Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-11-2013, 09:54 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
I debated this with my theist m8, and we concluded that to him.

conception is "soul infused" so no abortion is allowed (its an affront to GOD)

I consider a "baby" under 12 weeks to be a biological seedpod, if it is to be planted into foul soil then abortion negates that.
And as I don't believe in a soul, late terminations because of probably mortal harm to baby or mother is an act of mercy.

Who knows, maybe its my Evil immoral Darwinism, clouding my morals, anyway my opinion is irrelevant and so is yours.
The woman who has to build and support this $100,000+ "baby" in their stomach is the only one who should decide, ifs its an immoral decision then it is hers to bear alone, not for anyone to dictate.

Whats next we rule against people who choose not to have children as its an affront to god, to murder sperm and eggs.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
10-11-2013, 09:55 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(10-11-2013 08:01 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  
(10-11-2013 12:01 PM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  TTT, I am waiting to hear from you on my question...

So assuming you think life begins at conception, what 'magical' thing is happening at fertilization to make it such a sacred event?

One set of zygotes plus another makes a full set of DNA, making a unique person code that produces a dude.

A sperm is just half and is nothing.

You haven't answered why this is a sacred event. Your terminology is off, but you are simply stating the biological event of fertilization. All of us here can agree that when sperm and egg meet, and the egg is fertilized, then that zygote has a unique set of DNA.

So why is this a 'sacred' event? Seems just like a basic, run of the mill outcome of sex.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2013, 10:10 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(10-11-2013 09:54 PM)sporehux Wrote:  I debated this with my theist m8, and we concluded that to him.

conception is "soul infused" so no abortion is allowed (its an affront to GOD)

I consider a "baby" under 12 weeks to be a biological seedpod, if it is to be planted into foul soil then abortion negates that.
And as I don't believe in a soul, late terminations because of probably mortal harm to baby or mother is an act of mercy.

Who knows, maybe its my Evil immoral Darwinism, clouding my morals, anyway my opinion is irrelevant and so is yours.
The woman who has to build and support this $100,000+ "baby" in their stomach is the only one who should decide, ifs its an immoral decision then it is hers to bear alone, not for anyone to dictate.

Whats next we rule against people who choose not to have children as its an affront to god, to murder sperm and eggs.

This is where I was trying to lead TTT to say---that the fertilized egg is given a 'soul' at conception. This attainment of a soul makes theists think that a bunch of undifferentaited cells is now a human.

So, let's say that at conception, the zygote is infused with a soul. Now that fertilized egg has to implant in the uterine wall--no simple task. Research conducted at North Carolina University shows that as high as 80% of these eggs do not implant, and thus die.

Alright, so now that we're implanted, we gotta start growing.
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 31% of all eggs that had successfully implanted were spontaneously aborted during the pregnancy.

We talk about governments being wasteful, but look at how many 'souls' god is wasting! A HUGE percent of fertilized eggs die on their own. Tsk tsk..
---------------------------------
What about the case of twins/triplets/etc?

Identical twins come from one egg. That egg doesn't split into two until well after conception. So....if souls are infused at conception, then do these twins share one soul? Does one have a soul and the other does not (redheads maybe?) Once the egg divides does god express mail a brand new soul down?
-------------------------------------------
And even more confusing stuff from the church..
The church used to say that life began at quickening(when the baby began moving), which was around 13 weeks. It began moving because it was given a soul. Later on the church decided that souls were given at conception, and this was due to the chauvinistic belief that the sperm contained a homunculus(a tiny itty bitty person) and that it could begin growing once it reached the vessel(the egg).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Derp. No
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like jaguar3030's post
10-11-2013, 10:13 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
Ditto Derp

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2013, 10:14 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(10-11-2013 10:10 PM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  
(10-11-2013 09:54 PM)sporehux Wrote:  I debated this with my theist m8, and we concluded that to him.

conception is "soul infused" so no abortion is allowed (its an affront to GOD)

I consider a "baby" under 12 weeks to be a biological seedpod, if it is to be planted into foul soil then abortion negates that.
And as I don't believe in a soul, late terminations because of probably mortal harm to baby or mother is an act of mercy.

Who knows, maybe its my Evil immoral Darwinism, clouding my morals, anyway my opinion is irrelevant and so is yours.
The woman who has to build and support this $100,000+ "baby" in their stomach is the only one who should decide, ifs its an immoral decision then it is hers to bear alone, not for anyone to dictate.

Whats next we rule against people who choose not to have children as its an affront to god, to murder sperm and eggs.

This is where I was trying to lead TTT to say---that the fertilized egg is given a 'soul' at conception. This attainment of a soul makes theists think that a bunch of undifferentaited cells is now a human.

So, let's say that at conception, the zygote is infused with a soul. Now that fertilized egg has to implant in the uterine wall--no simple task. Research conducted at North Carolina University shows that as high as 80% of these eggs do not implant, and thus die.

Alright, so now that we're implanted, we gotta start growing.
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 31% of all eggs that had successfully implanted were spontaneously aborted during the pregnancy.

We talk about governments being wasteful, but look at how many 'souls' god is wasting! A HUGE percent of fertilized eggs die on their own. Tsk tsk..
---------------------------------
What about the case of twins/triplets/etc?

Identical twins come from one egg. That egg doesn't split into two until well after conception. So....if souls are infused at conception, then do these twins share one soul? Does one have a soul and the other does not (redheads maybe?) Once the egg divides does god express mail a brand new soul down?
-------------------------------------------
And even more confusing stuff from the church..
The church used to say that life began at quickening(when the baby began moving), which was around 13 weeks. It began moving because it was given a soul. Later on the church decided that souls were given at conception, and this was due to the chauvinistic belief that the sperm contained a homunculus(a tiny itty bitty person) and that it could begin growing once it reached the vessel(the egg).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Derp. No

The average women in a modern industrialized society menstruates 450 times in her life.
Think about all of the kids we could have though.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2013, 10:15 PM (This post was last modified: 10-11-2013 10:30 PM by kim.)
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(10-11-2013 09:27 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  As for the nothing is sacred garbage, that's just closed-minded thinking at work. Open your eyes and look at the stars of the goddamn sky, and tell me nothing's sacred. What kind of freethinker are you if you believe that philosophy? You come off as a hypocritical conformist when you bleat out mouth-shit like that, and I've seen your posts and know that at least you ca do a bit better than that. So the nothing is sacred argument is an insult to reality, no respect for that argument here.

sacred |ˈsākrid|
adjective
connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration : sacred rites | the site at Eleusis is sacred to Demeter.
See note at divine .
religious rather than secular : sacred music.
• (of writing or text) embodying the laws or doctrines of a religion : a sacred Hindu text.
regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group, or individual : an animal sacred to Mexican culture.
sacrosanct : to a police officer nothing is sacred.
___________________________

Perhaps you are confused about your use of the word sacred and your understanding of it's meaning.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
10-11-2013, 10:18 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(10-11-2013 08:59 AM)Anjele Wrote:  FreeT...I didn't say everyone. I said 'lots of us'. Wasn't trying to define everyone.

But please tell me how his absolute black and white stance on a subject he has never had to deal with personally is not naive and idealistic.

I didn't say your were trying to define anybody, nor did I disagree that triple T was being idealistic (and therefore naive).

I was just saying that I disagree with your assessment that there is nothing wrong with being young and idealistic, regarding both of which, I have issues.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2013, 10:20 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(10-11-2013 10:15 PM)kim Wrote:  
(10-11-2013 09:27 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  As for the nothing is sacred garbage, that's just closed-minded thinking at work. Open your eyes and look at the stars of the goddamn sky, and tell me nothing's sacred. What kind of freethinker are you if you believe that philosophy? You come off as a hypocritical conformist when you bleat out mouth-shit like that, and I've seen your posts and know that at least you ca do a bit better than that. So the nothing is sacred argument is an insult to reality, no respect for that argument here.

sacred |ˈsākrid|
adjective
connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration : sacred rites | the site at Eleusis is sacred to Demeter.
See note at divine .
religious rather than secular : sacred music.
• (of writing or text) embodying the laws or doctrines of a religion : a sacred Hindu text.
regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group, or individual : an animal sacred to Mexican culture.
sacrosanct : to a police officer nothing is sacred.
___________________________

Perhaps you are confused about your use the word sacred and your understanding of it's meaning.

Based on those definitions there, am I the only one who continues to see nothing 'sacred' that I know of in the universe?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
10-11-2013, 10:32 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(10-11-2013 09:27 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  It doesn't impact me, but I have compassion for the living, and I consider a fetus to be alive, so that's why I'm legislating that.
You are basing law off your own personal emotions to something.
I hope you recognise that other people have different emotional responses to abortion than you do.
Some people are emotionally OK with it, some people are emotionally distressed by it.
But why are we to force our way of thinking onto other people?
I don't like brussel sprouts, does that mean I ought to make that against the law, giving police the duty to physically restrain people that choose to each brussel sprouts?
I understand there is a difference between killing an unborn and eating brussel sprouts, so I'm not attempting to trivialise abortion here. I just want you to understand what it means to support a law. It means giving the police the duty to use force on people to make them conform.
What seems like a vote, is actually an act of aggression.
(10-11-2013 09:27 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  As for the woman's choice, I find that morally irrelevant, seeing as it may be that she is the mother, the baby is not her.
I can't debate from a "moral" perspective. I consider morality to be no more than a grandiose expression of a person's own opinion as to what is acceptable human behavior.
(10-11-2013 09:27 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  I am not the government, I am a (terrible) philosopher if anything. Finding solutions to these problems is the government's job, one that is not solved by a killing solution.
Hopefully you live in a country where you expect the government to be a representative of society rather than an authoritative dictatorship.
If they represent you, then how would you like them to decide on laws, on when it is appropriate to use force against members of society?
Do you want the government to base this off:
- One person's moral beliefs?
- A majority vote with regards to each "moral" action?
- A specific religious organisation's understanding of morals?
- Some other well articulated goal not necessarily linked to moral beliefs?
(10-11-2013 09:27 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  What you described in that last sentence is the thing I hate about governments, with echoes of my ancestors in the USR in my mind.
We have some common ground for further discusion then. How can we reduce the power of government, and let people make their own life choices?
(10-11-2013 09:27 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  As for the nothing is sacred garbage, that's just closed-minded thinking at work.
Please entertain my viewpoint, I am an atheist, I don't believe in a god, I don't believe in sin, in good or bad, right or wrong, I don't believe that human's are any more special than any other animal. I don't believe there is anything sacred about life.
(10-11-2013 09:27 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  Open your eyes and look at the stars of the goddamn sky, and tell me nothing's sacred.
There are lots of stars.
Many of which are going super nova or merely fading away in the process killing all life forms that depend on them. Stars are indifferent to life, they don't care if we kil each other.
(10-11-2013 09:27 PM)The_Thinking_Theist Wrote:  What kind of freethinker are you if you believe that philosophy? You come off as a hypocritical conformist when you bleat out mouth-shit like that, and I've seen your posts and know that at least you ca do a bit better than that. So the nothing is sacred argument is an insult to reality, no respect for that argument here.
I don't believe that anything is sacred.
I don't believe that it is my purpose to stop mother's from killing their unborn.
I do however, recognise that their unborn are living human beings with a unique set of DNA and thus the potential for a unique personality. I do sympathise for people whom consider abortion akin to murder. I understand why they would think that.

With regards to the abortion argument, I am more concerned with the premise that a person's moral belief system or belief in sacredness justifies using force to control people.
I don't believe that there is any objective way to resolve arguments pertaining to moral beliefs. I consider allowing a government to make laws based on morality is akin to giving them a blank cheque, allowing them to oppress whoever they like because they can simply claim that those people are acting immorally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
10-11-2013, 10:36 PM
RE: Q&A with The_Thinking_Theist
(10-11-2013 10:20 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Based on those definitions there, am I the only one who continues to see nothing 'sacred' that I know of in the universe?

Nowhere near the only one. Wink

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: