| 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
15 Apr 2005 09:48:38 AM |
|
|
AntiSocial wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:22:46 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
I suggest you bone up on your Bio-ethics, Davey - they do a
perfectly
good job. Hell, even Darwin touched on the subject of evolutionary
morality (which was then taken out-of-context and uses as the basis
for
social Darwinism, but that's another matter).
So you try to rationalize that which cannot be
demonstrated chemically and then claim that this means
that it is chemical.
Uh, wow... Looks like someone was out in left field this morning.
Either
that, or you have no idea what the field of Bio-Ethics researches.
You seem to be forgetting that we've already begun to break-down the
chemical reactions that inspire basic emotions and behavior (We all
know
why chocolate is so good)
In terms of our actual morality, is greed, or the lack there of, an
aspect of morality? It is? Good, because we've sequenced out where it
probably resides in our genetic code. Haven't read anything by
Dawkins,
have ya? Though greed is of course the easiest since it plays into
natural selection.
So short answer since I'm pretty sure you'll ignore everything
important
- Morality can be seen in chemical reactions and even in genetics.
That is like saying you can see what my thoughts are by seeing the
chemical reactions in my brain. Silly wabit.... ;) Please stop
misleading the uninformed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 03:55:51 AM |
|
|
wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:22:46 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
I suggest you bone up on your Bio-ethics, Davey - they do a
perfectly
good job. Hell, even Darwin touched on the subject of evolutionary
morality (which was then taken out-of-context and uses as the basis
for
social Darwinism, but that's another matter).
So you try to rationalize that which cannot be
demonstrated chemically and then claim that this means
that it is chemical.
Uh, wow... Looks like someone was out in left field this morning.
Either
that, or you have no idea what the field of Bio-Ethics researches.
You seem to be forgetting that we've already begun to break-down the
chemical reactions that inspire basic emotions and behavior (We all
know
why chocolate is so good)
In terms of our actual morality, is greed, or the lack there of, an
aspect of morality? It is? Good, because we've sequenced out where it
probably resides in our genetic code. Haven't read anything by
Dawkins,
have ya? Though greed is of course the easiest since it plays into
natural selection.
So short answer since I'm pretty sure you'll ignore everything
important
- Morality can be seen in chemical reactions and even in genetics.
That is like saying you can see what my thoughts are by seeing the
chemical reactions in my brain. Silly wabit.... ;) Please stop
misleading the uninformed.
You're forgetting that I can see if you're a) angry, b) fearful, c)
calm, d) happy, e) etc. just in brain chemistry. Can I see that you're
thinking "Little Jonny makes me so mad because X."? No, not yet. But
then, we've been reading neuro-chemical reactions for how long? We've
also been able to devise drugs to target certain emotions while ignoring
others (my father is on Paxil - you think chemicals can't affect
morality and emotions, you live with him when he's off it)
Though if you want scary proof of how close are to seeing thoughts on a
computer screen, http://engadget.com/entry/1234000473032302/ Today
monkeys, tomorrow your brain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 12:19:11 PM |
|
|
AntiSocial wrote:
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:22:46 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
I suggest you bone up on your Bio-ethics, Davey - they do a
perfectly
good job. Hell, even Darwin touched on the subject of
evolutionary
morality (which was then taken out-of-context and uses as the
basis
for
social Darwinism, but that's another matter).
So you try to rationalize that which cannot be
demonstrated chemically and then claim that this means
that it is chemical.
Uh, wow... Looks like someone was out in left field this morning.
Either
that, or you have no idea what the field of Bio-Ethics researches.
You seem to be forgetting that we've already begun to break-down
the
chemical reactions that inspire basic emotions and behavior (We all
know
why chocolate is so good)
In terms of our actual morality, is greed, or the lack there of, an
aspect of morality? It is? Good, because we've sequenced out where
it
probably resides in our genetic code. Haven't read anything by
Dawkins,
have ya? Though greed is of course the easiest since it plays into
natural selection.
So short answer since I'm pretty sure you'll ignore everything
important
- Morality can be seen in chemical reactions and even in genetics.
That is like saying you can see what my thoughts are by seeing the
chemical reactions in my brain. Silly wabit.... ;) Please stop
misleading the uninformed.
You're forgetting that I can see if you're a) angry, b) fearful, c)
calm, d) happy, e) etc. just in brain chemistry.
You aren't trying to be funny...are you? I don't need chemistry to be
able to tell if someone is those things and neither do you.
Can I see that you're
thinking "Little Jonny makes me so mad because X."? No, not yet.
Right you are.
But
then, we've been reading neuro-chemical reactions for how long?
Well, we might as well keep working on it since the job is nowhere near
finished.
We've
also been able to devise drugs to target certain emotions while
ignoring
others (my father is on Paxil - you think chemicals can't affect
morality and emotions, you live with him when he's off it)
Heck, there is a whole ton of things that effect morality and emotions
and they don't have to be chemicals either. As to the wonders of modern
medicine...well, aren't more and more of them being pulled off the
shelfs..pain medication being some of them...mainly because things
weren't quite as simple as scientists, with all their book
miseducation, believed they were. It seems that they should have
focused less on the unprovable theories and more on how best to
evaluate effectivness and safety of the products they were producing in
their labs.
Though if you want scary proof of how close are to seeing thoughts on
a
computer screen, http://engadget.com/entry/1234000473032302/ Today
monkeys, tomorrow your brain.
Oh...come on...give me a break. There is an enormous jump between
being able to detect and respond to impulses in the arm and actually
reading thoughts. I guess this must be just another of those "this is
simple so we will just put it on the shelf and sell it" products that
will ultimately result in "oh my gosh, things aren't as simple as we
thought" retraction that has been plastering the newspapers all over
the country. Just as they lept to the same kind of conclusion that you
illustrate above about the passing of bad genes in the plants that has
gone uncontested for a century and a half and now suddenly, we find
that the plant world is capable of correcting the genetic code that it
was passed down from parent plants.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050401/SPNEWS01/50401150
This is just another retraction for jumping into a baseless conclusion.
Can't you see why we all view all these claims with scepticism. With a
track record of jumping into wild conclusions and then being forced
into retractions or even never hearing about the subject again, we are
bound to be a bit sceptical about some wild claim that an overly
exhuberant scientist makes about what we will be able to do. It is time
that science should start behaving more responsibly and first make
absolotely sure that they have all the facts straight before they jump
off the deep end making all kinds of wild and unsubstantiated claims.
The important concept there, if you missed it, is "responsible science."
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 03:43:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
wrote:
AntiSocial wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:22:46 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
I suggest you bone up on your Bio-ethics, Davey - they do a
perfectly
good job. Hell, even Darwin touched on the subject of
evolutionary
morality (which was then taken out-of-context and uses as the
basis
for
social Darwinism, but that's another matter).
So you try to rationalize that which cannot be
demonstrated chemically and then claim that this means
that it is chemical.
Uh, wow... Looks like someone was out in left field this morning.
Either
that, or you have no idea what the field of Bio-Ethics researches.
You seem to be forgetting that we've already begun to break-down
the
chemical reactions that inspire basic emotions and behavior (We all
know
why chocolate is so good)
In terms of our actual morality, is greed, or the lack there of, an
aspect of morality? It is? Good, because we've sequenced out where
it
probably resides in our genetic code. Haven't read anything by
Dawkins,
have ya? Though greed is of course the easiest since it plays into
natural selection.
So short answer since I'm pretty sure you'll ignore everything
important
- Morality can be seen in chemical reactions and even in genetics.
That is like saying you can see what my thoughts are by seeing the
chemical reactions in my brain. Silly wabit.... ;) Please stop
misleading the uninformed.
You're forgetting that I can see if you're a) angry, b) fearful, c)
calm, d) happy, e) etc. just in brain chemistry.
You aren't trying to be funny...are you? I don't need chemistry to be
able to tell if someone is those things and neither do you.
If we're looking at the person, then no. Though the last time I tried to
examine someone's frontal lobe, they got a little upset about the
procedure.
Can I see that you're
thinking "Little Jonny makes me so mad because X."? No, not yet.
Right you are.
But
then, we've been reading neuro-chemical reactions for how long?
Well, we might as well keep working on it since the job is nowhere near
finished.
Never said that it was.
We've
also been able to devise drugs to target certain emotions while
ignoring
others (my father is on Paxil - you think chemicals can't affect
morality and emotions, you live with him when he's off it)
Heck, there is a whole ton of things that effect morality and emotions
and they don't have to be chemicals either. As to the wonders of modern
medicine...well, aren't more and more of them being pulled off the
shelfs..pain medication being some of them...mainly because things
weren't quite as simple as scientists, with all their book
miseducation, believed they were. It seems that they should have
focused less on the unprovable theories and more on how best to
evaluate effectivness and safety of the products they were producing in
their labs.
Very true, but also a tangent, especially since most of the drugs being
pulled were put on shelves not because of bad science, but because of
bad business practices. Remember the Pinto?
Though if you want scary proof of how close are to seeing thoughts on
a
computer screen, http://engadget.com/entry/1234000473032302/ Today
monkeys, tomorrow your brain.
Oh...come on...give me a break. There is an enormous jump between
being able to detect and respond to impulses in the arm and actually
reading thoughts.
Actually the next step they're trying for is with coma patients, which
would give a great deal of new data if it works (I'm not buying stock yet)
I guess this must be just another of those "this is
simple so we will just put it on the shelf and sell it" products that
will ultimately result in "oh my gosh, things aren't as simple as we
thought" retraction that has been plastering the newspapers all over
the country.
Again, the majority of that was bad business. Many of the drugs being
pulled (Phen Fen coming to mind) had already shown negative effects and
conditions in labs that were supressed by the manufacturers, just like
with cigarettes. If these had been things that "suddenly developed on
their own" there would have been no legal basis for the class-action
suit against the makers.
Just as they lept to the same kind of conclusion that you
illustrate above about the passing of bad genes in the plants that has
gone uncontested for a century and a half and now suddenly, we find
that the plant world is capable of correcting the genetic code that it
was passed down from parent plants.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050401/SPNEWS01/50401150
This is just another retraction for jumping into a baseless conclusion.
Sorta like when everyone believed the world was flat?
Can't you see why we all view all these claims with scepticism.
Currently, I can't even see who "we all" are- I see you.
With a
track record of jumping into wild conclusions and then being forced
into retractions or even never hearing about the subject again, we are
bound to be a bit sceptical about some wild claim that an overly
exhuberant scientist makes about what we will be able to do.
I'd love to see the notes you have for this "track record" of science
making a claim then having to retract it. I don't doubt that it happens
on occasion, but you seem to think it's at around 50/50.
It is time
that science should start behaving more responsibly and first make
absolotely sure that they have all the facts straight before they jump
off the deep end making all kinds of wild and unsubstantiated claims.
The important concept there, if you missed it, is "responsible science."
In case you missed it and just read the title of the article and skimmed
it, nowhere does it say Mendel was wrong. Instead, they're looking to
redefine his work based on information he had no access to i.e. DNA and
RNA. Saying that this is part science's "track record" of having to
retract statements is like saying that determining the co-efficent of
gravity disproved Newton's laws
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 10:25:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:42:38 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:22:46 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
I suggest you bone up on your Bio-ethics, Davey - they do a perfectly
good job. Hell, even Darwin touched on the subject of evolutionary
morality (which was then taken out-of-context and uses as the basis for
social Darwinism, but that's another matter).
So you try to rationalize that which cannot be
demonstrated chemically and then claim that this means
that it is chemical.
Uh, wow... Looks like someone was out in left field this morning. Either
that, or you have no idea what the field of Bio-Ethics researches.
You seem to be forgetting that we've already begun to break-down the
chemical reactions that inspire basic emotions and behavior (We all know
why chocolate is so good)
And that proves that morality evolved? Please!
--
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 |
15 Apr 2005 02:37:38 AM |
|
|
In article <jvcu51de6d6uqt6lm2u6uc8eegevmi2toj@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Morality, like everything else, evolved out of a need for community.
You seem to be forgetting that we've already begun to break-down the
chemical reactions that inspire basic emotions and behavior (We all know
why chocolate is so good)
And that proves that morality evolved? Please!
Do you have a better scientific theory of how morality came into being
(meaning one which can, at least in principle, be falsified)?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 03:13:54 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:42:38 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:22:46 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
I suggest you bone up on your Bio-ethics, Davey - they do a perfectly
good job. Hell, even Darwin touched on the subject of evolutionary
morality (which was then taken out-of-context and uses as the basis for
social Darwinism, but that's another matter).
So you try to rationalize that which cannot be
demonstrated chemically and then claim that this means
that it is chemical.
Uh, wow... Looks like someone was out in left field this morning. Either
that, or you have no idea what the field of Bio-Ethics researches.
You seem to be forgetting that we've already begun to break-down the
chemical reactions that inspire basic emotions and behavior (We all know
why chocolate is so good)
And that proves that morality evolved? Please!
So, is there going to be any point when you're going to actually address
my entire post, or are you going to continue snipping the parts you
can't actually speak to so as to maintain an attempted moral high ground?
You said that morality was not chemical reactions, I showed you to be
wrong. Get back to me when you are going to show something that counters
the fact that science has found keys to our morality in our DNA.
Either present something worthwhile or admit you can not counter what I
have shown. Otherwise, you simply paint yourself as an ignorant
pseudo-intellectual who dodges what he doesn't like and takes what he
can out of context to try and appear correct.
Wow Dave, four years I've been gone and you've not changed one bit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 08:35:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:13:54 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:42:38 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:22:46 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
I suggest you bone up on your Bio-ethics, Davey - they do a perfectly
good job. Hell, even Darwin touched on the subject of evolutionary
morality (which was then taken out-of-context and uses as the basis for
social Darwinism, but that's another matter).
So you try to rationalize that which cannot be
demonstrated chemically and then claim that this means
that it is chemical.
Uh, wow... Looks like someone was out in left field this morning. Either
that, or you have no idea what the field of Bio-Ethics researches.
You seem to be forgetting that we've already begun to break-down the
chemical reactions that inspire basic emotions and behavior (We all know
why chocolate is so good)
And that proves that morality evolved? Please!
So, is there going to be any point when you're going to actually address
my entire post,
No. There is no reason to. You are not providing
scientific evidence that morality evolved. And lacking
that, you have no basis for saying that's what
happened. You continue to make a scientific claim.
Yet you cannot back it up scientifically and your
little, "M + S" argument doesn't impress me.
--
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 03:14:22 PM |
|
|
Antagonist for God wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:13:54 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:42:38 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:22:46 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
I suggest you bone up on your Bio-ethics, Davey - they do a perfectly
good job. Hell, even Darwin touched on the subject of evolutionary
morality (which was then taken out-of-context and uses as the basis for
social Darwinism, but that's another matter).
So you try to rationalize that which cannot be
demonstrated chemically and then claim that this means
that it is chemical.
Uh, wow... Looks like someone was out in left field this morning. Either
that, or you have no idea what the field of Bio-Ethics researches.
You seem to be forgetting that we've already begun to break-down the
chemical reactions that inspire basic emotions and behavior (We all know
why chocolate is so good)
And that proves that morality evolved? Please!
So, is there going to be any point when you're going to actually address
my entire post,
No. There is no reason to. You are not providing
scientific evidence that morality evolved. And lacking
that, you have no basis for saying that's what
happened. You continue to make a scientific claim.
Yet you cannot back it up scientifically and your
little, "M + S" argument doesn't impress me.
If I was making a scientific claim, I'd be more than happy to provide
scientific evidence (Oh wait, I did... and I did, when I referred you to
Dawkins)
As is, I was making an argument in LOGIC, something you claimed to know
something about but have yet to show even a basic grasp of.
It's "M -> S" and that was a truth table, not an argument, dipshit. So
nice that you once again show you have no nidea what the hell you're
talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
17 Apr 2005 03:19:13 PM |
|
|
In article <ysz8e.107$L03.78@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> wrote:
Antagonist for God wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:13:54 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:42:38 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:22:46 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
I suggest you bone up on your Bio-ethics, Davey - they do a perfectly
good job. Hell, even Darwin touched on the subject of evolutionary
morality (which was then taken out-of-context and uses as the basis for
social Darwinism, but that's another matter).
So you try to rationalize that which cannot be
demonstrated chemically and then claim that this means
that it is chemical.
Uh, wow... Looks like someone was out in left field this morning. Either
that, or you have no idea what the field of Bio-Ethics researches.
You seem to be forgetting that we've already begun to break-down the
chemical reactions that inspire basic emotions and behavior (We all know
why chocolate is so good)
And that proves that morality evolved? Please!
So, is there going to be any point when you're going to actually address
my entire post,
No. There is no reason to. You are not providing
scientific evidence that morality evolved. And lacking
that, you have no basis for saying that's what
happened. You continue to make a scientific claim.
Yet you cannot back it up scientifically and your
little, "M + S" argument doesn't impress me.
If I was making a scientific claim, I'd be more than happy to provide
scientific evidence (Oh wait, I did... and I did, when I referred you to
Dawkins)
Dawkins writes great stuff. Don't expect these people to read it
though. They like being ignorant. Dawkins best:
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe
Without Design
Climbing Mount Improbable
But I admit I haven't read all his stuff.
As is, I was making an argument in LOGIC, something you claimed to know
something about but have yet to show even a basic grasp of.
It's "M -> S" and that was a truth table, not an argument, dipshit. So
nice that you once again show you have no nidea what the hell you're
talking about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
13 Apr 2005 07:18:47 PM |
|
|
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.
Something tells me that a) you failed critical thinking in college, or
b) never took it in the first place.
For starters, we have no evidence of a soul. What is its mass? Molecular
weight? Atomic structure? Thus, you are automatically speaking about
something that falls outside the realm of science. Since it falls
outside of science, it can not "go with" science.
From a logistical standpoint, you're using the rules of implication
incorrectly. You're trying to state that our morality is a sign of a
soul, thus: M implies S. This argument is valid only if it is a
tautology, and thus can not be incorrect, otherwise, it is conditionally
valid; this can be found with a simple truth table. Remember that
implication is always correct except if it is possible for their to be a
true antecedent and a false consequent.Looking at our table:
M S M imp S
-----------------------------
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
According to the rules of logic, if there are any "F"s in the third
collum, the statement is not a tautology and thus, only conditionally
valid.
As your statement is only conditionally valid, it is not a sound
argument and thus, perfectly logical to deny it.
.... Oh wait, were you just throwing the word "illogic" out there to try
and make your point seem better?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 08:13:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:18:47 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
Something tells me that a) you failed critical thinking in college, or
b) never took it in the first place.
The fact that you have the ability to think critically,
proves 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 07:47:17 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:18:47 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
Something tells me that a) you failed critical thinking in college, or
b) never took it in the first place.
The fact that you have the ability to think critically,
proves my point.
Uh, no. It has no bearing on that since you still have yet to explain or
present a counter-argument in support of your claim that a soul "goes
with all science and logic"
Since you decided to try and throw out a Red Herring Fallacy, i.e.
trying to change the subject while not addressing my point, we'll
by-pass that by just reposting my origional statements so you can
respond to them:
For starters, we have no evidence of a soul. What is its mass? Molecular
weight? Atomic structure? Thus, you are automatically speaking about
something that falls outside the realm of science. Since it falls
outside of science, it can not "go with" science.
From a logistical standpoint, you're using the rules of implication
incorrectly. You're trying to state that our morality is a sign of a
soul, thus: M implies S. This argument is valid only if it is a
tautology, and thus can not be incorrect, otherwise, it is conditionally
valid; this can be found with a simple truth table. Remember that
implication is always correct except if it is possible for their to be a
true antecedent and a false consequent.Looking at our table:
M S M imp S
-----------------------------
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
According to the rules of logic, if there are any "F"s in the third
collum, the statement is not a tautology and thus, only conditionally valid.
As your statement is only conditionally valid, it is not a sound
argument and thus, perfectly logical to deny it.
.... Oh wait, were you just throwing the word "illogic" out there to try
and make your point seem better?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
14 Apr 2005 10:26:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:47:17 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:18:47 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
Something tells me that a) you failed critical thinking in college, or
b) never took it in the first place.
The fact that you have the ability to think critically,
proves my point.
Uh, no. It has no bearing on that since you still have yet to explain or
present a counter-argument in support of your claim that a soul "goes
with all science and logic"
I didn't say that. However, you have said nothing.
For starters, we have no evidence of a soul.
We have no evidence that morality evolved.
--
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 |
15 Apr 2005 02:34:19 AM |
|
|
In article <t1du51do8c48qcp52o9vq2mghp30ukp0mn@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:47:17 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:18:47 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
Something tells me that a) you failed critical thinking in college, or
b) never took it in the first place.
The fact that you have the ability to think critically,
proves my point.
Uh, no. It has no bearing on that since you still have yet to explain or
present a counter-argument in support of your claim that a soul "goes
with all science and logic"
I didn't say that. However, you have said nothing.
For starters, we have no evidence of a soul.
We have no evidence that morality evolved.
But we do. The fact that morality exists, if at all, only in the most
evolved species is evidence that it evolved. Not conclusive, but
evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 03:25:21 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:47:17 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:18:47 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
Something tells me that a) you failed critical thinking in college, or
b) never took it in the first place.
The fact that you have the ability to think critically,
proves my point.
Uh, no. It has no bearing on that since you still have yet to explain or
present a counter-argument in support of your claim that a soul "goes
with all science and logic"
I didn't say that. However, you have said nothing.
Oh, my bad, you said:
"Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul."
To which I said:
From a logistical standpoint, you're using the rules of implication
incorrectly. You're trying to state that our morality is a sign of a
soul, thus: M implies S. This argument is valid only if it is a
tautology, and thus can not be incorrect, otherwise, it is conditionally
valid; this can be found with a simple truth table. Remember that
implication is always correct except if it is possible for their to be a
true antecedent and a false consequent.Looking at our table:
M S M imp S
-----------------------------
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
According to the rules of logic, if there are any "F"s in the third
collum, the statement is not a tautology and thus, only conditionally valid.
As your statement is only conditionally valid, it is not a sound
argument and thus, perfectly logical to deny it.
.... Oh wait, were you just throwing the word "illogic" out there to try
and make your point seem better?
Gee, looks like I said something after all. And as of yet, you haven't
said anythign to actually address the above, except:
"The fact that you have the ability to think critically,
proves my point."
Which I refuted, but you ignored. Gonna actually comment on it yet?
For starters, we have no evidence of a soul.
We have no evidence that morality evolved.
You asserted we have a soul, Dave, therefor, the burden of proof is
currently on you to give something, anything, within the realm of
science that explains the soul other than "You can't prove it's not
there, so we must have a soul" (paraphrased) and I'll be happy to give
you evidence for evolved morality... Oh wait, I already did, and you
ignored it. Should I give it to you again, just for good measure?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
16 Apr 2005 08:34:13 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:25:21 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:47:17 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:18:47 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
Something tells me that a) you failed critical thinking in college, or
b) never took it in the first place.
The fact that you have the ability to think critically,
proves my point.
Uh, no. It has no bearing on that since you still have yet to explain or
present a counter-argument in support of your claim that a soul "goes
with all science and logic"
I didn't say that. However, you have said nothing.
Oh, my bad, you said:
"Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul."
To which I said:
From a logistical standpoint, you're using the rules of implication
incorrectly. You're trying to state that our morality is a sign of a
soul, thus: M implies S.
You're trying to argue that morality evolved, yet we
have a lot of immorality in the world.
--
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 03:11:28 PM |
|
|
Antagonist for God wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:25:21 GMT, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:47:17 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:18:47 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, AntiSocial
<pessimistdepressionist@yahoo.com> 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.
Something tells me that a) you failed critical thinking in college, or
b) never took it in the first place.
The fact that you have the ability to think critically,
proves my point.
Uh, no. It has no bearing on that since you still have yet to explain or
present a counter-argument in support of your claim that a soul "goes
with all science and logic"
I didn't say that. However, you have said nothing.
Oh, my bad, you said:
"Very simple. Chemical reactions don't explain
morality. It is illogical to deny the soul."
To which I said:
From a logistical standpoint, you're using the rules of implication
incorrectly. You're trying to state that our morality is a sign of a
soul, thus: M implies S.
You're trying to argue that morality evolved, yet we
have a lot of immorality in the world.
Once again, are you ever going to address what I said? Or are you going
to continue to ignore the fact that you used the term logical in an
improper manner?
Actually I was the one arguing morality could be seen in chemical
reactions and genetics, you're thinking of someone else (I mentioned
Darwin to point out that the idea of a non-divine morality has been
around for a while)
As for your tirade at the bottom which I can only assume was your
attempt at a point, remember: one man's trash is another man's treasure:
one man's king another man's tyrant.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
18 Apr 2005 01:16:55 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:34:13 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
You're trying to argue that morality evolved, yet we
have a lot of immorality in the world.
So? Just because one behaviour pattern evolved does not mean that all
of the others miraculously cease to exist.
The fact that what you would describe as being morality exists in
other species seems to me to be a pretty good indication that it
evolved and was not created.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
18 Apr 2005 01:26:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:16:55 +0100, Mephisto
<mephisto@go.away> spake thusly:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:34:13 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
You're trying to argue that morality evolved, yet we
have a lot of immorality in the world.
So? Just because one behaviour pattern evolved does not mean that all
of the others miraculously cease to exist.
Stating that morality evolved, states that it did not
exist at one point.
The fact that what you would describe as being morality exists in
other species seems to me to be a pretty good indication that it
evolved and was not created.
And how does it being "in other species" deny creation,
if the same Creator, created all?
And you have just proved that morality didn't evolve.
If it exists in all "species", then it was present and
is not an evolved trait in humans.
--
Antagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
18 Apr 2005 10:17:52 PM |
|
|
Antagonist for God <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Mephisto
You're trying to argue that morality evolved, yet we
have a lot of immorality in the world.
So? Just because one behaviour pattern evolved does not mean that all
of the others miraculously cease to exist.
Stating that morality evolved, states that it did not
exist at one point.
That should be pretty obvious. Without human there can be no human
morality. As humans evolved so did their morality.
The fact that what you would describe as being morality exists in
other species seems to me to be a pretty good indication that it
evolved and was not created.
And how does it being "in other species" deny creation,
if the same Creator, created all?
And you have just proved that morality didn't evolve.
If it exists in all "species", then it was present and
is not an evolved trait in humans.
Fallacy of equivocation. You prtend that there is just one morality
among all species when it is clear that each species (and each
culture) has its own morality.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "AntiSocial" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
18 Apr 2005 11:33:20 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Antagonist for God <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Mephisto
You're trying to argue that morality evolved, yet we
have a lot of immorality in the world.
So? Just because one behaviour pattern evolved does not mean that all
of the others miraculously cease to exist.
Stating that morality evolved, states that it did not
exist at one point.
That should be pretty obvious. Without human there can be no human
morality. As humans evolved so did their morality.
The fact that what you would describe as being morality exists in
other species seems to me to be a pretty good indication that it
evolved and was not created.
And how does it being "in other species" deny creation,
if the same Creator, created all?
And you have just proved that morality didn't evolve.
If it exists in all "species", then it was present and
is not an evolved trait in humans.
Fallacy of equivocation. You prtend that there is just one morality
among all species when it is clear that each species (and each
culture) has its own morality.
From what I've seen, don't bother trying to dual Dave with logic - it's
like picking on the fat kid in dodgeball.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
20 Apr 2005 10:22:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:26:54 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:16:55 +0100, Mephisto
<mephisto@go.away> spake thusly:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:34:13 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
You're trying to argue that morality evolved, yet we
have a lot of immorality in the world.
So? Just because one behaviour pattern evolved does not mean that all
of the others miraculously cease to exist.
Stating that morality evolved, states that it did not
exist at one point.
Life did not exist at one point, so of course morality did not exist.
The fact that what you would describe as being morality exists in
other species seems to me to be a pretty good indication that it
evolved and was not created.
And how does it being "in other species" deny creation,
if the same Creator, created all?
If religion is the basis for morals, what church to wombats worship
at?
And you have just proved that morality didn't evolve.
If it exists in all "species", then it was present and
is not an evolved trait in humans.
Where did I say that it existed in all species? Here's a clue: I
didn't. If you can't discuss this without lying, maybe you shouldn't
bother.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
20 Apr 2005 10:47:55 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:22:28 +0100, Mephisto
<mephisto@go.away> spake thusly:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:26:54 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:16:55 +0100, Mephisto
<mephisto@go.away> spake thusly:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:34:13 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
You're trying to argue that morality evolved, yet we
have a lot of immorality in the world.
So? Just because one behaviour pattern evolved does not mean that all
of the others miraculously cease to exist.
Stating that morality evolved, states that it did not
exist at one point.
Life did not exist at one point, so of course morality did not exist.
That was weak. We are discussing morality evolving,
which of course means that we are discussing a point in
time after life existed. You're trying to be deceptive
and wiggle out and yet, call me a liar later in this
message?
The fact that what you would describe as being morality exists in
other species seems to me to be a pretty good indication that it
evolved and was not created.
And how does it being "in other species" deny creation,
if the same Creator, created all?
If religion is the basis for morals, what church to wombats worship
at?
Now you're being just plain stupid. And I never
mentioned, "church".
And you have just proved that morality didn't evolve.
If it exists in all "species", then it was present and
is not an evolved trait in humans.
Where did I say that it existed in all species? Here's a clue: I
didn't. If you can't discuss this without lying, maybe you shouldn't
bother.
I wouldn't be pointing fingers if I were you. You are
not capable of honesty and you have proved that.
Mephisto: The fact that what you would describe as
being morality exists in other species seems to me to
be a pretty good indication that it evolved and was not
created.
Those are your words. Now if you want to try to wiggle
and say you didn't say the word "all", then fine, go
for it. But we both know what you meant and if you are
claiming it is not in all species (you made the claim
about morality in more than humans), then you'll need
to come up with a list of which species you claim have
morality and which don't and why for each.
--
Antagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTION --- and WHEN Human Life BEGINS |
21 Apr 2005 10:44:43 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:47:55 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:22:28 +0100, Mephisto
<mephisto@go.away> spake thusly:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:26:54 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:16:55 +0100, Mephisto
<mephisto@go.away> spake thusly:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:34:13 GMT, Antagonist for God
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
You're trying to argue that morality evolved, yet we
have a lot of immorality in the world.
So? Just because one behaviour pattern evolved does not mean that all
of the others miraculously cease to exist.
Stating that morality evolved, states that it did not
exist at one point.
Life did not exist at one point, so of course morality did not exist.
That was weak. We are discussing morality evolving,
which of course means that we are discussing a point in
time after life existed. You're trying to be deceptive
and wiggle out and yet, call me a liar later in this
message?
I was not trying to wriggle out of anything - I simply did not
understand why you made the point that morality has not always
existed. If it did not exist when life was created, as you have said,
then it must have evolved later. You just stated a fact without making
a point - it's not my fault if you chuck out statements like that and
then fail to explain their relevance.
The fact that what you would describe as being morality exists in
other species seems to me to be a pretty good indication that it
evolved and was not created.
And how does it being "in other species" deny creation,
if the same Creator, created all?
If religion is the basis for morals, what church to wombats worship
at?
Now you're being just plain stupid. And I never
mentioned, "church".
The implication was that morality is somehow linked to a creator and
that humans are special. I don't recall christian doctrine explaining
why animals should have morals, but they do. They don't have
'religion' though, which would seem to be another gap in your
'argument'.
And you have just proved that morality didn't evolve.
If it exists in all "species", then it was present and
is not an evolved trait in humans.
Where did I say that it existed in all species? Here's a clue: I
didn't. If you can't discuss this without lying, maybe you shouldn't
bother.
I wouldn't be pointing fingers if I were you. You are
not capable of honesty and you have proved that.
LOL! Nice dodge. Where have I proved that I am not capable of honesty?
By that you are clearly suggesting that everything I say is a lie, so
perhaps you should back that outrageous allegation up with some facts?
Mephisto: The fact that what you would describe as
being morality exists in other species seems to me to
be a pretty good indication that it evolved and was not
created.
Why? It makes perfect sense that if it exists in one species then it
will exist in others - in the same way that wings and eyes exist in
many species. Morals are essential to the survival of social species,
so they exist in many different social species. Just stating that
their existence proves that they were created is not enough to make it
so - explain why.
Those are your words. Now if you want to try to wiggle
and say you didn't say the word "all", then fine, go
for it. But we both know what you meant and if you are
claiming it is not in all species (you made the claim
about morality in more than humans), then you'll need
to come up with a list of which species you claim have
morality and which don't and why for each.
LOL! You seriously expect me to create a list of the many millions of
species, a job which would take the rest of my life, simply because
you don't want to face the facts? We know that other species have
morals (NOT all of them, some of them, as I stated very clearly). We
know that morals are an evolved trait of social species, and that they
assist in survival. The facts are there for all to see, so why pretend
otherwise?
Mephisto
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
