261 replies to this topic

[CID Farwin]

Ah, C.S. Lewis. I love that guy.

[wisp]

Then bringing it up at all defeated your own point.

I'm not arguing against science, either, just pointing out that it, too, subscribes to systems of belief to dictate how it ought to view the world, and what it ought to consider valid.

I really don't think you understood my point.

[SOAP]

Oh man.... this going to be a long one. I'll try yto keep my responses short.

Right. And if we knew those questions, who to ask them to, or how to find out the answers, we would, wouldn't we?

I certainly am all for questioning Christianity. But I won't ever do it with the intent of wanting to disprove it, or find a flaw. I think that many people who do question Christianity do it for the wrong reasons, and end up looking for something to find wrong with it. They make themselves believe that something is wrong with it.

You're right. Because Christians never do that to anyone else's beliefs. Certianly not you. *wink wink*

But I'm just being bitter (even if I have my reasons). Ultimately those questions would have to be asked by the believers themselves because theres' no real benefit to those who already don't believe in Christianity.

Opinion. Standard. Belief.

Why should people think that way?

Even if there are just opinions, such beliefs can be contested and proven either way. Nobody likes be BSed by someone else. If someone tells you something that's hard to swallow wouldn't you want them to back up their claims? You can contest a scientific belief to the extent of the believer's knowledge. If they don't something they can always go back, do some research and come badck to you with an answer. If they still can't find and answer then they they can admit that they don't know it. Yet. But the problem lies in that I can't contest your beliefs without you reacting like I'm some "mean bully."

I don't want to change your beliefs. I just want you to understand where I'm coming from.

I'll post more later.

[Wanchimaera]

According to a group of Christians, we're all in sin, so what you're saying is that God doesn't hear any prayers at all?

We are all sinners, but those without salvation and those people who have unconfessed sin in their lives are the ones I was talking about. Sorry if I was misleading.

Christianity is something that shouldn't be overly-praised or bashed. It's a way of thinking. And I believe the reason Christians and others can't completely get along with each other is that Christians sometimes place their views on others. While at the same time, people sometimes want Christians to go against their moral standards for the sake of someone else's lower standards. I'm sure that somewhere there is a middle ground where people like SOAP and Button won't try and wring each other's throats and get along.

The people who are out there trying to force others to believe are the ones who probably haven't read their Bible. People are responsible for their own decisions. Some people are always going to refuse the offer.

[wisp]

While at the same time, people sometimes want Christians to go against their moral standards for the sake of someone else's lower standards.

The problem with this is that in matters of state, laws sometimes leave a choice between an option that they might agree with and one they might not agree with. They are not being forced to compromise their personal morals, only to allow others the choice between options. However, many (though not all) conservative Christians actively try to force their morals into law, usually under the mistaken assumption that America is a Christian nation (friendly reminder: the constitution prohibits establishment of an official state religion). Normally the reasoning they state for these attempts is that "God wants it to be so" or something along those lines. The fact of the matter is, though, they push for their morals to become law in order to force others to behave according to the same, whether or not these others share the same moral beliefs.

The most obvious example is that of the pro-life movement. Outlawing abortion would not affect those who are pushing for the change, as they wouldn't be getting abortions anyway. It would, however, force others to abide by the same (usually) religiously based morals or choose the alternative, which would be unsafe, illegal home abortions which more often than not end up killing the mother. I'm not saying that all pro-lifers have this stance because of religious conviction, just that the louder voices in the movement tend to be religious folks. I'm not trying to turn the thread topic or give my stance on the matter in this particular thread, though I'm sure I've said it in other threads... but the point is that religion and state should be separate, for the protection of the rights of both the religious people and the nonreligious people.

[LionHarted]

The fact of the matter is, though, they push for their morals to become law in order to force others to behave according to the same, whether or not these others share the same moral beliefs.

I can say the same for any law with respect to any moral code. Whether people hold certain morals is irrelevant to the law.

Outlawing abortion would not affect those who are pushing for the change, as they wouldn't be getting abortions anyway.

That's highly debatable. Fewer births means fewer taxpayers and inevitably fewer tax dollars. Not to mention a decline in the gross number of consumers, workers, et cetera and so on.

[SOAP]

Okay Part II of my post. Computer lab closed early...

I'm not talking so much about "questioning" my belief in God than allowing myself to compromise (or "question", if you prefer) the moralities that come with.

No one's asking you to compromise your morals or your belief in God. In fact you can challenge your beliefs and still end up believing God and be stronger for it. I just took the other path.

And the word will be such a horrible place because we won't know everything about it. Boo-freaking-hoo.

Yes it would be a bad world. People have been killed, swindled, dooped, and had their rights denied over beliefs that haven't even been proven. No ever died because they disagreed with a scientific fact. No wars were fought over the Law of Gravity. Buildings aren't being bombed by terrorists in the name of the Missing Link. Chemistry and biology aren't being praeched through pox-ridden blankets. Worst case scenario, a bunch of people were labeled as illogical or bigotted. Boo-fucking-hoo to you.

Just to put my two quick cents in:

I am a Christian and yet I'm an incurable science nerd. There really isn't any reason why religion and science can't exist side by side. If God is real then he would have created the laws of nature and therefore have a perfect understanding of them and be able to manipulate them perfectly, no?

Like, I don't believe we evolved from apes but I do believe that all species on this earth have the capability to change through natural selection and mutation-a form of evolution-that has been proven time and time again. Such as the pepper moth or antibiotic resistant bacteria. Also the sickle cell mutation in Africa that can kill people eventually but will save them immediately from malaria.

With the whole prayer thing, if you believe we lived before this life in the presence of God then who knows how long we lived with him? He could know us better than we know ourselves right now from our time up there. He may already know what we will ask and how we will act. It's like the parent that leaves their kid in the kitchen and tells them not to take cookies from the cookie jar before dinner. Most parents already know what their kid is going to do. If God is our Father then he already knows us. After that, it's just extrapolating from that knowledge.

And again, I really don't see the reason for all the fighting and such against the different sects of religion and those that don't have a religion and all the infighting. Seems kind of like a waste of energy to me...

Just my opinion. *whooshes away*

EDIT: Punctuation and grammar...*mutters*

You know, there was a line from the Colbert Report last night and I think it really applies here. I think the reason religion and science clash so much is because religious people feel science is making God seem too small, whereas atheists feel saying "God did it" is a real conversation stopper. Because once you say that, no one can contest your beliefs without offense being taken. It's no wonder the debates end up so circular.

[Oberon Storm]

Outlawing abortion would not affect those who are pushing for the change, as they wouldn't be getting abortions anyway.

That's highly debatable. Fewer births means fewer taxpayers and inevitably fewer tax dollars. Not to mention a decline in the gross number of consumers, workers, et cetera and so on.

Your're reaching. And not just a little. That's a big reach. Unless you're prepared to show us some data that would suggest the legalization of abortion led to an overall downward trend in the United States' birth rate. While I admit legalization of abortion probably did have some effect, it was very small.

An even better example, I think, of an attempt to turn a matter personal faith into law would be gay marriage. The only way a homosexual marriage would effect a heterosexual couple is if that heterosexual couple allowed it to. The only arguments against the legalization of gay marriage are religious. Any arguments about the fall of society was, I think, dispelled by the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusets. The sky did not fall. Rivers did not boil. In fact, the USA Today reported that a year after it was legalized, popular opinion had changed. Many that were before against it now don't mind at all.

I don't mean to change the topic of the thread, of course. My only point is that wisp's point remains. No one is asking Christians to "lower their standards". No one is going to march into your churches and force your preachers and priests to marry gay couples. That, too, would be unconstitutional. And no one is going anyone to consider getting into a relationship with someone of the same sex. That's just...wrong and messed up. And that's going along with the idea that it would actually be a lowering of standards. I don't agree that Christian standards are somehow above that of anyone else.

And science is not a religion like you, LionHarted, seem to be suggesting. No one is trying to force science on anyone. All science does is give answeres to natural process and such. It doesn't tell you that you have to accept what it finds or face any consequences. You can choose to believe a god or gods said, "Let ther be light," and flipped a light switch. You can subscribe to the big bang theory. Doesn't matter. There is a third choice, though. A god or gods said, "Let ther be light," or whatever and then the big bang happened. Believe what you want. Life goes on. The major religions, however, want us to only accept door number one and only door number one. If we don't we upset the big guy and get punished. If people believe that, then fine. Believe it. Don't force it on me in a state run science class.

[SOAP]

Outlawing abortion would not affect those who are pushing for the change, as they wouldn't be getting abortions anyway.

That's highly debatable. Fewer births means fewer taxpayers and inevitably fewer tax dollars. Not to mention a decline in the gross number of consumers, workers, et cetera and so on.

Your're reaching. And not just a little. That's a big reach. Unless you're prepared to show us some data that would suggest the legalization of abortion led to an overall downward trend in the United States' birth rate. While I admit legalization of abortion probably did have some effect, it was very small.

An even better example, I think, of an attempt to turn a matter personal faith into law would be gay marriage. The only way a homosexual marriage would effect a heterosexual couple is if that heterosexual couple allowed it to. The only arguments against the legalization of gay marriage are religious. Any arguments about the fall of society was, I think, dispelled by the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusets. The sky did not fall. Rivers did not boil. In fact, the USA Today reported that a year after it was legalized, popular opinion had changed. Many that were before against it now don't mind at all.

I don't mean to change the topic of the thread, of course. My only point is that wisp's point remains. No one is asking Christians to "lower their standards". No one is going to march into your churches and force your preachers and priests to marry gay couples. That, too, would be unconstitutional. And no one is going anyone to consider getting into a relationship with someone of the same sex. That's just...wrong and messed up. And that's going along with the idea that it would actually be a lowering of standards. I don't agree that Christian standards are somehow above that of anyone else.

And science is not a religion like you, LionHarted, seem to be suggesting. No one is trying to force science on anyone. All science does is give answeres to natural process and such. It doesn't tell you that you have to accept what it finds or face any consequences. You can choose to believe a god or gods said, "Let ther be light," and flipped a light switch. You can subscribe to the big bang theory. Doesn't matter. There is a third choice, though. A god or gods said, "Let ther be light," or whatever and then the big bang happened. Believe what you want. Life goes on. The major religions, however, want us to only accept door number one and only door number one. If we don't we upset the big guy and get punished. If people believe that, then fine. Believe it. Don't force it on me in a state run science class.

Another thing to add to that that decline of workers has more to do with outsourcing than fewer birth rates. There isn't less people available to work, in fact there more than enough aviable potentional workers who just aren't getting hired because companies would rather save money hiring people in other countries who can do the same amount of work for less pay.

Edited by SOAP, 03 August 2007 - 07:53 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Oh man.... this going to be a long one. I'll try yto keep my responses short.

Right. And if we knew those questions, who to ask them to, or how to find out the answers, we would, wouldn't we?

I certainly am all for questioning Christianity. But I won't ever do it with the intent of wanting to disprove it, or find a flaw. I think that many people who do question Christianity do it for the wrong reasons, and end up looking for something to find wrong with it. They make themselves believe that something is wrong with it.

You're right. Because Christians never do that to anyone else's beliefs. Certianly not you. *wink wink*

Naturally, I do. However, I don't do it with the intent of destroying anyone's self-esteem, or making them feel worthless, like most would do to Christianity because it's an 'oppressive religion.' Hence there are many self-proclaimed "anti-Christian" threads here, but any "anti-Mormon" or "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Buddhist" threads will get closed because it's just not tolerant. No, No, friend. I do what I do to help people find what I see as the truth. I tell it as I see it, and then I leave it to them to make the decision for themselves.

But here, this is a place made for debating, so I debate.

I frequently do question other's beliefs and I frequently get excuses as to why they shouldn't be questioned. That screams weakness to me. It also screams that those beliefs wouldn't stand up for five seconds in a good, proper, no holds barred debate. Christianity is made to be questioned. People do it all the time. All of the time. And after 2,000 years, it's still here. And we don't have excuses for not questioning. If we did, there wouldn't be any tolerance for these anti-Christian debate threads, would there, SOAP?

Edited by Reflectionist, 03 August 2007 - 09:23 PM.

[SOAP]

Oh man.... this going to be a long one. I'll try yto keep my responses short.

Right. And if we knew those questions, who to ask them to, or how to find out the answers, we would, wouldn't we?

I certainly am all for questioning Christianity. But I won't ever do it with the intent of wanting to disprove it, or find a flaw. I think that many people who do question Christianity do it for the wrong reasons, and end up looking for something to find wrong with it. They make themselves believe that something is wrong with it.

You're right. Because Christians never do that to anyone else's beliefs. Certianly not you. *wink wink*

Naturally, I do. However, I don't do it with the intent of destroying anyone's self-esteem, or making them feel worthless, like most would do to Christianity because it's an 'oppressive religion.' Hence there are many self-proclaimed "anti-Christian" threads here, but any "anti-Mormon" or "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Buddhist" threads will get closed because it's just not tolerant. No, No, friend. I do what I do to help people find what I see as the truth. I tell it as I see it, and then I leave it to them to make the decision for themselves.

But here, this is a place made for debating, so I debate.

I frequently do question other's beliefs and I frequently get excuses as to why they shouldn't be questioned. That screams weakness to me. It also screams that those beliefs wouldn't stand up for five seconds in a good, proper, no holds barred debate. Christianity is made to be questioned. People do it all the time. All of the time. And after 2,000 years, it's still here. And we don't have excuses for not questioning. If we did, there wouldn't be any tolerance for these anti-Christian debate threads, would there, SOAP?

Yes I can understand that. I think it may seem that Christians get antagonized more than any other religion but by the same token Christians actively make themselves enemies of the world. It's the whole "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality that pisses people off. The world isn't just Christians and Anti-Christians. The term Anti-Christian isn't a good term to begin with because it spreads the assumption that everyone who disagrees with Christianity has nothing better to do than bully Christians. Most nonChristians don't care either way about Christianity until Christians start stepping all over their personal rights. I also wonder how many nonChristians who DO demonize Christians aren't former Christians themselves. It seems more like an internal conflict to me, as even within Christianity you have different sects wringing at each other's throats, it's no wonder so many people get fed up and turn atheist. Yes Christianity still exists but it certainly isn't the same as when it's infancy when it was still whole, not with all the fighting and dividing taht's taken place over the years. In fact I wouldn't even call modern Christianity the same religion as Christianity back then. Just by reading some of of the New Testament I find that Christians were a lot more tolerate and universal and caring more about serving others instead of expecting the world to serve them. They were also TRUE matyrs back then too, not like modern Christians in the Western World who bitch about being called stupid or ignorant.

Another reason might be the culture we live in. Christians here are the majority, the loudest, and the most popular faith here which is why they come off as oppressive by everyone else. I'm sure it's a totally different story in say an Arab country where Islam is perceived to be a the oppressive tyrant and Arab Christians are the ones who seem to get special treatment that Muslims, Buddhists, and Mormons get here.

Edit: Also, haven't you ever stopped to think MAYBE the way you feel Christians are treated unfairly is exactly how people in other religions here feel when people like you go in to expose the "lies" of their faith. Who are Christians to say what is a lie and what is true to begin with? Especially when even they don't like their beliefs called a lie.

Edited by SOAP, 03 August 2007 - 10:28 PM.

[Delphi]

Then again, Reflectionist, Judaism has been around longer than Christianity and if you believe what history tells us the Hindu religion has been around far longer than that and survived. Christianity isn't an isolated case of a persecuted religion surviving several millennia. Hell, the Jews seem to get attacked in wars they aren't even a part of!

And an anti-Christian thread cannot be compared to something like an anti-Buddhism thread. Christianity as a whole, whether you like it or not, does encompass MANY different religions. So when you attack that, it's like the Christians attacking the Atheists. It's one large conglomerate of religions vs one large conglomerate of people without religions. However, when you start attacking individual sects down to a person's core beliefs, people are bound to get a little pissy.

And I agree with your response to my post SOAP. It just seems people aren't willing to open their ears to new and different ideas. I've actually had intelligent and non-inflammatory conversations with people who do not believe their is a God about science and sharing my ideas while listening to theirs. They bring up some very interesting points. And neither of us had to stoop to yelling at each other because we didn't agree on our core beliefs. Just innocent discussion and learning.

It also seems debates get so much hotter online because you can't see the person you're attacking. When it's a big faceless thing or just a name and text it's very easy to attack. But when you have to put a face and emotions with the idea it humanizes it too much. Of course, there are people that are bastards to people's faces too. Never mind me, just mindless musing...

[LionHarted]

An even better example, I think, of an attempt to turn a matter personal faith into law would be gay marriage. The only way a homosexual marriage would effect a heterosexual couple is if that heterosexual couple allowed it to.

I find gay marriage very low on the list of things I'm concerned with, so it's really a much worse example. Abortion, on the other hand, involves a human being inflicting very deliberate and very irreversible damage to another living being, and that is simply unacceptable to me, in any case.

No one is trying to force science on anyone.

More accurately, you would say "not everyone" is trying, in which case religion is the same.

It doesn't tell you that you have to accept what it finds or face any consequences.

The consequences are being illogical, or worse, incorrect. Of course, if there isn't a god, then there are no consequences, outside of being illogical or wrong, but if there is, and those consequences for not following X, Y, and Z moral standards do exist, then religion isn't *telling* you you have to accept it or face consequences; you simply do.

Believe me, I'm wonderfully open to science and other religious disciplinary ideas. I'm simply not open to the stereotypical and frankly uneducated bullshit that comes out of people's mouths.

Edited by LionHarted, 03 August 2007 - 11:04 PM.

[SOAP]

An even better example, I think, of an attempt to turn a matter personal faith into law would be gay marriage. The only way a homosexual marriage would effect a heterosexual couple is if that heterosexual couple allowed it to.

I find gay marriage very low on the list of things I'm concerned with, so it's really a much worse example. Abortion, on the other hand, involves a human being inflicting very deliberate and very irreversible damage to another living being, and that is simply unacceptable to me, in any case.

No one is trying to force science on anyone.

More accurately, you would say "not everyone" is trying, in which case religion is the same.

It doesn't tell you that you have to accept what it finds or face any consequences.

The consequences are being illogical, or worse, incorrect. Of course, if there isn't a god, then there are no consequences, outside of being illogical or wrong, but if there is, and those consequences for not following X, Y, and Z moral standards do exist, then religion isn't *telling* you you have to accept it or face consequences; you simply do.

Believe me, I'm wonderfully open to science and other religious disciplinary ideas. I'm simply not open to the stereotypical and frankly uneducated bullshit that comes out of people's mouths.

Being called ignorant or incorrect does not compare to being called sinful, evil, or destined for hell regardless if God exists or not. You can be called ignorant but still won't have your rights denied just because you happen to believe something else. There was once was a bill here in Texas trying to get passed to ban teenage girls from getting a shot that would cure cervical cancer, just because religious fundamentalists believed it would undermine God's law against premarital sex to not have them face the consequences of their actions. There are many circumstances of people getting denied health care, respect, equality, and love because of religious fundamentalists wanting things to be their way and only their way.

[wisp]

I find gay marriage very low on the list of things I'm concerned with, so it's really a much worse example. Abortion, on the other hand, involves a human being inflicting very deliberate and very irreversible damage to another living being, and that is simply unacceptable to me, in any case.

This really is a matter for another thread, but honestly the severity of your words demands a reply. Every time you eat food, you're eating another living thing that has had deliberate and very irreversible damage done to it. I know you're probably going to look at this as just me trying to be an ass, but I'm really just trying to make a point. Legal abortions are performed in the first trimester, when the fetus is not conscious, and not even a 'baby' yet. Yes, it is made of human cells. Yes, it has the potential to become a human being. Yes, it is alive, but really no more "alive" (in a "fully functioning being" kind of sense) than the vegetables we eat on a daily basis and certainly less "alive" (in the same sense) than the fully grown animals that we slaughter and eat. It is unable to survive without being a parasite to its mother. Additionally, more often than not, first trimester fetuses are spontaneously aborted (more commonly known as a miscarriage). It's vastly different from murdering a full grown human. It's vastly different from murdering a human child or baby. It's even vastly different from aborting a second or third trimester fetus.

I suppose, in relation to religion, many people feel that since the Bible says "God knew you before you were formed in the womb" this means that abortion is immoral. However, this is religiously based and not empirically based, therefore this reasoning should not be given weight when making state laws. It differs from, say, laws against murdering another person because that other person is already a functioning human being. The hypothetical murder victim is able to survive on its own without being physically attached to another person in order for its body to function. This is not a relative moral fact, it's physically observable that an already-birthed human being and a first trimester human fetus do not have the same "kind" or "quality" of life.

Before anyone attempts to demonize me for what I've just said - I don't encourage people to use abortion as birth control. It's a very irresponsible practice and dangerous to the woman's health to do so. If you don't want to get pregnant, take every available precaution and make sure you're doing so correctly. However, on the chance that something does happen, people should not be vilified for getting abortions and they certainly shouldn't be prevented from getting abortions done in a safe, sterile, professional environment.

The consequences are being illogical, or worse, incorrect. Of course, if there isn't a god, then there are no consequences, outside of being illogical or wrong, but if there is, and those consequences for not following X, Y, and Z moral standards do exist, then religion isn't *telling* you you have to accept it or face consequences; you simply do.

Believe me, I'm wonderfully open to science and other religious disciplinary ideas. I'm simply not open to the stereotypical and frankly uneducated bullshit that comes out of people's mouths.

I certainly hope you are not referring to those of us who are debating the opposing stance OR our arguments as "uneducated." Nothing that comes out of my mouth (or more literally, my keyboard) in this forum is "uneducated bullshit." If I am uninformed on a topic, I generally say so. If I don't say so, you can probably bet your butt that I've researched the subject and I am reasonably educated as to what I'm saying, and I'm sure I can say the same of most (if not all) of the others here. If this isn't what you're implying, disregard this, but if it is, know that it is a highly offensive statement.

[LionHarted]

This really is a matter for another thread, but honestly the severity of your words demands a reply. Every time you eat food, you're eating another living thing that has had deliberate and very irreversible damage done to it.

Indeed.

I need to eat food to live, though. Most people don't need to abort a fetus to live. Killing for food tends to take precedent over the morality behind "thou shalt not kill."

Legal abortions are performed in the first trimester, when the fetus is not conscious, and not even a 'baby' yet. Yes, it is made of human cells. Yes, it has the potential to become a human being. Yes, it is alive, but really no more "alive" (in a "fully functioning being" kind of sense) than the vegetables we eat on a daily basis and certainly less "alive" (in the same sense) than the fully grown animals that we slaughter and eat. It is unable to survive without being a parasite to its mother. Additionally, more often than not, first trimester fetuses are spontaneously aborted (more commonly known as a miscarriage). It's vastly different from murdering a full grown human. It's vastly different from murdering a human child or baby. It's even vastly different from aborting a second or third trimester fetus.

1) So, if you're not "conscious", you're fair game?
2) So, simply being "alive" isn't enough to be considered "alive"? You have to pass the "living" test, too?
3) So, dependency somehow invalidates whether or not something is considered "alive"?
4) So, the state of development of a human being effects the severity of the crime?

I'm sorry, but none of these reasons suffice to justify anything. All of them could apply invariably to already-birthed human beings.

However, this is religiously based and not empirically based, therefore this reasoning should not be given weight when making state laws.

That life begins at conception is empirically-based.

This is not a relative moral fact, it's physically observable that an already-birthed human being and a first trimester human fetus do not have the same "kind" or "quality" of life.

Who gives a flying fuck? The fact that you have to reason around the fact that you're killing another human being dominates this debate. All you're doing is making excuses for why something that wouldn't be okay in other situations is okay.

If I don't say so, you can probably bet your butt that I've researched the subject and I am reasonably educated as to what I'm saying, and I'm sure I can say the same of most (if not all) of the others here. If this isn't what you're implying, disregard this, but if it is, know that it is a highly offensive statement.

Most of your arguments against the idea of prayer were formulated seemingly from the perspective that prayer should operate the way you want it to. Thus, I would necessarily postulate that you're simply making up straw men in order to attack the idea, which would fall into the category of "uneducated bullshit."

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I'm not arguing against science, either, just pointing out that it, too, subscribes to systems of belief to dictate how it ought to view the world, and what it ought to consider valid.

No, science doesn't subscribe to a belief system.

Tell me, when a judge dismisses evidence because it isn't admissible in a court, is that because he is subscribing to a belief system? Or is it because he is not legally allowed to admit that evidence due to it being obviously fake or for whatever reason he decides not to admit it?

Science can only posit explanations that can eventually be proven to be true through empirical means. That's not a belief system. That's a rule to make sure scientists don't come up with complete and utter crap.

That life begins at conception is empirically-based.

I'd like to point out that your statement is absolutely meaningless or wrong, depending on what you mean by life. In fact, now that I think about it, it's completely wrong no matter how you interpret life.

The spermatozoa and egg were alive before conception. A new life is not created from them. These two things merge. They don't stop being alive. They become one. Therefore, no life is created at conception.

Also, how has it be empirically proven, might I ask? What studies have you to show us that prove that life begins at conception?

[LionHarted]

No, science doesn't subscribe to a belief system.

Science subscribes to an organized pattern of beliefs; they call it "logic" and the "scientific method."

Tell me, when a judge dismisses evidence because it isn't admissible in a court, is that because he is subscribing to a belief system? Or is it because he is not legally allowed to admit that evidence due to it being obviously fake or for whatever reason he decides not to admit it?

The legal system, too, is based upon beliefs about how law should be practiced.

Science can only posit explanations that can eventually be proven to be true through empirical means. That's not a belief system. That's a rule to make sure scientists don't come up with complete and utter crap.

That's a belief system. A number of unprovable explanations are equally possible. The belief that explanations should be empirically testable is not absolute. Facts are not always observable through empirical means.

I'd like to point out that your statement is absolutely meaningless or wrong, depending on what you mean by life. In fact, now that I think about it, it's completely wrong no matter how you interpret life.

That the life of the organism as a unit beginning the development of a complete human being begins at conception is empirically-based.

Neither the sperm or the egg can constitute a human being, as neither carries more than the genetic material of its single parent. The sperm is a male reproductive cell; a part of the male physiology. The egg is a female reproductive cell; a part of the female physiology. The zygote is neither. It does not belong exclusively to any particular organism; it is its own; it is unique and it is an individual living within another whole.

Edited by LionHarted, 04 August 2007 - 09:05 AM.

[Oberon Storm]

An even better example, I think, of an attempt to turn a matter personal faith into law would be gay marriage. The only way a homosexual marriage would effect a heterosexual couple is if that heterosexual couple allowed it to.

I find gay marriage very low on the list of things I'm concerned with, so it's really a much worse example. Abortion, on the other hand, involves a human being inflicting very deliberate and very irreversible damage to another living being, and that is simply unacceptable to me, in any case.

I wasn't giving examples of what is more or less moral than others. You miss the point completely. Some people have legitimate reservations about abortion. I don't think all the questions about how "alive" a fetus is at any point during a pregnancy have been completely answered. My own personal position is that while I do not like abortions I feel it is a deeply personal decision that I have no place in. I believe every abortion has a story. Neither you now I know every story, so it is not our place to tell someone they can't make decisions about their own health.

The same is not true of gay marriage. There is no reason at all for it to be illegal. None. Zilch. It hurts no one. It effects no one except the couple that chooses to get married.

I was giving examples of issues that are personal matters of faith some are attempting to turn into law. So, yes, gay marriage is the better example.

No one is trying to force science on anyone.

More accurately, you would say "not everyone" is trying, in which case religion is the same.

Maybe you would like to provide an example of science being forced on others.

It doesn't tell you that you have to accept what it finds or face any consequences.

The consequences are being illogical, or worse, incorrect. Of course, if there isn't a god, then there are no consequences, outside of being illogical or wrong, but if there is, and those consequences for not following X, Y, and Z moral standards do exist, then religion isn't *telling* you you have to accept it or face consequences; you simply do.

Of course you are incorrect. If something has been proven, as far as any evidence and data can prove it, then it is fact. Do you wish to argue that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun? Maybe you would like to argue about how ecosystems realy work. Would you submit that there is no such thing as gravity? So, yes, if you want to dispute these facts then you are incorrect. But who cares? You will not burn in hell for not accepting these facts as facts though. You just won't win any debates and your career options become limited.

Believe me, I'm wonderfully open to science and other religious disciplinary ideas. I'm simply not open to the stereotypical and frankly uneducated bullshit that comes out of people's mouths.

And what do you consider uneducated bullshit?

[Nevermind]

Maybe you would like to provide an example of science being forced on others.

That is exactly the same as someone trying to provide an example of Christianity being forced upon others; there are so many instances that examples need not be provided. The amount of people that try to dissuade the religious of their faith are just as numerous as those trying to convert 'lost souls'.

As for the fact being proven thing and whatnot - there will always, ALWAYS be an unknown factor. No matter how highly we think of ourselves, humans are WAY too far from being all-knowledgeable to discern what is 100% fact or not. A proven theory is only fact as far as we can tell, and if you are able to provide a path that transcends this limitation upon our existence, then please redirect me for I would surely like to enlighten myself.

[LionHarted]

Neither you now I know every story, so it is not our place to tell someone they can't make decisions about their own health.

It is certainly the law's place to tell someone they cannot do away with something that is alive.

Maybe you would like to provide an example of science being forced on others.

It would be foolish of anyone to deny that any group is without bigots.

Of course you are incorrect. If something has been proven, as far as any evidence and data can prove it, then it is fact.

Not necessarily.

You will not burn in hell for not accepting these facts as facts though.

If there is no hell, no one will burn in hell for anything, because there is no hell.
If there is a hell, and you would burn in hell for not following certain standards of living, I would be duty-bound to tell you, would I not?

[Oberon Storm]

[quote name='Lazurukeel' post='351890' date='Aug 4 2007, 10:02 AM'][quote]Maybe you would like to provide an example of science being forced on others.[/quote]That is exactly the same as someone trying to provide an example of Christianity being forced upon others; there are so many instances that examples need not be provided. The amount of people that try to dissuade the religious of their faith are just as numerous as those trying to convert 'lost souls'.[/quote]But what are some examples of science being pased into laws that effect the personal lives of everyone?

[quote name='LionHarted' post='351891' date='Aug 4 2007, 10:13 AM'][quote name='Chief Fire Storm' post='351888' date='Aug 4 2007, 09:50 AM']Neither you nor I know every story, so it is not our place to tell someone they can't make decisions about their own health.[/quote]It is certainly the law's place to tell someone they cannot do away with something that is alive.[/quote]It is not that clear cut. Pregnancy has a very big and direct effect on the mother. It effects both her mind and body.

[quote]Maybe you would like to provide an example of science being forced on others.[/quote]It would be foolish of anyone to deny that any group is without bigots.[/quote]Not what I asked.

[quote]Of course you are incorrect. If something has been proven, as far as any evidence and data can prove it, then it is fact.[/quote]Not necessarily.[/quote]Please explain how this can be so.

[quote]You will not burn in hell for not accepting these facts as facts though.[/quote]If there is no hell, no one will burn in hell for anything, because there is no hell. If there is a hell, and you would burn in hell for not following certain standards of living, I would be duty-bound to tell you, would I not?[/quote]No you wouldn't. Not everyone cares. But I'm not arguing if there is a hell or not.

[Nevermind]

I ask you, what are examples of Christianity being passed into laws that effect the personal lives of everyone?


Note, you do say "everyone", so giving examples of self-defined laws given by Christians to themselves and their peers do not count.

[Oberon Storm]

Laws banning gay marriage is faith turned into law.

[LionHarted]

It is not that clear cut. Pregnancy has a very big and direct effect on the mother. It effects both her mind and body.

And that totally justifies killing, right?

Not what I asked.

It effectively is.

Please explain how this can be so.

Just because we have proven that bodies behave as though there is a force such as gravity, does not mean that there is such a force.

No you wouldn't.

Exactly my point. And neither is it your place to tell me or anybody else when I am and am not being logical. After all, not everybody cares.

Laws banning gay marriage is faith turned into law.

Laws banning gay marriage presuppose that gay marriage does not exist in the truest sense to begin with, since, to a large extent, the purpose of marriage is organized procreation.

Not creating a legal institution for same-sex marriage affects nothing. Laws abolishing an already-established and legally-supported gay marriage institution might.

0 + 0 = 0

Edited by LionHarted, 04 August 2007 - 11:45 AM.

[Nevermind]

That is not faith alone. Did you ever consider the idea of the goal of nature is to surive through reproduction, and that NATURALLY two men or two women are unable to reproduce, thus negating the purpose of nature, which in turn would make it techincally "unnatural". It is not by religion alone that gay marriage is unsettling to [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of people, but also by subconscious, instinctive taboos within the human mind that stem from primal thought processes.

As you gave me an example...of sorts, it's only fair that I give you something similar. Consider the entire medical system. A person on life support with no brainwave activity, and no signs of life - apart from those that the machines grant them. These situations create nasty little court cases filled with loop-holes and technicalities because "clinically" the body is alive, and any suggestion of something other than forcefully-functioning organs residing within the body are immediately dismissed on 'scientific fact' and somewhat ridiculed.

[Fyxe]

Going by that logic however, you could claim that all sex for pleasure and not reproduction is therefore 'unnatural'. And masturbation.

Not everything we do as human beings leads to the propogation of the species. We do horribly unnatural things all the time. We wear clothes, for one thing. Nobody aims the bigotry that is saved for homophobia towards clothes. o.o

[LionHarted]

Going by that logic however, you could claim that all sex for pleasure and not reproduction is therefore 'unnatural'. And masturbation.

And...?

Of course, that would be a straw man, but whatever.

[Nevermind]

Sex for pleasure still derives from an instinctive driving force, though; people just tend to have the technology, as well as the awareness and comprehension of said technology, to hinder the nitty gritty detailed processes of reproduction. Being popular does not make it natural, just innovative. Masturbation is the same, albeit without the technology.


Clothes tend not to divert the natural progression of nature.


Nonetheless, the argument was not against the nature of sexual activities, but the forcing of either science or religion upon the general population via societal laws.

Edited by Lazurukeel, 04 August 2007 - 12:31 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

That is not faith alone. Did you ever consider the idea of the goal of nature is to surive through reproduction, and that NATURALLY two men or two women are unable to reproduce, thus negating the purpose of nature, which in turn would make it techincally "unnatural". It is not by religion alone that gay marriage is unsettling to [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of people, but also by subconscious, instinctive taboos within the human mind that stem from primal thought processes.

As you gave me an example...of sorts, it's only fair that I give you something similar. Consider the entire medical system. A person on life support with no brainwave activity, and no signs of life - apart from those that the machines grant them. These situations create nasty little court cases filled with loop-holes and technicalities because "clinically" the body is alive, and any suggestion of something other than forcefully-functioning organs residing within the body are immediately dismissed on 'scientific fact' and somewhat ridiculed.

There are incidents of homsexual behavior throughout nature. Even without a situation of over population. Legalizing homosexual marriage is not going to cause a huge drop in the human population. They're gay anyway and unlikely to have children without adopting or using artificial means. The idea of hooking up with a guy might a little unsettle to myself, but that should not have any effect on some other guy's life.

I would assume a doctor knows what they are doing and can tell if there is any real brian activity going. In the Terry Schivo case, doctors argued that shes was not really there and that it was not reasonable to believe she would ever come back after 20 or more years. Even after she died, the autopsy showed her brain had shrunk so much from it's original state it was less than half the original mass. The real issue there was who can make the decision. Her husband or her parents.

It is not that clear cut. Pregnancy has a very big and direct effect on the mother. It effects both her mind and body.

And that totally justifies killing, right?

It gives her the right to make her own decisions about her own body.

Not what I asked.

It effectively is.

No it isn't. I asked for example. Not a blanket statement.

Please explain how this can be so.

Just because we have proven that bodies behave as though there is a force such as gravity, does not mean that there is such a force.

But something is keeping us rooted in place. Or else we would float away. Are you denying this?

No you wouldn't.

Exactly my point. And neither is it your place to tell me or anybody else when I am and am not being logical. After all, not everybody cares.

Except for in debates and discussions, I would agree. And certain professions.

Laws banning gay marriage is faith turned into law.

Laws banning gay marriage presuppose that gay marriage does not exist in the truest sense to begin with, since, to a large extent, the purpose of marriage is organized procreation.

Not creating a legal institution for same-sex marriage affects nothing. Laws abolishing an already-established and legally-supported gay marriage institution might.

0 + 0 = 0

The purpose of marriage, historicaly, is to pool economic resources. If you don't pass a law banning gay marriage then there is nothing barring a gay couples from getting married. When you pass these laws you are abolishing a legally-support institution.