Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The First Impression of Theism

Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?
To believe is to know nothing.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:23:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

"Hm. A very good question, with a very creative answer. BTW, am I in that book anywhere?"
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 6:28:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

As the alien had the capability to get to our planet from some far off part of the universe its species is probably more advanced scientifically than us humans, so could well have got it all worked out! I am willing to bet if that was the case, no deity would be involved, and the alien would be amused at the humans who still believe it to be the case!
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 6:54:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

Wry amusement at the quaint Earthlings at first, followed by condescension, followed possibly by missionary efforts to their own religion.

Think Europeans first encountering the Hawaiians.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 10:37:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

"No intelligent life here, beam me up, Scottie."
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 11:21:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?
Since evidence is provided individually as opposed to corporately, it might depend on whether or not God provided personal evidence to that particular alien. If there are multiple aliens in that ship, they might be divided in belief just as humans are.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 11:45:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 11:21:38 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:

Since evidence is provided individually as opposed to corporately, ...

That is an interesting comment that brings a few questions to mind. Does evidence = revelation? If so, then any type of corporate instruction (priest, preachers, ministers, Sunday School teachers, etc.) are redundant, are they not?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 2:31:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 11:21:38 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?
Since evidence is provided individually as opposed to corporately, it might depend on whether or not God provided personal evidence to that particular alien. If there are multiple aliens in that ship, they might be divided in belief just as humans are.

There is no such thing as personal evidence. Real evidence is universal and repeatedly testable because it points to reality. It is not restricted to one person's brain.
To believe is to know nothing.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:03:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

That depends, have the aliens been affected by original sin?
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:05:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 3:03:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

That depends, have the aliens been affected by original sin?

In this scenario, as with real life, no.
To believe is to know nothing.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:07:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 3:05:18 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:03:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

That depends, have the aliens been affected by original sin?

In this scenario, as with real life, no.

If they had not been affected by original sin then they would live life without sin or any attraction to sin. The concept of God would make perfect sense and they would see the effects of acting against God clearly evident on our planet.
XLAV
Posts: 13,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:08:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The scenario lacks info, specially for the aliens.

What kind of aliens are we dealing with? Smart? Agressive? Curious? Tyrannical? Religious? Their first impression will depend on their traits.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:15:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

I think that would depend on its species, Impartial.

Humans are known to lie as part of their socialisation process. Not necessarily knowing how fanciful and self-absorbed is the human imagination, lying about gods for individual and social advantage might be construed as a human socialisation trait -- but that would depend on how an alien species thought, socialised, and understood art.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:15:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 3:07:40 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:05:18 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:03:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

That depends, have the aliens been affected by original sin?

In this scenario, as with real life, no.

If they had not been affected by original sin then they would live life without sin or any attraction to sin.

I don't subscribe to sin so I'm not what you'd call a sinner. I subscribe to my own standard of moral accountability thank you.

The concept of God would make perfect sense and they would see the effects of acting against God clearly evident on our planet.

An odd opinion, I must say. But you're welcome to think that. So when will all the same sex marriages in all US states create the next massive natural disaster? Most of the disasters I see happen to be religiously motivated...
To believe is to know nothing.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:32:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 3:15:42 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:07:40 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:05:18 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:03:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

That depends, have the aliens been affected by original sin?

In this scenario, as with real life, no.

If they had not been affected by original sin then they would live life without sin or any attraction to sin.

I don't subscribe to sin so I'm not what you'd call a sinner. I subscribe to my own standard of moral accountability thank you.

A standard you set for yourself is no standard at all.

Standard - An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

The concept of God would make perfect sense and they would see the effects of acting against God clearly evident on our planet.

An odd opinion, I must say. But you're welcome to think that. So when will all the same sex marriages in all US states create the next massive natural disaster?

All sin has a negative effect.

Most of the disasters I see happen to be religiously motivated...

Really, okay I'll start.

Abortion - roughly 1/4 of every potential American citizen since 1973 has been killed before their first breath. This dwarfs the number of americans killed in which every war they have ever participated.

Please show me an equivalent religious disaster.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:35:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

Probably about the same reaction it would have to two men getting "married": an incredulous look, with an alien twist
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 6:10:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 3:32:24 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:15:42 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:07:40 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:05:18 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:03:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

That depends, have the aliens been affected by original sin?

In this scenario, as with real life, no.

If they had not been affected by original sin then they would live life without sin or any attraction to sin.

I don't subscribe to sin so I'm not what you'd call a sinner. I subscribe to my own standard of moral accountability thank you.

A standard you set for yourself is no standard at all.

Standard - An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Thanks for providing the dictionary definition. I would describe the standard I'm talking about as number 4. Normal, familiar, or usual. So my standards are my norms, if you like.


The concept of God would make perfect sense and they would see the effects of acting against God clearly evident on our planet.

An odd opinion, I must say. But you're welcome to think that. So when will all the same sex marriages in all US states create the next massive natural disaster?

All sin has a negative effect.

Negativity is subjective, if indeed there is a negative effect at all...


Most of the disasters I see happen to be religiously motivated...

Really, okay I'll start.

Abortion - roughly 1/4 of every potential American citizen since 1973 has been killed before their first breath. This dwarfs the number of americans killed in which every war they have ever participated.

Oh wow, you're anti-abortion?! I suspect that figure is far more than 1/4, you may as well use a percentage of the population. Using your logic, contraception, for example, kills many more 'potential' American citizens. Is that bad? How far are you willing to go in terms of 'potential' exactly? If a fertile man masterbates but doesn't impregnate a woman, is he preventing at least one 'potential' human from being born? What if he merely considers impregnating a woman, Is he a murderer if he doesn't follow through?

Let's say a rape victim has an abortion because she's on drugs and has no money. How can you sit there and advocate her being forced to have a child to a rapist, a child that will surely live a horrendous life, all because YOU feel uncomfortable about giving her the right to control her own body. Do you not consider the welfare of these women, let alone the lives of their 'potential' families?

I find people like you infuriating. Children are important, they're not to be treated as a form of punishment for people who get pregnant before they're married. In a civilised society, every child should be born when their parents mean for them to be born, when they are prepared and ready and when they know that child will have the best life possible. NOT when someone like YOU forces them.

Please show me an equivalent religious disaster.

Ok. As you're against abortion, I might as well turn the tables and say the entirely religious anti-contraception propoganda that has spread through Africa, is resulting in far more suffering, death and disease. What's worse is that this suffering has and will perpetuate until people are properly educated about sex and contraception and modern medicine is not impeded by yet more ignorant and hysterical religious people.

You're very welcome to believe what you want, it's your opinion after all, but don't you dare impose your ideas on women who for whatever reason, have gone through the incredibly tough decision to have an abortion.
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 6:11:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 3:35:42 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

Probably about the same reaction it would have to two men getting "married": an incredulous look, with an alien twist

You seem nice.
To believe is to know nothing.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 6:15:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Theism has been around 60 000 years. I think the Alien would find it pretty cool that our cultures started off with this idea.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 6:29:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

Hard to say, amigo.

But, although I hate to admit it, it is very likely that an Alien Visitor would also harbor their own brand of Theism.

Why?

Because, first--It stands to reason they would be Intelligent, right? That is, they had to formulate the technology for them to get here in the first place. Vast distances, man. Over four light-years to the nearest star! (We already know that our own Solar System can NOT entail Intel life. Except for us, of course. (And sometimes even that is debatable! LOL)

So..yeah, they are evolved. And, as we in the Psych field know--as well as some other folks--religion and belief in a god is an unsavory by-product of the evolved homo sapien mind. Yeah, man: when we grew those big ol' brains, evolving from the primordial "lizard brain"--especially in our frontal cortex and cerebellum. And neo-cortical areas, we became.........SELF AWARE! Oh yes! Sentient! Thus, we began asking the Big Questions. "Why am I here?" What is the meaning of Life? Oh, bugger! What will happen when I die? Which will be soon!"

So the evolved mind..always being highly efficient in developing coping strategies, spurred us to believe in Gods! BFF Sky People who would come to our aid and even promise us an AFTERLIFE! "Whoopie! The Creator of the Universe not only knows who I am--he loves me!"


Like that.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 11:00:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 6:10:09 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:32:24 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:15:42 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:07:40 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:05:18 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:03:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?

That depends, have the aliens been affected by original sin?

In this scenario, as with real life, no.

If they had not been affected by original sin then they would live life without sin or any attraction to sin.

I don't subscribe to sin so I'm not what you'd call a sinner. I subscribe to my own standard of moral accountability thank you.

A standard you set for yourself is no standard at all.

Standard - An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Thanks for providing the dictionary definition. I would describe the standard I'm talking about as number 4. Normal, familiar, or usual. So my standards are my norms, if you like.

A standard is something that anybody can compare something against. What you are describing is a personal preference.

The concept of God would make perfect sense and they would see the effects of acting against God clearly evident on our planet.

An odd opinion, I must say. But you're welcome to think that. So when will all the same sex marriages in all US states create the next massive natural disaster?

All sin has a negative effect.

Negativity is subjective, if indeed there is a negative effect at all...

So to go to an extreme, the Holocaust wasn't really good or bad, it just was. Right?

Most of the disasters I see happen to be religiously motivated...

Really, okay I'll start.

Abortion - roughly 1/4 of every potential American citizen since 1973 has been killed before their first breath. This dwarfs the number of americans killed in which every war they have ever participated.

Oh wow, you're anti-abortion?! I suspect that figure is far more than 1/4, you may as well use a percentage of the population.

Close enough to 1/4

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Using your logic, contraception, for example, kills many more 'potential' American citizens.

No, that isn't my logic at all. Contraception is bad as well - however it is not generally murder. Some forms of contraceptives are actually abortifacients as well - this is what the day after pill does to large part.

Is that bad? How far are you willing to go in terms of 'potential' exactly?

From a zygote onward, it is not a potential human, it is a human being. Thus abortion is not dealing with potentiality, but reality.

If a fertile man masterbates but doesn't impregnate a woman, is he preventing at least one 'potential' human from being born?

No.

What if he merely considers impregnating a woman, Is he a murderer if he doesn't follow through?

No.

Let's say a rape victim has an abortion because she's on drugs and has no money. How can you sit there and advocate her being forced to have a child to a rapist, a child that will surely live a horrendous life, all because YOU feel uncomfortable about giving her the right to control her own body.

This is not about controlling her body it is about killing another human. Did you know that many women spousal abuse proceed to beat their own children? Are you going to tell me that is right and just?

Did you know that there has only been one study done on pregnant women after rape? You know what the findings were? Those women who had abortions were more dissatisfied with their decision than those who carried the child to term.

Women who were raped wanted love and support from those around them. People wanted the "problem" to go away and return to their lives. So the women are pressured into abortion. Some even reported that the abortion was like a second rape in that once again they were held while actions were performed to them in that region.

Those who carried the children to term often proved their own worth to themselves, because they took evil and made good out it. By being better than the rapist they regained themselves.

S. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault,"

Do you not consider the welfare of these women, let alone the lives of their 'potential' families?

I do! More so than you apparently. It is easy to tell them to have an abortion and try to pretend this didn't happen. It is tough to be there with someone and truly support them through a healing process.

I find people like you infuriating. Children are important, they're not to be treated as a form of punishment for people who get pregnant before they're married.

I don't think of any child as a punishment. Every child is a gift.

In a civilised society, every child should be born when their parents mean for them to be born, when they are prepared and ready and when they know that child will have the best life possible.

Yup, if you cannot handle a child do not have sex. It isn't that tough to understand.

NOT when someone like YOU forces them.

I didn't force them to have sex. I will fight to defend the rights of every human being, the most fundamental of which is the right to life.

Please show me an equivalent religious disaster.

Ok. As you're against abortion, I might as well turn the tables and say the entirely religious anti-contraception propoganda that has spread through Africa, is resulting in far more suffering, death and disease.

Which country has made the greatest inroads against AIDS? Uganda. How, though a campaign of Abstinence, Being faithful, and Chastity. Where they push condoms (giving them away for free) like in South Africa AIDS runs wild.

What's worse is that this suffering has and will perpetuate until people are properly educated about sex and contraception and modern medicine is not impeded by yet more ignorant and hysterical religious people.

If sex were limited exclusively to marriage AIDS would disappear in no time. Or do you believe that people in Africa are too stupid and primitive to control themselves?

You're very welcome to believe what you want, it's your opinion after all, but don't you dare impose your ideas on women who for whatever reason, have gone through the incredibly tough decision to have an abortion.

Why is it a tough decision? If it is not a human, then it should not concern a woman more than having a polyp removed. If it a human, what right does a woman have to order another human to be murdered?

It is something or it isn't - you can't have it both ways.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 7:40:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 11:00:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:

A standard is something that anybody can compare something against. What you are describing is a personal preference.

Shares personal preference is what creates standards.

Negativity is subjective, if indeed there is a negative effect at all...

So to go to an extreme, the Holocaust wasn't really good or bad, it just was. Right?

In my opinion, it was bad. That's me comparing the Holocaust, a religiously motivated disaster, against my own standard.

Abortion - roughly 1/4 of every potential American citizen since 1973 has been killed before their first breath. This dwarfs the number of americans killed in which every war they have ever participated.

Oh wow, you're anti-abortion?! I suspect that figure is far more than 1/4, you may as well use a percentage of the population.

Close enough to 1/4

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Using your logic, contraception, for example, kills many more 'potential' American citizens.

No, that isn't my logic at all. Contraception is bad as well - however it is not generally murder. Some forms of contraceptives are actually abortifacients as well - this is what the day after pill does to large part.

Contraception is bad as well?! Ok so am I right in thinking you views are religiously motivated? You said abortion prevents potential. That was your defense. But contraception does the exact same thing but on a much larger scale...

Is that bad? How far are you willing to go in terms of 'potential' exactly?

From a zygote onward, it is not a potential human, it is a human being. Thus abortion is not dealing with potentiality, but reality.

Now you've changed your position from potentiality to reality. Some women have misscarriages so you can't call a zygote a human, it's still just a potential human at that point.

If a fertile man masterbates but doesn't impregnate a woman, is he preventing at least one 'potential' human from being born?

No.

But that contradicts your position.

What if he merely considers impregnating a woman, Is he a murderer if he doesn't follow through?

No.

That answer is also a contradiction. A fertile man has the potential to create a baby so in order to save that babies life, according to you, he must always act on that thought. Or should he constantly impregnate women all his life in order to eliminate the possibility of denying a child from being born? It's ludicrous.

This is not about controlling her body it is about killing another human.

It is precisely about forcing a woman to have a child if she becomes pregnant for whatever reason. The argument about killing a human is an entirely emotional one.

Did you know that many women spousal abuse proceed to beat their own children?

I did and it's probably because of people like you.

Are you going to tell me that is right and just?

I'm telling you it is right and just to give women the right to choose and not emotionally abusing them.

Did you know that there has only been one study done on pregnant women after rape? You know what the findings were? Those women who had abortions were more dissatisfied with their decision than those who carried the child to term.

Women who were raped wanted love and support from those around them. People wanted the "problem" to go away and return to their lives. So the women are pressured into abortion. Some even reported that the abortion was like a second rape in that once again they were held while actions were performed to them in that region.

Those who carried the children to term often proved their own worth to themselves, because they took evil and made good out it. By being better than the rapist they regained themselves.

S. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault,"

You need to prove that is the only study done. It isn't relevant to my point that womens' rights are important in a civilised society.

Do you not consider the welfare of these women, let alone the lives of their 'potential' families?

I do! More so than you apparently.

But that is contrary to what you are telling me.

It is easy to tell them to have an abortion and try to pretend this didn't happen. It is tough to be there with someone and truly support them through a healing process.

When has it ever been easy to tell a woman to have an abortion? Pretending conception didn't happen is a naive and flippant way of looking at it. The healing process you speak about is forcing a woman to bring up a child to a parent or parents who are simply not ready. You are not considering the welfare of that child or its parents or even its siblings. It's wicked.

I find people like you infuriating. Children are important, they're not to be treated as a form of punishment for people who get pregnant before they're married.

I don't think of any child as a punishment. Every child is a gift.

So are rapists good people for gifting women, against their will, with the potential to have a child? No. A child is a responsibility, it must be loved and it must be brought up to have the best possible life. Why on earth would you compare it to a present?

In a civilised society, every child should be born when their parents mean for them to be born, when they are prepared and ready and when they know that child will have the best life possible.

Yup, if you cannot handle a child do not have sex. It isn't that tough to understand.

This is a nonsensical position because you are completely out of touch with reality. Sex is awesome. We have the right to have protected sex for pleasure. Hence why I said you consider a child as punishment because people like you only condone sex after marriage.

NOT when someone like YOU forces them.

I didn't force them to have sex.

Everyone who spreads this anti-abortion propoganda is affecting the psychological state of women. It's a form of abuse.

I will fight to defend the rights of every human being, the most fundamental of which is the right to life.

That worries me.

Please show me an equivalent religious disaster.

Ok. As you're against abortion, I might as well turn the tables and say the entirely religious anti-contraception propoganda that has spread through Africa, is resulting in far more suffering, death and disease.

Which country has made the greatest inroads against AIDS? Uganda. How, though a campaign of Abstinence, Being faithful, and Chastity. Where they push condoms (giving them away for free) like in South Africa AIDS runs wild.

Education is the key factor that you didn't mention.

What's worse is that this suffering has and will perpetuate until people are properly educated about sex and contraception and modern medicine is not impeded by yet more ignorant and hysterical religious people.

If sex were limited exclusively to marriage AIDS would disappear in no time. Or do you believe that people in Africa are too stupid and primitive to control themselves?

Again, you're out of touch. A lot of people in Africa have lots of children in order to increase the chances of some of their children growing up to look after the family.

Why is it a tough decision? If it is not a human, then it should not concern a woman more than having a polyp removed. If it a human, what right does a woman have to order another human to be murdered?

Because it about removing what could be. But this is less important than giving a woman the right to choose when she has a child. It just is, that's why abortion is legal here in the UK. Abortion is murder like masturbation is murder. Your position is impractical, emotional and illogical.

It is something or it isn't - you can't have it both ways.

That's your fanciful ideal but that isn't how the world works I'm afr
To believe is to know nothing.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 9:58:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 7:40:53 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 7/1/2015 11:00:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:

A standard is something that anybody can compare something against. What you are describing is a personal preference.

Shares personal preference is what creates standards.

And yet all you subscribe to is your own.

So to go to an extreme, the Holocaust wasn't really good or bad, it just was. Right?

In my opinion, it was bad. That's me comparing the Holocaust, a religiously motivated disaster, against my own standard.

And yet, according to you, there was nothing negative about it, because there is no negative - just personal preference.

No, that isn't my logic at all. Contraception is bad as well - however it is not generally murder. Some forms of contraceptives are actually abortifacients as well - this is what the day after pill does to large part.

Contraception is bad as well?! Ok so am I right in thinking you views are religiously motivated? You said abortion prevents potential.

I stated that it killed potential citizens. Citizenship is conferred upon birth. Murder is murder whether they are citizens or not.

That was your defense. But contraception does the exact same thing but on a much larger scale...

And yet they are not the same at all except for the side effect of many contraceptives which actively prevents implantation of embryos.

Is that bad? How far are you willing to go in terms of 'potential' exactly?

From a zygote onward, it is not a potential human, it is a human being. Thus abortion is not dealing with potentiality, but reality.

Now you've changed your position from potentiality to reality. Some women have misscarriages so you can't call a zygote a human, it's still just a potential human at that point.

I didn't change my stance at all. You failed to clearly read what I had stated which is clarified above. A miscarriage is a natural death.

If a fertile man masterbates but doesn't impregnate a woman, is he preventing at least one 'potential' human from being born?

No.

But that contradicts your position.

Not at all please re-read.

What if he merely considers impregnating a woman, Is he a murderer if he doesn't follow through?

No.

That answer is also a contradiction. A fertile man has the potential to create a baby so in order to save that babies life, according to you, he must always act on that thought. Or should he constantly impregnate women all his life in order to eliminate the possibility of denying a child from being born? It's ludicrous.

What is ludicrous is your argument. Nobody is under an obligation to reproduce. An abuse of the reproductive agency is however wrong.

This is not about controlling her body it is about killing another human.

It is precisely about forcing a woman to have a child if she becomes pregnant for whatever reason. The argument about killing a human is an entirely emotional one.

Actually it is just the opposite. We do not permit anyone to kill except in self defense. Now you want to enable someone to kill a non-aggressor. Rights are not an emotional, but rather logical argument.

Did you know that many women spousal abuse proceed to beat their own children?
Are you going to tell me that is right and just?

I'm telling you it is right and just to give women the right to choose and not emotionally abusing them.

You didn't answer the question.

Did you know that there has only been one study done on pregnant women after rape? You know what the findings were? Those women who had abortions were more dissatisfied with their decision than those who carried the child to term.

Women who were raped wanted love and support from those around them. People wanted the "problem" to go away and return to their lives. So the women are pressured into abortion. Some even reported that the abortion was like a second rape in that once again they were held while actions were performed to them in that region.

Those who carried the children to term often proved their own worth to themselves, because they took evil and made good out it. By being better than the rapist they regained themselves.

S. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault,"

You need to prove that is the only study done. It isn't relevant to my point that womens' rights are important in a civilised society.

I've made a claim find me another study. I've shown that women recover mentally better from this by having the child than not. You have no evidence.

It is easy to tell them to have an abortion and try to pretend this didn't happen. It is tough to be there with someone and truly support them through a healing process.

When has it ever been easy to tell a woman to have an abortion? Pretending conception didn't happen is a naive and flippant way of looking at it. The healing process you speak about is forcing a woman to bring up a child to a parent or parents who are simply not ready. You are not considering the welfare of that child or its parents or even its siblings. It's wicked.

Yes the best possible outcome for a child is to kill it. If that is the case then we should just kill everyone because that is the best possible thing for all of us. It is highly presumptuous to state that this child's life is without value and should be snuffed out.

I don't think of any child as a punishment. Every child is a gift.

So are rapists good people for gifting women, against their will, with the potential to have a child? No. A child is a responsibility, it must be loved and it must be brought up to have the best possible life. Why on earth would you compare it to a present?

All of humanity is a gift. Whether it came about through evil means does not deny that life is a gift. If it is not a gift then you would have to say that it is a right and thus it would be property. Please tell me lives are not worth living.

Yup, if you cannot handle a child do not have sex. It isn't that tough to understand.

This is a nonsensical position because you are completely out of touch with reality. Sex is awesome. We have the right to have protected sex for pleasure. Hence why I said you consider a child as punishment because people like you only condone sex after marriage.

It is because I respect sex and what it truly is.

I didn't force them to have sex.

Everyone who spreads this anti-abortion propoganda is affecting the psychological state of women. It's a form of abuse.

LOL.

http://afterabortion.org...

I will fight to defend the rights of every human being, the most fundamental of which is the right to life.

That worries me.

Cause you don't believe in fundamental rights?

If sex were limited exclusively to marriage AIDS would disappear in no time. Or do you believe that people in Africa are too stupid and primitive to control themselves?

Again, you're out of touch. A lot of people in Africa have lots of children in order to increase the chances of some of their children growing up to look after the family.

Which has nothing to do with AIDS - a monogamous relationship can produce a large family with no risk of AIDS.

Why is it a tough decision? If it is not a human, then it should not concern a woman more than having a polyp removed. If it a human, what right does a woman have to order another human to be murdered?

Because it about removing what could be.

It could be an adult. It is a human.

But this is less important than giving a woman the right to choose when she has a child. It just is, that's why abortion is legal here in the UK. Abortion is murder like masturbation is murder.

And I've shown otherwise.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 11:47:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 9:58:54 AM, Geogeer wrote:

Shared personal preference is what creates standards.

And yet all you subscribe to is your own.

Everyone has their own unique personal preference but it's affected by the personal preferences of everyone else, hence why we create standards which care shared preferences...

In my opinion, it was bad. That's me comparing the Holocaust, a religiously motivated disaster, against my own standard.

And yet, according to you, there was nothing negative about it, because there is no negative - just personal preference.

I said the opposite, as you can clearly read above. Negativity is subjective.

Contraception is bad as well?! Ok so am I right in thinking you views are religiously motivated? You said abortion prevents potential.

I stated that it killed potential citizens. Citizenship is conferred upon birth. Murder is murder whether they are citizens or not.

You didn't answer the question. Are your views religiously motivated? If they are, which I suspect is the case, I'm going to loose interest in this discussion.

That was your defense. But contraception does the exact same thing but on a much larger scale...

And yet they are not the same at all except for the side effect of many contraceptives which actively prevents implantation of embryos.

They are exactly the same in regard to your argument about 'potential.'

Now you've changed your position from potentiality to reality. Some women have misscarriages so you can't call a zygote a human, it's still just a potential human at that point.

I didn't change my stance at all. You failed to clearly read what I had stated which is clarified above. A miscarriage is a natural death.

I can read thank you. You changed from potentiality to reality and now you're trying to backtrack.

If a fertile man masterbates but doesn't impregnate a woman, is he preventing at least one 'potential' human from being born?

No.

But that contradicts your position.

Not at all please re-read.

Again, I can read, thank you. The contradiction is clear to see.

What is ludicrous is your argument. Nobody is under an obligation to reproduce. An abuse of the reproductive agency is however wrong.

I would be under obligation to father a child if my condom split. But I'm not ready to have a child. So how could you possibly condone forcing me to be a father prematurely. You have no right to do that.

Actually it is just the opposite. We do not permit anyone to kill except in self defense.

Is abortion not self defence?

Now you want to enable someone to kill a non-aggressor. Rights are not an emotional, but rather logical argument.

Exactly, that is what I'm trying to help you understand.

Did you know that many women spousal abuse proceed to beat their own children?
Are you going to tell me that is right and just?

I'm telling you it is right and just to give women the right to choose and not emotionally abusing them.

You didn't answer the question.

I know that some women do, often because they have no choice. THAT is wrong. The lack of choice.

You need to prove that is the only study done. It isn't relevant to my point that womens' rights are important in a civilised society.

I've made a claim find me another study. I've shown that women recover mentally better from this by having the child than not. You have no evidence.

Sure, they recover mentally. A stab victim can recover mentally, that doesn't justify their ordeal.

Yes the best possible outcome for a child is to kill it. If that is the case then we should just kill everyone because that is the best possible thing for all of us.

This is what I mean when I say you're argument is entirely emotional. You refer to a fertilised egg as a child. It's like calling semen a baby.

It is highly presumptuous to state that this child's life is without value and should be snuffed out.

That's a straw man, I said a child must be loved and brought into the world under the best possible circumstances. Where did you get a lack of value from??

All of humanity is a gift. Whether it came about through evil means does not deny that life is a gift. If it is not a gift then you would have to say that it is a right and thus it would be property. Please tell me lives are not worth living.

I agree that life is incredibly special. Hence why it is so incredibly important to bring children into the world under the best possible circumstances. The alternative you provide is wicked and comes from an hysterical following of religion,

It is because I respect sex and what it truly is.

What? Limited only to married couples, expecially not homosexuals? You're imposing you religious ideals again.

LOL.

http://afterabortion.org...

Oh look, anti-abortion propoganda. I don't find this subject at all funny.

That worries me.

Cause you don't believe in fundamental rights?

That's precisely what I'm advocating. The right for a woman to choose what she does with her own body, irespective of religious dogma.

Again, you're out of touch. A lot of people in Africa have lots of children in order to increase the chances of some of their children growing up to look after the family.

Which has nothing to do with AIDS - a monogamous relationship can produce a large family with no risk of AIDS.

Except if one of the partners has aids...

It could be an adult. It is a human.

Semen could be an adult.... your point isn't valid.

And I've shown otherwise.

That's what you keep telling yourself but you're fighting a losing battle. Just as your religion lost the battle to discriminate against gay people who want to marry one another. Times change. It's called progress.
To believe is to know nothing.
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 12:07:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence? : :

Could it be that aliens are the gods of theists?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 12:12:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 11:45:27 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/1/2015 11:21:38 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:

Since evidence is provided individually as opposed to corporately, ...

That is an interesting comment that brings a few questions to mind. Does evidence = revelation? If so, then any type of corporate instruction (priest, preachers, ministers, Sunday School teachers, etc.) are redundant, are they not?
It could be redundant, but doesn't have to be.

Corporate instruction the Church sense is simply further instruction from a teacher of a like mind. Bird watchers agree that birds are beautiful, but they may join a club with an instructor who can impart more knowledge.

As far as evidence equaling revelation, the revealing of God is simply an introduction by God to an individual. The individual still has to learn more about the One who made the introduction, just like one would still need to learn more about their neighbor who introduced themselves.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 12:19:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 2:31:34 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 7/1/2015 11:21:38 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:14:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
An alien comes down to earth in its spaceship, intrigued to learn about and find an ally in humanity. How do you think it would react to the concept of theism, assuming it also shares a complete lack of supporting evidence?
Since evidence is provided individually as opposed to corporately, it might depend on whether or not God provided personal evidence to that particular alien. If there are multiple aliens in that ship, they might be divided in belief just as humans are.

There is no such thing as personal evidence. Real evidence is universal and repeatedly testable because it points to reality. It is not restricted to one person's brain.
You'll have to prove to me that a creator cannot reveal itself to specific individuals without it manifesting (like an earthquake) to all humans. What law demands that a creator cannot reveal itself to one human, and not the next door neighbor?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 12:37:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 12:12:16 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/1/2015 11:45:27 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/1/2015 11:21:38 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:

Since evidence is provided individually as opposed to corporately, ...

That is an interesting comment that brings a few questions to mind. Does evidence = revelation? If so, then any type of corporate instruction (priest, preachers, ministers, Sunday School teachers, etc.) are redundant, are they not?
It could be redundant, but doesn't have to be.

Corporate instruction the Church sense is simply further instruction from a teacher of a like mind. Bird watchers agree that birds are beautiful, but they may join a club with an instructor who can impart more knowledge.

As far as evidence equaling revelation, the revealing of God is simply an introduction by God to an individual. The individual still has to learn more about the One who made the introduction, just like one would still need to learn more about their neighbor who introduced themselves.

The reason I mention this is if someone has indeed received a revelation from God, then the amount of knowledge they have would exceed that of any teacher (unless the teacher has also had a revelation). Instruction from someone less knowledgeable than the 'pupil' is not beneficial to the student. I can see a case being made for fellowship, but not instruction.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 12:57:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 11:47:42 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 7/2/2015 9:58:54 AM, Geogeer wrote:

Shared personal preference is what creates standards.

And yet all you subscribe to is your own.

Everyone has their own unique personal preference but it's affected by the personal preferences of everyone else, hence why we create standards which care shared preferences...

Standards are based on outcomes. When designing a road one does not just have everybody sit around a table and announce a speed limit they want to post and take a consensus. It is based on a wide variety of factors which provide a safe yet efficient velocity of travel.

Standards are based on an underlying truth.

And yet, according to you, there was nothing negative about it, because there is no negative - just personal preference.

I said the opposite, as you can clearly read above. Negativity is subjective.

Precisely. If it is subjective then it cannot truly be negative because someone else would view it as a positive. Thus the terms are utterly meaningless.

I stated that it killed potential citizens. Citizenship is conferred upon birth. Murder is murder whether they are citizens or not.

You didn't answer the question. Are your views religiously motivated? If they are, which I suspect is the case, I'm going to loose interest in this discussion.

Lol. You post on a religion forum, but you don't want to carry on a religious debate? Anyways, they coincide with my religious beliefs, but I don't argue them based on my religion.

And yet they are not the same at all except for the side effect of many contraceptives which actively prevents implantation of embryos.

They are exactly the same in regard to your argument about 'potential.'

Once again I never argued that the unborn were potential humans only potential citizens. A distinct difference that you refuse to accept - or do you think all humans are American Citizens?

I didn't change my stance at all. You failed to clearly read what I had stated which is clarified above. A miscarriage is a natural death.

I can read thank you. You changed from potentiality to reality and now you're trying to backtrack.

Apparently you cannot understand what you read. My exact quote:

Abortion - roughly 1/4 of every potential American citizen since 1973 has been killed before their first breath. This dwarfs the number of americans killed in which every war they have ever participated.

One does not kill a potential one prevents a potential. One kills something that is alive.

If a fertile man masterbates but doesn't impregnate a woman, is he preventing at least one 'potential' human from being born?

Again, I can read, thank you. The contradiction is clear to see.

Try again.

What is ludicrous is your argument. Nobody is under an obligation to reproduce. An abuse of the reproductive agency is however wrong.

I would be under obligation to father a child if my condom split. But I'm not ready to have a child. So how could you possibly condone forcing me to be a father prematurely. You have no right to do that.

Is the purpose of sex fundamentally to reproduce? Did you engage in sex? You have reproduced. I didn't force you to be a father, you became a father the moment your sperm entered the ovum. Partake in an adult activity act like the adult upon the result.

Actually it is just the opposite. We do not permit anyone to kill except in self defense.

Is abortion not self defence?

Show me the child attacking the mother. In fact her body is actively encouraging the unborn child in its endeavor.

Now you want to enable someone to kill a non-aggressor. Rights are not an emotional, but rather logical argument.

Exactly, that is what I'm trying to help you understand.

Yup. Right to life - most fundamental right that there is...

Did you know that many women spousal abuse proceed to beat their own children?
Are you going to tell me that is right and just?

I know that some women do, often because they have no choice. THAT is wrong. The lack of choice.

While a choice is desirable, enabling something that is fundamentally wrong in the name of choice is what is truly wrong.

I've made a claim find me another study. I've shown that women recover mentally better from this by having the child than not. You have no evidence.

Sure, they recover mentally. A stab victim can recover mentally, that doesn't justify their ordeal.

Did I ever claim that the rape was justified? Crap happens. Just because crap happens, it doesn't justify all responses to the situation.

Yes the best possible outcome for a child is to kill it. If that is the case then we should just kill everyone because that is the best possible thing for all of us.

This is what I mean when I say you're argument is entirely emotional. You refer to a fertilised egg as a child. It's like calling semen a baby.

A zygote is a unique human organism. As we reproduce sexually (for the most part) the zygote has 2 parents. Scientific fact. Semen is not a human organism. No relation whatsoever.

It is highly presumptuous to state that this child's life is without value and should be snuffed out.

That's a straw man, I said a child must be loved and brought into the world under the best possible circumstances. Where did you get a lack of value from??

So people without good circumstances do not deserve life? Thus everybody in the 3rd world can be summarily killed?

All of humanity is a gift. Whether it came about through evil means does not deny that life is a gift. If it is not a gift then you would have to say that it is a right and thus it would be property. Please tell me lives are not worth living.

I agree that life is incredibly special. Hence why it is so incredibly important to bring children into the world under the best possible circumstances. The alternative you provide is wicked and comes from an hysterical following of religion,

So just how good does life have to be in order to have a right to life?

It is because I respect sex and what it truly is.

What? Limited only to married couples, expecially not homosexuals? You're imposing you religious ideals again.

I'm respecting what biology and successful societies reveal to us.

http://afterabortion.org...

Oh look, anti-abortion propoganda. I don't find this subject at all funny.

Ummm... they have footnoted all of the scientific studies. That there is an abortion-suicide link is just a fact.

That's precisely what I'm advocating. The right for a woman to choose what she does with her own body, irespective of religious dogma.

Funny I thought she was doing something to the child's body.

Which has nothing to do with AIDS - a monogamous relationship can produce a large family with no risk of AIDS.

Except if one of the partners has aids...

Then why are they trying to create a large family together? Nonsensical argument.

Because it about removing what could be.

It could be an adult. It is a human.

Semen could be an adult.... your point isn't valid.

Had nothing to do with semen and you know it. A zygote could develop into an adult, it is a human.

And I've shown otherwise.

That's what you keep telling yourself but you're fighting a losing battle. Just as your religion lost the battle to discriminate against gay people who want to marry one another. Times change. It's called progress.

Funny we are talking about abortion and you feel the need to bring in same sex marriage. Sounds like you are losing the debate and trying to deflect into a different topic.