The Problem With Humans And Religion

[Stone]

I find it funny that tm had absolutely nothing to add to this thread, ...................

keep going... this is quite entertaining indeed

Must be catching.

 

[Tim]

 

[Tim]

While I am Agnostic, I do not believe in God, only because there is not enough evidence to believe in anything specific.....

However, I want there to be an afterlife, plus or minus God, either way is fine. But the key word is "want", not "believe". Why do I want this? Because the continuation of consciousness is a very desirable thing. It gives purpose to life and hope for a coherent future, the epitome of a happy ending, or continuation if you prefer.....

Bullshit, it does no such thing.

 

[The Man]

Trying to use science as an argument now Tim?
But yet you deny it in your abortion arguments.

One thing for sure...when you step up to the keyboard the odds are against you...thats science at work Tim.

 

[The Man]

Bullshit, it does no such thing.

Sounds like an abortion argument TBO

 

[Tim]

Trying to use science as an argument now Tim?
But yet you deny it in your abortion arguments.

I also use science to support my stance on abortion.

 

[Stone]

Upon doing a search on C0ncordance, I find him deeply involved in support of evolutionary science and critical of creation science.
He appears extremely well read in evolutionary science and his point in this youtube vid an intellectual discussion and exposing of flawed fundamentalist creationist theories:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0MHAO4JE0G0#t=589s

Not all Christians are fundamentalists nor am I.
Fundamentalism ignores much of reality in order to conform to the rigidity of it's literal interpretations of the Bible.
When reality conflicts with supernatural explanations, I also view science as the correct means of describing the issue.
So your efforts above are wasted on me.

This personality, C0nc0rdance, seems to be addressing reality and promoting science as a study of it while being an atheist, you on the other hand appear to promote atheism by by using science as a wedge against religion.
Big difference in intellectual honesty.

Here is another vid with his views on atheism......notice that at no time does he argue for attacking those that hold religious views

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebJxSl38oGs


So while you make 'dick sucking ' comments....notice how C0nc0rdance takes a much different approach.

 

[Stone]

Bullshit, it does no such thing.

Looks like it would be fair to say you are hopeless .....

 

[The Man]

I also use science to support my stance on abortion.

Life begins at conception...that is a scientific fact tim
Do you have some "new" science that others are not aware of.

 

[Tim]

Life begins at conception...that is a scientific fact tim
Do you have some "new" science that others are not aware of.

According to your beliefs... and no it isn't scientific fact.

All cells are living. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive and so is a fertilized egg. What makes any of these different from the other?
All of the information needed to create a human life is contained in every cell of your body. Is it murder to exfoliate?

Just because a clump of cells has the potential to become a human, does not mean it is a human life.

 

[Stone]

..................................

All cells are living. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive and so is a fertilized egg. What makes any of these different from the other?
All of the information needed to create a human life is contained in every cell of your body. Is it murder to exfoliate?

Just because a clump of cells has the potential to become a human, does not mean it is a human life.

I'm just not comfortable with your scientific explanations.......LOL!

What makes any of these different from the other?

The ability to perform cell differentiation on it's own.( edit: accountable has an important point below...mitosis...and that occurs before cell differentiation can create a unique life form...good catch)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_differentiation

Is it murder to exfoliate?

And you call people that disagree with you 'stupid' and 'fools'.....(sigh!)

Just because a clump of cells has the potential to become a human, does not mean it is a human life.

Actually, it does......the difference is that clump as you call it, hasn't become a functional being....ie. not yet a human being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate

That clump is both life and of human origin.
Thus correctly identified as human life.

 

[Stone]

I also use science to support my stance on abortion.

Starting to sound scary.

 

[The Man]

According to your beliefs... and no it isn't scientific fact.

All cells are living. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive and so is a fertilized egg. What makes any of these different from the other?
All of the information needed to create a human life is contained in every cell of your body. Is it murder to exfoliate?

Just because a clump of cells has the potential to become a human, does not mean it is a human life.

It has nothing to do with my beliefs...its a scientific fact.
Your "clump of cells" has no base for an argument Tim.
You see tim YOU ARE A CLUMP OF CELLS.
You know that very thing you claim isnt life.


So Tim perhaps there is a "super natural after all"{I couldnt pass that up} ...or you are life..take your pick.

So tim ....please explain to me when life begins again will you

 

[The Man]

Starting to sound scary.

I asked about this "new science" and didn't receive a response from him.
IMO it is selfish to hide such discoveries from the public.

 

[Accountable]

All cells are living. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive and so is a fertilized egg. What makes any of these different from the other?

Mitosis

 

[Minor Axis]

Sounds like defeat MA.

It depends on what shallow level you want to operate on. To you, it would. If it's all about who can come up with the most wise cracks, with the heaviest doses of ridicule, while consistently placing words in other debater's mouths, Stone wins. Is that what you admire? I'm not in this to win the wisecrack contest. Don't take points from me cause I'm smart enough to realize when a conversation becomes a waste of time. Everyone in this forum decides that. And don't try to turn this into a fact based debate that can be won by citing facts, lol.

Bullshit, it does no such thing.

As your graphic says, you have the freedom to decide that, as we all do. And I don't feel compelled to call your views BS.

It has nothing to do with my beliefs...its a scientific fact.
Your "clump of cells" has no base for an argument Tim.
You see tim YOU ARE A CLUMP OF CELLS.
You know that very thing you claim isnt life.


So Tim perhaps there is a "super natural after all"{I couldnt pass that up} ...or you are life..take your pick.

So tim ....please explain to me when life begins again will you

Tim is right, all cells are alive. If you are trying to say the start of development of a human being begins at conception, then you are right. There is no argument about this on any level, social or scientific. The argument has to do with legal rights, the fact that while a developing fetus has the potential to become a viable human being, it is not yet achieved that threshold, and when that status should be awarded. From a historical legal perspective, clumps of cells with the potential of turning into humans have had no rights under the law, because they 1) they are not viable on their own and 2) they exist in the belly of a female who has her own rights that supersede the fetus's rights. Of course society decides that.

After a certain level of development, that fetus does have the right not to be aborted as long as it does not jeopardize the mother's life. As a group of religious conservatives want to do, awarding full protection under the law to a non-viable fetus is a monumental mistake, which steps upon the rights of the mother.

If religious conservatives are dead set on making sure every fetus has a chance to be born, they should also be willing to help those children born into undesirable circumstances continue to have a chance through publicly funded assistance. How ironic their intense concern and morality switches off after the infant's birth...

Now if you want to debate when a clump of cells receives a soul, you first.

 

[Stone]

It depends on what shallow level you want to operate on. To you, it would. If it's all about who can come up with the most wise cracks, with the heaviest doses of ridicule, Stone wins. Is that what you admire? I'm not in this to win the wisecrack contest. Don't take points from me cause I'm smart enough to realize when a conversation becomes a waste of time. Everyone in this forum decides that.



As your graphic says, you have the freedom to decide that, as we all do. And I don't feel compelled to call your views BS.

It depends on what shallow level you want to operate on.

Mine may be humor....but yours is obviously sophistry.

If it's all about who can come up with the most wise cracks, with the heaviest doses of ridicule, Stone wins.

Sour grapes

I'm not in this to win the wisecrack contest.

Turning over a new leaf because you aren't good enough at it, eh?...

Don't take points from me cause I'm smart enough to realize when a conversation becomes a waste of time.

Sounds like rationalization of being a loser.....imo....you'd get more respect by taking your losses bravely rather than all the constant wimpy whining about it.

As your graphic says, you have the freedom to decide that, as we all do. And I don't feel compelled to call your views BS.

Not only is that comment hypocrisy...your comments directed at me in the distant past .....you don't seem to realize the atheist has been making fun of you.
Sometimes arguing as an atheist, sometimes as an agnostic and then promoting your own self made religious beliefs called an 'Earth Simulator Spirit world' simply does not generate much credibility. You've been debating out of convenience of the situation at hand. But all you accomplish is winding up looking 'two faced'. ..imho.....of course....

 

[Stone]

...........................



Tim is right, all cells are alive. If you are trying to say the start of development of a human being begins at conception, then you are right. There is no argument about this on any level, social or scientific. The argument has to do with legal rights, the fact that while a developing fetus has the potential to become a viable human being, it is not yet achieved that threshold, and when that status should be awarded. From a historical legal perspective, clumps of cells with the potential of turning into humans have had no rights under the law, because they 1) they are not viable on their own and 2) they exist in the belly of a female who has her own rights that supersede the fetus's rights. Of course society decides that.

After a certain level of development, that fetus does have the right not to be aborted as long as it does not jeopardize the mother's life. As a group of religious conservatives want to do, awarding full protection under the law to a non-viable fetus is a monumental mistake, which steps upon the rights of the mother.

If religious conservatives are dead set on making sure every fetus has a chance to be born, they should also be willing to help those children born into undesirable circumstances continue to have a chance through publicly funded assistance. How ironic their intense concern and morality switches off after the infant's birth...

Now if you want to debate when a clump of cells receives a soul, you first.

Tim is right, all cells are alive.

non sequitur......the issue was the distinction between cells.

You seemed to be presenting a reasonable discussion till you came to this comment:

As a group of religious conservatives want to do, awarding full protection under the law to a non-viable fetus is a monumental mistake, which steps upon the rights of the mother.

While it's obvious that is what is occurring in certain political and religious circles.......you've been ignoring the moral issues of using abortion as a means of birth control after human life comes into existence.
The question becomes.....should laws reflect morality for the benefit of and health of a society......or be a convenience in disposing of the responsibilities of having started a new human life?
Tim infers an absolute scientific approach is necessary.....science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
can obviously be used in determining solutions....but it's not intended for making moral decisions. Science is the study of our physical reality, morality a values/ethics oriented concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

If religious conservatives are dead set on making sure every fetus has a chance to be born, they should also be willing to help those children born into undesirable circumstances continue to have a chance through publicly funded assistance.

Agreed.....and this is the major flaw in conservative/fundamentalist thinking on abortion.
They aren't so much pro life as they are pro birth.

If they were 'for life' it would include consideration of the fetuses future as a human being, but they fail.....and this too is a moral and ethical issue.

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Johnfromokc]

:24: