| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Apr 2005 04:43:20 PM |
| Object: |
ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
ABORTION, and WHEN Human Life BEGINS
The debate about the abortion issue really boils down to
a question of WHEN human life begins. Many "pro-lifers" are
fundamentalist Christians but are unable to quote any clear
statements from their Bible indicating that human life begins
at conception. [And most of them, especially the Catholics,
are also against artificial birth control, which would
PREVENT the unwanted pregnancies to begin with! ] They are
apparently either ignorant of, or ignoring, GENESIS 2:7 KJV,
which states: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the BREATH OF LIFE,
and man became a living Soul.".
This Biblical statement indicates that human life begins
(Soul enters its new body) WHEN THE BODY TAKES ITS FIRST
BREATH OF AIR OUT-side THE WOMB. Therefore, if an aborted
fetus's lungs are too undeveloped to breathe, or if an older
fetus is biologically terminated IN-side the womb, then that
abortion can NOT be called "murder", because NO Soul was
present in the fetus.
A fetus is like a laptop computer with a working battery
but NO-one to operate it.
Another thing to consider is that each of us is
surrounded by a protective energy field usually called an
"AURA", as described in MANY books related to psychic
phenomena. A few people, including psychic futurist Gordon-
Michael Scallion, and the late "Sleeping Prophet" Edgar
Cayce, can actually SEE colored AURAs around people. The
Canadian scientist Frances Nixon developed a way to locate
the boundaries of a person's AURA.
One of the AURA's main purposes is to shield out
discarnate entities from a person's body. If an AURA becomes
weak, because of illness, injury, mind-altering drugs,
alcohol, etc., discarnate entities can sometimes invade and
cause insanity, possession, multiple personalities, etc..
THE AURA OF A HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN WOULD LIKEWISE
PREVENT A SOUL FROM ENTERING THE FETUS INSIDE HER.
A Soul that is seeking to REincarnate into this world
KNOWS if Its intended fetus is likely to be aborted before
birth or terminated immediately after birth, and will simply
STAY OUT OF IT.
The purpose of laws in a free country like the United
States should be to protect INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, and prevent
it from being violated by others, NOT to stifle it in the
name of power, control, exploitation, ORTHODOX RELIGION, or
the money-god. Any man-made law which fails that test is
automatically and immediately UN-Constitutional, null and
void.
The INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM of a pregnant woman to control
her own body must likewise be protected.
If the "pro-lifers" would show as much concern for ALL
People AFTER birth as they do for fetus's before birth, the
world could rapidly become a decent place to live in.
Robert E. McElwaine
Eckankar Initiate
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
P.S.: LIKE THE TALIBAN, fundamentalist Christians want to
create and MIS-use man-made laws to IMPOSE their self-
righteous religious values against the rest of us.
P.S.2: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS stranger than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
11 Apr 2005 07:41:18 PM |
|
|
In article <qnul519cddpcl8m7d1npl72ec98edd8bm0@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:47:23 +0100, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Mephisto
<mephisto@go.away> spake thusly:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:05:41 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Not so. You are unable to explain morality in terms of chemical
reactions because you know little or nothing about evolutionary
biology.
Yes so. And I know quite a bit about evolutionary
biology. You assume way too much about people, because
they are Christians and especially when they're
pastors.
Pastor Dave manages not to know any of the relevant things about
evolutionary biology as far as these discussions go.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 10:28:12 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:33:05 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:47:23 +0100, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Mephisto
<mephisto@go.away> spake thusly:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:05:41 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Not so. You are unable to explain morality in terms of chemical
reactions because you know little or nothing about evolutionary
biology.
Yes so. And I know quite a bit about evolutionary
biology. You assume way too much about people, because
they are Christians and especially when they're
pastors.
I made no assumptions at all. You made it very clear that you know
very little about evolutionary biology when you said that morality
could not be explained in terms of chemical reactions. I'd have
concluded the same if an atheist made that statement. Ignorance is
ignorance to me. You do seem to have a stereotypical Christian
persecution complex, though.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "*G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 12:45:36 PM |
|
|
Mephisto wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:33:05 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:47:23 +0100, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Mephisto
<mephisto@go.away> spake thusly:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:05:41 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Not so. You are unable to explain morality in terms of chemical
reactions because you know little or nothing about evolutionary
biology.
Yes so. And I know quite a bit about evolutionary
biology. You assume way too much about people, because
they are Christians and especially when they're
pastors.
I made no assumptions at all. You made it very clear that you know
very little about evolutionary biology when you said that morality
could not be explained in terms of chemical reactions. I'd have
concluded the same if an atheist made that statement. Ignorance is
ignorance to me. You do seem to have a stereotypical Christian
persecution complex, though.
Mephisto
Thus Spake God's Creator; (I don't forgive *****!)
*Stereotypical Christian Persecution Complex* = *Stupid*.
Against stupidity the very gods
themselves, contend in vain...
-- Friedrich von Schiller (1759-1805) --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GOD'S CREATOR
...That was my only sin...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 01:51:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:28:12 +0100, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Mephisto
<mephisto@go.away> spake thusly:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:33:05 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:47:23 +0100, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Mephisto
<mephisto@go.away> spake thusly:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:05:41 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Not so. You are unable to explain morality in terms of chemical
reactions because you know little or nothing about evolutionary
biology.
Yes so. And I know quite a bit about evolutionary
biology. You assume way too much about people, because
they are Christians and especially when they're
pastors.
I made no assumptions at all. You made it very clear that you know
very little about evolutionary biology when you said that morality
could not be explained in terms of chemical reactions.
It can't. You pretend all you want.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 10:07:07 PM |
|
|
In article <i26o51hjpagc7uoshsscreohpv57jo69nl@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
I made no assumptions at all. You made it very clear that you know
very little about evolutionary biology when you said that morality
could not be explained in terms of chemical reactions.
It can't. You pretend all you want.
Another of IDiot Dave's wild claims presented, as usual, without
anything even resembling evidence.
So who is pretending?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 10:56:37 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:51:03 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:28:12 +0100, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Mephisto
<mephisto@go.away> spake thusly:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:33:05 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:47:23 +0100, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Mephisto
<mephisto@go.away> spake thusly:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:05:41 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Not so. You are unable to explain morality in terms of chemical
reactions because you know little or nothing about evolutionary
biology.
Yes so. And I know quite a bit about evolutionary
biology. You assume way too much about people, because
they are Christians and especially when they're
pastors.
I made no assumptions at all. You made it very clear that you know
very little about evolutionary biology when you said that morality
could not be explained in terms of chemical reactions.
It can't. You pretend all you want.
I don't need to pretend. I can rely on the facts. That's what's so
great about being an atheist - I don't have to stick doggedly to an
ancient myth regardless of the wealth of evidence that scientists have
uncovered to disprove it. My view of the world can change as new facts
are uncovered. Yours can not - you have voluntarily shackled your mind
and are just the same as those who insisted that the Earth was the
centre of the universe.
Again, if you knew anything about evolutionary biology you would
understand how morality evolved. As it is, you clearly prefer to live
your life in ignorance. Fine. Not my problem.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
11 Apr 2005 07:12:23 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
Now, do you have some objective evidence of this soul thing? And not
the one on the bottom of your foot or shoe.
Self awareness is the result of electro-chemical actions in a 3-4 lbs.
chunk of matter, encased in your skull. When those actions stop, the
end, game over, bye-bye. You're done. No soul, no after life, no self
awareness. Oblivion.
Get over it Dave, you can't backup your claim.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
11 Apr 2005 07:18:03 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
11 Apr 2005 03:23:07 PM |
|
|
In article <mmqk51tn66l85831p44tg4hsncud5kebib@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
Evolution is just about chemical reactions. It also has to do with what
sorts of behavior are "good" or "bad" for a species or an individual in
terms of survival and procreation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
11 Apr 2005 04:39:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:23:07 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-9426DD.14230711042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
wrote:
In article <mmqk51tn66l85831p44tg4hsncud5kebib@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
Evolution is just about chemical reactions. It also has to do with what
sorts of behavior are "good" or "bad" for a species or an individual in
terms of survival and procreation.
Evolution is an unreasoning statistical process which
represents no more than the blind conservation of accidental
life forms capable of surviving within their environment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
11 Apr 2005 05:14:37 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:23:07 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-9426DD.14230711042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
wrote:
In article <mmqk51tn66l85831p44tg4hsncud5kebib@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
Evolution is just about chemical reactions. It also has to do with what
sorts of behavior are "good" or "bad" for a species or an individual in
terms of survival and procreation.
Evolution is an unreasoning statistical process which
represents no more than the blind conservation of accidental
life forms capable of surviving within their environment.
Thus Spake God's Creator; (I don't forgive *****!)
So true!
*All* life-Forms are simply another form of *SEEDS*.
that continues to evolve... seemingly infinitely.
GOD'S CREATOR
...That was my only sin...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wise men face unknowns, and boldly looks for reality!
Others... fall on their hands and knees, and start mumbling...
Current Religious News:
http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/Full_Coverage/World/Religion_News/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
11 Apr 2005 03:26:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:18:03 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in alt.abortion with
message-id <mmqk51tn66l85831p44tg4hsncud5kebib@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
The term 'morality' has no meaning unless two or more people are
involved because it involves the interplay between two or more people
and thus is a cultural item and does not exist outside of a cultural
environment.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
11 Apr 2005 06:42:12 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from rules,
to law.
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 01:30:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:42:12 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from rules,
to law.
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 03:12:03 PM |
|
|
In article <nq4o51pjtme5jn9n4plnob2nif276675jf@4ax.com> Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:42:12 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from rules,
to law.
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
I think the point is actually that we have so little crime.
Not a day goes by when I would not gain something by
murdering or stealing, but I have never done either.
A hundred people a day walk by my office door -- if
we had no moral inclinations, my office would be bare
in hours.
And yet this inbuilt proclivity for morality declines directly
as does the distance from the people involved. Your
neighbors won't steal your car, but you wouldn't
leave it long in a strange neighborhood. You'd
have far more problems defending yourself with
lethal means against your son than you would
your neighbor, and be more inhibited against shooting
your neighbor than you would a total stranger.
All of this is predicted by evolutionary psychology, just
as it is predicted for the other social animals. Chimpanzees
will not kill their own for the most part, but will kill
a strange chimp in a heartbeat. Bees cooperate with
their own, but will instntly mob a strange bee (killing it
by overheating). Lions rarely kill within their own
pride -- the famous exception being a new alpha male,
who will try to kill all the cubs not his own. This
is also consistent with the mathematical predicstions
of evolutionary psychology -- and in line with the
findings of a recently-concluded twenty-year study
which showed that among humans, step parents are
roughly 100 times as likely to abuse or kill stepchildren
as the natural parents are.
It's no mystery that all cultures have prohibitions against
killing (most) of the in-group -- and also that many have few or none
against killing members outside the group. It's the way
we're wired.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 05:19:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:12:03 +0000 (UTC), while Pastor
Dave was preaching from the housetops,
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) spake thusly:
In article <nq4o51pjtme5jn9n4plnob2nif276675jf@4ax.com> Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:42:12 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from rules,
to law.
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
I think the point is actually that we have so little crime.
Really? Is that why crime rates go up more than they
go down?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 09:35:11 PM |
|
|
In article <48io5155jk3l6o8i0c3gba3satv82olo43@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
I think the point is actually that we have so little crime.
Really? Is that why crime rates go up more than they
go down?
They don't. Get your facts straight!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 10:03:53 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-9F05DE.20351112042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <48io5155jk3l6o8i0c3gba3satv82olo43@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
I think the point is actually that we have so little crime.
Really? Is that why crime rates go up more than they
go down?
They don't. Get your facts straight!
Crime rates drop after a law is struck down.
You don't know how to manufacture statistics yet?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 04:51:45 PM |
|
|
In article <nq4o51pjtme5jn9n4plnob2nif276675jf@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
We just haven't evolved it far enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eraser" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
12 Apr 2005 04:59:03 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-D97AED.15514512042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <nq4o51pjtme5jn9n4plnob2nif276675jf@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
We just haven't evolved it far enough.
It thus follows that at this point in time we are more moral than we have
ever been in history. Do you believe this to be the case?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 09:43:32 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:42:12 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from rules,
to law.
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
That would be the "Loaded Question" fallacy, Davey... But you probably
already knew that, since you're big on logic and such.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 08:15:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:43:32 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:42:12 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from rules,
to law.
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
That would be the "Loaded Question" fallacy, Davey... But you probably
already knew that, since you're big on logic and such.
That would be the question that you cannot answer, that
demonstrates my point.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 08:46:00 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:43:32 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:42:12 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from rules,
to law.
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes, because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
That would be the "Loaded Question" fallacy, Davey... But you probably
already knew that, since you're big on logic and such.
That would be the question that you cannot answer, that
demonstrates my point.
I sometimes wonder how you learned to tie your shoes, Dave.
Your first question was Loaded (fallacy #1) thus did not need to be
addressed until it had been reformated into a non-loaded form. Until you
do that, everythign else you say, like the above, is based on a flawed
premice and thus, is not a sound argument.
Go back and fix mistake #1, then we'll go from there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 11:51:16 AM |
|
|
AntiSocial wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:43:32 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:42:12 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go
WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for
community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that
while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt
them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of
survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your
chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words
evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from
rules,
to law.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied
up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
That would be the "Loaded Question" fallacy, Davey... But you
probably
already knew that, since you're big on logic and such.
That would be the question that you cannot answer, that
demonstrates my point.
I sometimes wonder how you learned to tie your shoes, Dave.
Your first question was Loaded (fallacy #1) thus did not need to be
addressed until it had been reformated into a non-loaded form. Until
you
do that, everythign else you say, like the above, is based on a
flawed
premice and thus, is not a sound argument.
Go back and fix mistake #1, then we'll go from there.
I think I will have to challange your basic premis as stated in:
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes,
because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
How did they learn that it would better their chances of survival
since they saw in their environment an overwhelming number of examples
of survival of the species that had no moral codes? If anything, the
only conclusion they could have drawn from the world is that a moral
code has little or nothing to do with survival. The only other option
you have is saying that it was learned by trial and error, but that is
a very slow learning technique that could well result in extinction
before the knowledge is sufficiently acquired. Therefore, your premis
has some serious problems.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 03:58:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:43:32 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:42:12 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:12:23 -0700, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@qwest.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:08:12 GMT, while wishing I would
go away, AntiSocial <pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com>
said:
Um, 'scuse me, but how exactly does the concept of a soul go
WITH all
science and logic?
Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul.
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for
community.
Souls, not required.
"Evolved"? How? Chemical reactions don't explain the
existence of morality.
You can't be serious.
Okay, simple explanation for you.
Humans, a long time ago, before words were written, learned that
while
living in a community, that if you stole from someone, you hurt
them,
and they intern, would tell the community what you did, and you'd
probably get kicked out. With out the community, your odds of
survival
were very slim.
Therefor, humans learned, through the evolutionary process, that
behaving well, meant you got to stay in the community, and your
chances
of survival increased. As time went on, and written words
evolved,
humans wrote down these simple rules. And changed the name, from
rules,
to law.
It's a very simple concept. One that does not need to be muddied
up by
the mythical and the foolish.
So they learned all of this? Is that why we have so
much crime? Because we "evolved" morality?
That would be the "Loaded Question" fallacy, Davey... But you
probably
already knew that, since you're big on logic and such.
That would be the question that you cannot answer, that
demonstrates my point.
I sometimes wonder how you learned to tie your shoes, Dave.
Your first question was Loaded (fallacy #1) thus did not need to be
addressed until it had been reformated into a non-loaded form. Until
you
do that, everythign else you say, like the above, is based on a
flawed
premice and thus, is not a sound argument.
Go back and fix mistake #1, then we'll go from there.
I think I will have to challange your basic premis as stated in:
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes,
because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
How did they learn that it would better their chances of survival
since they saw in their environment an overwhelming number of examples
of survival of the species that had no moral codes? If anything, the
only conclusion they could have drawn from the world is that a moral
code has little or nothing to do with survival. The only other option
you have is saying that it was learned by trial and error, but that is
a very slow learning technique that could well result in extinction
before the knowledge is sufficiently acquired. Therefore, your premis
has some serious problems.
Sorry, but that was not my premise, that was someone else.
But if you'd like to actually discuss evolved morality, let me know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 08:39:40 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:58:06 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
See, no soul needed. Humans learned,
and followed moral codes, because it
meant a better chance for the species to survive.
How did they learn that it would better their chances of survival
since they saw in their environment an overwhelming number of examples
of survival of the species that had no moral codes? If anything, the
only conclusion they could have drawn from the world is that a moral
code has little or nothing to do with survival. The only other option
you have is saying that it was learned by trial and error, but that is
a very slow learning technique that could well result in extinction
before the knowledge is sufficiently acquired. Therefore, your premis
has some serious problems.
Sorry, but that was not my premise, that was someone else.
But if you'd like to actually discuss evolved morality, let me know.
In other words, "If you'd like to assume that I'm right
before beginning, then please continue.".
--
Antoagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 03:22:13 PM |
|
|
Antagonist for God wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:58:06 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
See, no soul needed. Humans learned,
and followed moral codes, because it
meant a better chance for the species to survive.
How did they learn that it would better their chances of survival
since they saw in their environment an overwhelming number of examples
of survival of the species that had no moral codes? If anything, the
only conclusion they could have drawn from the world is that a moral
code has little or nothing to do with survival. The only other option
you have is saying that it was learned by trial and error, but that is
a very slow learning technique that could well result in extinction
before the knowledge is sufficiently acquired. Therefore, your premis
has some serious problems.
Sorry, but that was not my premise, that was someone else.
But if you'd like to actually discuss evolved morality, let me know.
In other words, "If you'd like to assume that I'm right
before beginning, then please continue.".
Aww, not even an apology for mistaking me for someone else? I at least
said "My bad"
It's amazing how you seem to believe you know what other people are
saying and thinking when you seem to be deficient in both.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 03:23:54 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:22:13 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Aww, not even an apology for mistaking me for someone else? I at least
said "My bad"
My apologies.
--
Antoagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 12:29:19 PM |
|
|
On 15 Apr 2005 09:51:16 -0700, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, spake
thusly:
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes,
because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
How did they learn that it would better their chances of survival
since they saw in their environment an overwhelming number of examples
of survival of the species that had no moral codes? If anything, the
only conclusion they could have drawn from the world is that a moral
code has little or nothing to do with survival. The only other option
you have is saying that it was learned by trial and error, but that is
a very slow learning technique that could well result in extinction
before the knowledge is sufficiently acquired. Therefore, your premis
has some serious problems.
You had more patience with him than I did. I figured
he was too stupid to get that. :)
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 04:00:01 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 15 Apr 2005 09:51:16 -0700, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, spake
thusly:
See, no soul needed. Humans learned, and followed moral codes,
because
it meant a better chance for the species to survive.
How did they learn that it would better their chances of survival
since they saw in their environment an overwhelming number of examples
of survival of the species that had no moral codes? If anything, the
only conclusion they could have drawn from the world is that a moral
code has little or nothing to do with survival. The only other option
you have is saying that it was learned by trial and error, but that is
a very slow learning technique that could well result in extinction
before the knowledge is sufficiently acquired. Therefore, your premis
has some serious problems.
You had more patience with him than I did. I figured
he was too stupid to get that. :)
Saying someone is "too stupid" Dave?
*clicks teeth* How very loving and Christian of you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
