I don't need any evidence at all to be convinced that you believe. I am quite content to accept that. What is in question is the evidence that convinces me that I should believe. You are telling me that you are convinced, therefore I should be. Well sorry, I'm not. Then you are telling me that because of your convictions, my behaviour should be constrained. Well sorry, but no. If God wants me then He knows what evidence it would take to convince me to believe in Him. He hasn't done that. I will continue to live my life in accordance with His wishes that I be an atheist. I will also continue to oppose, not Christians, not Christianity itself, but the arrogance of those who think that what they believe is good enough for everyone, and determines how everyone should behave.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
How do you propose to show that this is objectively true, as opposed to being your opinion? Mathematics is an objective tautology. We can prove that maths theorems are correct, using mathematics. But was mathematics invented, or discovered.
I am no scientist, but as I understand it--Mathematics gives us a way to model the universe and make predictions. If we accept the proposition that Mathematics is a branch of science, then, like everything else in the scientific fields, we discover the laws. They are not invented.
Mathematicians themselves are not certain.
Ah-----precisely becasue that is a philosophical question. Might I suggest that the standards we use to discover the laws of Math and science are subjective, but the laws themselves are objective?
What about morality? Is that invented or discovered?
Yes.

It is "invented" in the sense that the standards we use to arrive at knowledge of what is true might be subjective, but the laws themselves are objective. Thus, an evolutionary biologist who concludes racism is wrong becasue societies that tolerate racism do not survive to pass on their genes reaches a correct conclusion. The Christian who believes racism is wrong because it is morally evil is also correct. Both people are getting to the same place through different paths. Though the difference, I believe is that the Christian, unlike the scientist is on a more solid foundation.
How do you account for moral views changing from one society to another?
Moral views do not change from one society to another. Sometimes moral values come into conflict. When this happens, people have to prioritize which values take precedence. Because different people are going to prioritize different values, there will be disagreement.
Are we gradually discovering that racism is wrong, in the teeth of those who believe otherwise? In what way is this gradually discovering that forbidding reasonable abortion is wrong, in the teeth of those who (like you) believe otherwise? How are you proving your moral theorem that morality is objective? More importantly, how are you proving that your views on morality are objectively correct, while mine are objectively incorrect?
Easy: the racist believes they are right until their own ideology turns on them. The adulterer argues that there are no objective moral truths until their own spouse cheats on them. The abortion supporter argues that the foetus is not a human being subject to rights based on whatever arbitrary standards they want to use--until someone wants to murder them based on the same logic.

My point? The relativist always believes in moral relativism until they are the object of the very injustice they argue is morally neutral.
It is exactly about passing on our genes, but not in the way you think. Being a social animal is in our genes. We behave in a way that makes society work. In particular the way that makes our own society work. Societies differ, so do moral views. If your society depends on slavery, slavery is a good thing. If your army fights best when homosexual lovers fight side by side, then homosexuality is a good thing.
Yes, except that "good for society" is not necessarily good morally. For those who believe in moral truth, how you are accomplishing something matters as much as, if not more than the actual accomplishment. This is why, for example, you have some who argue that we should not have dropped the nuclear bomb on Japan. Basically--their argument--is that---no matter how good the outcome, there are certain things you just do not do. When you have to cheat to win, winning isn't worth it. That is just an example---whatever your thoughts on Japan.
If your society is dominated by priests who demand human sacrifice, then warfare and the slaughter of enemy prisoners is a good thing.
Ah yes, the old "You know, like, if we could just rid ourselves of religious superstition and quackery, there would be no more wars, man. You know, like, make love, not war, man."

Yeah--the show Southpark parodied that a while back and showed how ridiculous that is. Get rid of religion and create a world of enlightened scientists---and guess what? Enlightened scientists will go to war with other enlightened scientists over things as silly as we superstitious religious quacks.

Tell me sir: if we Christians actually lived by the principles that our founder taught, would we fight wars? If EVERYONE lived by the principles of Jesus Christ, would there be wars? Religious wars just prove that Christians do not live by the principles of their founder.
There is no objectivity in this. A Spartan brought to our society would be as disgusted by our practices as we are at his. Yet Spartans were held up as the archetypes of moral rectitude of their time, infanticide and homosexual paedophilia and all. You cannot just declare "Racism is objectively wrong". You are just expressing an opinion and trying to give it more validity. Where is your evidence?
Again, turn the racist's own ideology against him---and see if he still supports racism.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I don't need any evidence at all to be convinced that you believe. I am quite content to accept that. What is in question is the evidence that convinces me that I should believe. You are telling me that you are convinced, therefore I should be. Well sorry, I'm not. Then you are telling me that because of your convictions, my behaviour should be constrained. Well sorry, but no. If God wants me then He knows what evidence it would take to convince me to believe in Him. He hasn't done that. I will continue to live my life in accordance with His wishes that I be an atheist. I will also continue to oppose, not Christians, not Christianity itself, but the arrogance of those who think that what they believe is good enough for everyone, and determines how everyone should behave.
But you are telling me that because of YOUR convictions certain behaviors should NOT be constrained. Without objective moral truth to ground our "opinions" then might makes right. The only difference between you and I is that right now---you agree with the majority and thus get to impose your arbitrary standards on me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
But you are telling me that because of YOUR convictions certain behaviors should NOT be constrained. Without objective moral truth to ground our "opinions" then might makes right. The only difference between you and I is that right now---you agree with the majority and thus get to impose your arbitrary standards on me.
When atheeist beliefs bleed into politics and law we observe their 'greater good" ethics. That which brings benefit to the greater number of people.
Under atheist ethics, gang rape is justified by their greater good economics.
 
Top