I'm paraphrasing the Bible: What God has built, let no man put assunder. obama cannot turn back the Blessings God had bestowed upon United States of America, lest he be cursed and cast out!
DC creates a lot of diversions. Obama is a Muslim and actually practices no religion at all. This is one of the real issues that Washington must get back into and stop creating diversions. God is the supreme being and NOT the self proclaimed Messiah/Obama.
Quote: "Karl Marx said that "Communism begins where atheism begins …""
And yet I'm an Atheist who advocates Capitalism, the Free Market, Individual Rights and Free Trade, and who hates Communism with a passion. I also live by a strict moral code.
Oh wait, I just made a big bloody hole in your argument. How can Kordane be?? He must be a glitch in the Matrix, a spatial anomaly, a freak of nature, etc.
Or - I could say I was a poor black woman from the southern coast of Africa, too. But that don't make it so. You have built a bubble around you to infer that this is what you are, whether you believe it or not, but others do not. You can declare you are on the pedestal, but methinks the emperor has no clothes.
You're not a consistent atheist that's your problem.
And you don't have to be a Christian to appreciate capitalism, free markets, free trade or individual rights. But I question where in your "material only" universe are you able to sneak in "individual rights"? In a universe where we survive by "hook or by crook" ala Dawkins -- where it is "eat or be eaten" -- how can I have a "right" to anything? In that sort of world, I haven't any "rights"! There is only pitiless indifference and mere survival!
A Zebra sipping at the edge of a pond doesn't complain about individual rights when his herd is ambushed by a hungry crocodile! Flies hitting the grill of my automobile don't demand safer roads! Antelopes don't demand "lion-free zones" when their calves are attacked and eaten by hungry lions. Chimps don't demand "equal justice" when a rival unit of chimps attacks another and forces them from their feeding grounds.
Yet, we're supposed to believe that human beings, the only beings on the planet uniquely fitted with a moral sense of right and wrong, somehow derived this sense from trial and error. That at some point the chemical mixture in our brains simply caused us to walk out of the jungle and insist that we all just "get along".....minus the crocodiles, lions and rival chimps of course. We demanded civility from one another but gave lions a pass because we what, were "more evolved"?
So when a lion eats a child, we shouldn't expect any more from him in regard to MORALITY than we would expect from a murderer in prison, because both are only indulging their primal instincts to kill. They are only serving their own "self-interests" as you call them. Why judge the one by one standard and the other by another? After all, we're all equally locked in a struggle for survival.
The lion kills to eat, but so does the cannibal. The croc kills to survive, but the murderer kills for revenge or a sense of hate. Who's to say that EITHER is wrong? Who is qualified to be a judge over all and dictate the rules? And who makes that person god who says that the murderer should be imprisoned or electrocuted rather than released and given a pat on the back? Who's to say that the murderer shouldn't go free and the virtuous should be locked in prison or electrocuted?
I submit to you that there is an innate sense of morality coded into us by our Designer who has given each of us a sense to judge what is morally right and wrong. He has programmed us with a conscience so that we can judge based on a prescribed set of moral absolutes. If He didn't encode us with that sense then we would be left with the atheist's universe -- we would simply kill each other like the lion does without care or remorse. When we ignore our conscience we become a Hitler, Mussolini or an Adam Lanza.
This is words of G-d Jehovah, his love expressed by his power and glory for those who love him and fear him. Found in the Book Of Dueteronomy;
Thought shall not be afraid of them: but shalt well remember what the Lord thy G-d did unto Pharaoh and to all Egyptians;
The great temptations which thin eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the stretched out arm, whereby the Lord thy G-d brought thee out: so shall the Lord thy G-d do unto all the people whom you are afraid.
Moreover the Lord thy G-d will send the hornet among them, until them that are left, hide themselves from you, be destoryed.
You shall not be afraid of them: for the Lord your G-d is among you, a mighty G-d and terrible.
Lest we American Christians forget Israel, our Lord G-d Jehovah, or our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ the only son of the only true Living G-d or the Holy Spirit our most powerful comforter.
Fear not your enemies when they wail against you, they are only grasshoppers for the firer, and your G-d laughs at them.
peace to all my brothers and sisters
For too long "Our History" has been re-written to suit the propagandist that wanted to destroy the United States.
Its been a very long road from the establishment of a country that loved God and Had Religious tolerance to a country of wild eyed atheist that have no morals, that hate religion, and hate all people that don't agree with them !.
Why ? Its the loss of family and the structure that it brought to our society ! We need to get back to basics, back to God and back to the real family, " Not the two Mommies or the two Daddies" theme, We need to get back to Loving Moms and Dads together raising a future that will be the United States.
We The people really need to rededicate ourselves to our heritage, be proud of it and protect it from the current and future tyrannical government that is taking away our rights that God has given us.
Highly recommend Kirk Cameron's documentary movie "Monumental" which chronicles the Pilgrims' REAL history. Also found The Story of Liberty hosted by John Bona http://thestoryofliberty.intuitwebsites.com/ which also tells our Christian heritage story.
This is a pretty good article. I agree that the US was certainly founded on Christianity, no matter what the atheists claim. The separation of church and state wasn't there to say that the state cannot have open prayer, it was that the state cannot CREATE a church. (Church of England anyone?).
I am certainly not a Christian, Muslim or Jewish, but I have no problem with someone praying at a state event, or with the 10 commandments being posted in places like courthouses and schools. But many atheists are liberals (at least the ones that I know personally) and they have NO TOLERANCE for anyone's viewpoint but their own.
Even if you are an atheist, you can whittle it down in your mind to THE 6 REALLY GOOD RULES TO LIVE BY. My questions to an atheist would be -
1. What is wrong with not killing someone?
2. What is wrong with not stealing?
3. What is wrong with not having sex with your neighbor's wife/husband?
4. What is wrong with respecting your parents?
5. What is wrong with being honest?
6. Why covet other people's stuff? (Why would you want to, earn it yourself.)
If the other stuff in the 10 Commandments bother you, then ignore them like I do. Atheists and liberals are so narrow minded that they amaze me. It must be nice for them to live in a bubble filled with their putrid stench.
So you pick and choose what to believe while ignoring the very God who gave us the list that you provided. So you're making yourself the god of God. You're essentially telling God that you'll pick and choose what you'll obey rather than obey all that He commands. That's like saying to a Judge, "Judge, I'll not murder or steal, but I won't acknowledge you as a legal authority on matters of speeding on the highway because I don't believe that speeding is wrong."
I guarantee you that if you've disobeyed the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" then you've most certainly disobeyed most of the others as well.
I think you are missing the point of my post. Can you say that the Jewish religion is wrong? I've read the Bible many times too and it states that Jews are God's chosen people (that was in the New Testament too in case you missed it). This is about freedom of religion.
I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but not everyone is a Christian and not all of our founding fathers were either. This country was founded on the freedom to worship as you choose, and for you to blindly point out that if someone doesn't follow ALL the Commandments then they are wrong, well that is pretty narrow minded. Would you expect a Buddhist to follow the Commandments? How about a Hindu or a Sikh? Are you going to tell those people they are wrong to worship as they do?
One final question: Who are you to judge?
Ok, if you want to get technical, and this will probably offend you. All three of them are based on the same religion, it wasn't until Abraham's children split off to form their own families that the muslim religion sprouted. Which would mean that all three are fighting over the same God, just their view of him.
In case you didn't notice, Christianity is a JEWISH RELIGION...at least in the technical sense. The JEWISH Messiah is JESUS CHRIST. The Jews do not recognize Jesus as Messiah at the moment but God has promised that one day they will. So, in regard to "religion" there is only ONE worldview that DOMINATED the landscape in the time of our Founders: Judeo/Christianity.
You have freedom to worship as you like because unlike most world religions, Judeo/Christianity is TOLERANT of opposing views. (You're welcome by the way).
You don't have to acknowledge it or accept it or even say "thank you" but if it wasn't for Christianity there would be NO AMERICA, nor liberty!
Atheism would never have produced a nation where "all men are endowed by their Creator". Nor would Hinduism, nor buddhism, NOR ISLAM!
Atheism produced communism and the gulags of the former Soviet Union.
Hinduism produced India, Nepal and Bangladesh
Buddhism produced China, Japan and Thailand among others.
Judeo/Christianity produced the greatest nation in all of human history: The United States of America.
This is indisputable.
You don't have a tenth of the rights in the other nations that you enjoy here and yet all we ever hear is how Christians are intolerant and hateful! NONSENSE! The godless and immoral are intolerant and hateful!
I'm an Atheist yet I am a greater champion for the cause of individual liberty than the vast majority of Christians will ever be. I'd argue that Christians are happy with violating the unalienable individual rights of Man when it comes to issues like pornography, drug usage, illicit sex, gambling, abortion, gay marriage, and so on. There is no consistent defense of the individual rights amongst Christians; they are just as guilty as the tyranny-loving Liberals who want to violate the unalienable individual rights of Man by banning violent movies and games, smoking, gun ownership, unhealthy foods, energy production, and so on.
Don't try to fool me into believing that all Christians are liberty/rights loving individuals. They're not. I've seen plenty of communists, socialists, fascists and marxists who are Christians. This is a matter of political ideology. People from any religion (or lack thereof) can fall for any political ideology.
You might think that Christians are more biased towards liberty than Atheists, but I would argue that their altruistic moral code of "self-sacrifice for the sake of others" is most compatible with the Communist maxim "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" - Whereas the Christian altruistic moral code of "self-sacrifice for the sake of others" is incompatible with Capitalism which is primarily about acting in one's self-interest, pursuing one's happiness, and accruing one's own property and profits.
Sometimes I feel myself on the verge of responding to one of your inane posts. Then I catch myself, because I realize what a huge waste of time it would be.
Tonight of course, was an exception, and I apologize for that. It won't happen again.
He's a pretzel maker using words for dough and a refrigerator for an oven. A flawed business concept with no sales or customers, and a stupid banker who's got some 'splainin' to do.
1) How do you suppose that immoral behavior, which has proven itself over millennia to lead to the self-destruction of the culture, be considered a "right" to a civilized society?
First of all, an immoral culture inevitably becomes a predatory culture. One in which moral SELF-GOVERNMENT is abandoned in order to satisfy the baser instincts of the human heart. This leads to more crime and evermore immorality.
And what you consider "rights" are not rights at all if indeed God "governs in the affairs of men", if "all men are endowed by their Creator", and if it is in "God we trust". If the "Creator God" of the Bible is who we're endowed by with rights then it's that same "Creator's" Laws which also apply to us. And according to God's law everything you listed, "pornography, drug usage, illicit sex, gambling, abortion, gay marriage, and so on" are all sinful behaviors punishable by God's judgment.
But even with God's law aside, thousands of years of human civilization has already proven that immoral behavior is self-destructive and is the very reason civil and criminal law exists. Civil and criminal law, grounded in objective moral ethics, RESTRAINS immorality and evil and shields the innocent from those who practice unrestrained immorality.
If it didn't then child molesters, rapists and murderers would have nothing to restrain them. Without the law there is no criminal act.
Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams
2) "I've seen plenty of communists, socialists, fascists and marxists who are Christians."
I don't know what you've seen, but they are not Christians if their behavior and worldview are inconsistent with the biblical worldview. God and liberty cannot be divorced from one another. And that is the point our Founders made over and over again. Jesus came to set captives free, not to enslave and shackle them. Enslavement is not a Christian practice. Anyone acting inconsistent with Christ's commandments is not a Christian, because a disciple of Christ not only "believes in Him" but is one that trusts in Him and has made Him Lord of their lives.
3) I'll answer your last statement about communism with a quote from a man who actually lived through communism.
“The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. there is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The communist torturers often said, “There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.” I have heard one torturer even say, “I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil that is in my heart.” He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.” – Richard Wurmbrand, Tortured for Christ, prisoner in Romania for 13 years
According to Hawaii State University's study on Democide by R.J. Rummel, communism is responsible for killing some "110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987."
Quote: "How do you suppose that immoral behavior, which has proven itself over millennia to lead to the self-destruction of the culture, be considered a "right" to a civilized society?"
It depends what morality you're talking about. You mention this and that are "immoral", but you don't actually name your morality, nor explain how it works.
I advocate the morality of self-interest, ie. The morality of the productive.
I don't think that self-interest is self-destructive, because I don't think that destroying yourself is in your self-interest. I think that working hard to make your life the best life that it can be, is in your self-interest, hence why I said it's the morality of the productive.
Acting in one's self-interest is incredibly noble, in my view. Acting in one's self-destruction, eg. By "sacrificing" oneself for the sake of others ... is evil. This does not mean, however, that one may never help others, since one may, so long as that help is in one's own self-interest. For instance, if I provide a lesser value to you, then you'll provide a greater value to me. It's charity, but as an investment, rather than a net loss.
Quote: "Enslavement is not a Christian practice"
Actually, I think it is because Christianity says that self-sacrifice for the sake of others is moral. So technically that's an endorsement of slavery, since what is slavery other than self-sacrifice for the sake of others? Sure, it's not voluntary, but it is self-sacrifice for the sake of others, and so therefore it's moral, according to Christianity's ethics.
When social security was first being advocated, there were politicians who quoted Christian scripture as the moral justification for a system that essentially forces individuals (the young) to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others (the aged). The same goes for medicare and medicaid, and a whole bunch of other "self-sacrificial" government policies. Christian scripture is always quoted by politicians as religious moral justification for sacrificing some group of people for the sake of some other group of people. YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
Quote: "The communist torturers often said, "There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish"."
Being an Atheist does NOT mean that you automatically have no morality. I am an Atheist, yet I follow a strict ethical code of self-interest. I know what is right and what is wrong. I don't need no "God" to tell me what is right and wrong. I have nature/reality to tell me what is right and wrong. My human nature, as a rational being, tells me ALL I need to know about what actions are right (if I want to live), and what actions are wrong (if I want to live).
Those Communist torturers may have been Atheists, but the problem was that they lacked morality, not that they lacked religion. Religion does NOT have a monopoly on morality. There are moralities that aren't based in religion.
Quite frankly it's a massive fallacy to claim that there is no morality without religion, but that's precisely what fallacy you're making.
Quote: "communism is responsible for killing some "110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments"
Yes, and therefore the political ideology of Communism is to blame.
But tell me, how many have died throughout the ages over religion? Think of all the countless holy wars and religious conflicts that have ensued. My oh my, if only we knew that figure then I expect it would dwarf the death toll under Communism. It would definitely have to be up there in the "billions" of deaths.
'The beginnings of life require organic matter...' - k
Organic matter (or organic material, natural organic matter) is matter composed of organic compounds that has come from the remains of once-living organisms such as plants and animals and their waste products in the environment.
You're fighting a circular reasoning here. In order to have life (according to you), you need prior life for it to happen. So, whether you believe it came from comets, asteroids, or the primordial soup, you haven't explained where that initial life came from in order to spawn later life. Perhaps it's just 'magic'?
One thing science (along with you) has a problem with is all the oh so convenient, random occurrences that went into effect to randomly create life as science knows it (including, but not limited to, the big bang theory (in science, not on TV), the creation of the moon, asteroids or comets leaving organic matter on Earth, the size of the Sun and the exact distance of Earth from the Sun, the necessary magnetic field, the life protecting ozone layer, random evolution from primordial soup to mankind, etc, etc, etc - all of which needed to be put together to actually form life, any one of which, if they were missing would stop the process).
It is convenient to ignore any part of that process to claim that there is no God and we all just stood up from the mud, randomly, with our specific DNA (which zygotes have, btw) and became mankind.
They don't even attempt to get into the discussion of a soul, because they admit that science has no means to be able to measure that and therefore it is just out of their realm of expertise.
But, hey, you aren't going to 'spawn life just by throwing some iron filings into a pot', now are you?
Morality is defined as "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
Immorality is defined as " the quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct."
In the United States of America it is "IN GOD WE TRUST", not buddha, nore krishna, nor allah -- It is the God of the Bible and His Son Jesus Christ that is the source of our moral course.
It is THIS same God to WHOM we are subject, and it is HIS LAW, the very Law Moses holds depicted in the relief in the Supreme Court, that is the basis for our form of government.
It hasn't been until recently that all of this common historical knowledge has been swept aside and revised to fit a godless agenda. An agenda that seeks to remove the very foundation of our national identity. But they can't escape it without hiding it or sandblasting it away!
1) Where do you derive your morality? Do you make it up as you go along? If so, why should we abide by YOUR illusions of morality rather than God's? His have proven themselves trustworthy over thousands of years.
2) You say you believe in your own self-interest, that might be good if you lived alone on an island somewhere, but you don't. You live in a civilized society with millions of other people and your own "self-interest" touches more than just your little world. When a rapist sets out to indulge his own "self-interest", he is no longer just affecting his own "self-interest" but is now affecting someone else's! When a strip club moves into a residential neighborhood, it is no longer just affecting it's own "self-interest" but it is also affecting every home value and every family in that neighborhood when it attracts guests who are of questionable moral behavior. When a husband decides to ignore his matrimonial vows and commits adultery with a woman from his office, he is no longer just affecting his own "self-interest"; his behavior will eventually touch his wife, his children, his extended family, his job and even generations to come.
You're right about one thing. Sin is the momentary satisfaction of one's own "self-interests".
Three varying levels of immorality -- physical, material and emotional. Each is destructive in it's own right.
3) So all of the millions who have died to give you freedom, they were evil? Are you for real?? I can guarantee one thing -- you do not have children nor a wife either. If you can't say that you would sacrifice for your wife or children unless there was some benefit in it for you, then you're going to be alone for a very long time.
So, I suppose Jesus Christ was evil when He said, "No greater love has anyone than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." Sacrifice is the HIGHEST MORAL ABSOLUTE there is and the highest expression of love! To give up what is most precious for the sake of someone else. Greed and selfishness is the opposite. Greed and selfishness takes and demands. Neither are ideals that produce healthy societies.
4) Sacrifice as slavery? This doesn't even make any rational sense. How in the WORLD is "self-sacrifice" slavery? Slavery is defined as "The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household." The only way slavery and self-sacrifice would have any relationship at all is if a person sold HIMSELF into slavery for the sake of someone else. But even in that regard, "self-sacrifice" itself is not "slavery"!
5) I would NEVER claim that an atheist can't be moral. Nor would any knowledgeable Christian either. What I WOULD postulate is that atheists can't be CONSISTENT! That is, they can't explain WHY THEY are moral much less where in a material only universe morality stems from.
They will claim "millions of years of conditioning" has produced morality. But that only creates a scapegoat out of morality. Why would ANY man in ANY age regard murder as immoral if, like you have said above, doing so was in his own "self-interest"? If it's in his own "self-interest" to murder someone, to him, it's not murder but survival! So, that argument dies a thousand deaths!
The other defense would be that "society dictates morality". But that only creates another scapegoat. Because if society determines morality, then Hitler needs to be vindicated for murdering over 30 million Jews, because WWII German society approved of it! But I have yet to meet any rational human being who would consider what Hitler did "moral".
6) You don't have to be religious to be moral, but you can't defend morality without God in the equation. Atheists try and sneak in moral absolutes into their worldview in order to try and refute Christianity's moral absolutes. But again, morality is not material. Yet it is clear to all human kind that it exists. I don't need to be taught that murder is wrong to KNOW that murder is wrong. It is instinctive. And yet no other creature on earth feels this sense of obligation. A crocodile doesn't mourn the loss of its kill. Nor does a lion when he mauls a zebra. Only human beings have this innate sense of moral obligation.
7) No, the "communist ideology" is not TOTALLY to blame, ATHEISM is to blame. For it is ATHEISM that gave rise to COMMUNISM! It was specifically designed to be atheistic in nature and exclusionary of mainstream religion.
8) The argument that religion has killed the most people is a blatant lie floating around and is not supported by actual statistical data. Those killed by absolute governments has killed more people than all human wars combined. Colonialism produced 850,000 deaths compared to communism's 110,000,000. Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature, which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars. However, when one subtracts out those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage is cut by more than half to 3.23%. That means that all faiths combined – minus Islam – have caused less than 4% of all of humanity’s wars and violent conflicts.
True. A ribosome is made from complexes of RNAs and proteins, they're considered ribonucleoprotein. Ribosomes codes the Amino Acids turning them into specific polypeptide chain (proteins). It is magnificent. There is a stunning level of complexity and integration of complexity that cannot be accounted for by any other means than by a Creator.
'...but from what I understand...I think it was...It's quite hard to wrap your head around...' - k
Seems to me, you have been arguing all along that you base your beliefs on facts and reality, when in fact, you are simply guessing as much as you say religious people are doing.
Poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe, but your oranges are better than our apples, apparently.
If one cannot 'kill' an appendage, then certainly an appendage cannot die. Word games get so complicated sometimes, don't they?
You pull this mix and match trick all the time. A small child would also die, if left to it's own devices, but on the one hand you say the fetus must be self-sufficient, while on the other hand you say, well it needs outside help to survive. That outside help, for the initial fetus, is with the mother. But, no, you can only allow certain outside help and not others. Eventually, you get so twisted in your 'logic' that you end up arguing with yourself. Hey, but isn't that Objectivism, after all?
You can never equate an arm or a leg with a fetus, because no matter how much you give life support to an arm, it will never grow into a human being. I wonder why that is?
Your equating individual with indivisible is no different than your equating selfishness with self-interest. Even though they have points in common, they are not synonymous. Once you understand that your initial false premises are faulty, then your entire argument falls apart. I guess the key to Objectivism is to never come to the realization that your initial premises are faulty. That works.
'All we can do is let biologists figure out what the time period is, and then go with that.' - k
Deciding viability can go both ways on the spectrum. If they decide certain post-birth babies are no longer viable, due to whatever reasons, we can ensure ourselves of ending up in a futuristic world where life has no meaning whatsoever.
Making the value of life such that one man decides whether another should live or die merely on the first man's definition of 'viablity' is a slippery slope, indeed. Taking God out of your own heart forces you to attempt to be God in your own right. Not so surprisingly, we aren't nearly as good at it as He is.
Your initial fallacy was deciding that 'viability' correlated to actual life itself and you veered off drastically from there. The error of "pro-choice".
"Pre-viable" sounds sooo much like "pro-choice". It still kills, however.
You should hope that you don't live long enough for Obama's death panels to decide that even you are no longer "viable" (a unique "post-viable", as it were). Then, without God in your heart, methinks you just might have different thoughts about who's to live and who's to die. Let's wait, shall we, until that day happens and see how it goes.
Kind words from you, Rs, always warm my heart. :)
I'm not sure why I respond to him. I know he loves to parse, twist and turn words, and never really learns from what he reads, but sometimes I feel I just have to speak....
Those are some very specifically arranged "conglomerations". A "simple" cell is like a fully automated GM plant which can fit quite comfortably on the pointy part of a pin. Your scientists can neither replicate one or explain how the first one got here.
No oxygen, no atmosphere, exposed to unfiltered radiation from the sun, here on Earth.
Without oxygen, how does one get water?
Proteins are just conglomerations of amino acids. Those acids are naturally found in comets and asteroids. It's plausible to suggest that a comet crashed down, some amino acids combined, and then the first protein molecule formed, and many more after that.
In addition, a cell cannot make protein without a ribosome, 40% of which (the ribosome itself), is made of protein. Explain that.
Which cell? There are lots of them, you know. Ones with cell walls are particularly resilient to radiation. Some are so simple that radiation doesn't even bother them. Also, how much radiation are we talking about? It's not like we're dumping them out in space, up against the solar winds; they'd be submerged in pools of water, or under rocks, etc.
You may have done that experiment, but I don't think you engaged your brain all that well.
Nothing would change my mind. You do get the tiny fraction that can survive even after being declared pre-viable, but that's because calculating viability is not an exact science. All we can do is let biologists figure out what the time period is, and then go with that. Of course, as technology gets better, we can push back the viability point. Sometimes, the point of viability doesn't keep pace with technological innovations, and so pre-viable foetuses manage to survive, even though every biologist would tell you that they should have died from natural causes. Sometimes you do get lucky like that. This is not to say that we should scrap "viability" because a tiny fraction survive abortion. It's important to have a point at which we've objectively decided that a foetus is viable or non-viable for survival separate from the mother.
Without oxygen a cell would be exposed to ultra-violet radiation from the sun and couldn't survive 40 seconds much less millions or billions of years to "evolve" into something more complex.
We did the experiment in microbiology. I think the record was 38 seconds.
Now speak to the viable partial abortion candidates. He and she might like to hear what you have to say about they.
Quote: "In other words, since the baby is not yet an individual you would not be killing it by aborting it?"
It would die from natural causes if removed from the body, just as any organ (eg. an appendix) would die from natural causes, if it was removed. I don't think the word "kill" is applicable when describing such things, since one cannot "kill" an appendix, one cannot also "kill" a pre-viable embryo/foetus.
I'm no biologist, but from what I understand, oxygen wasn't necessary for life to form; only various organic compounds (primordial soup) that are naturally found in comets and asteroids were necessary. Oxygen is simply an atom that nature has shown to be most conducive to forming more complex forms of life, mostly owing to it being highly reactive.
I think it was like scientists claim. Early Earth was impacted by asteroids and meteors containing the organic compounds (primordial soup) necessary to get life started, and given that Earth wasn't too hot or too cold, nor was the atmosphere too dense nor too vacuous, those compounds were able to react, combine, and then form the basic organic molecules / building blocks of life, which they were unable to do on comets/asteroids given the conditions in space.
It's quite hard to wrap your head around, especially if you don't have any imagination, but it makes sense, doesn't defy the laws of physics, and doesn't defy reason or reality. It's certainly a lot better than the mystic's approach of saying "God did it", with about as much validity as if they said "magic did it" or "the orcs of mordor did it" or "unicorns did it".
Have you heard the cake line before? I hadn't.
In other words, since the baby is not yet an individual you would not be killing it by aborting it?
If I jumped in front of a speeding bullet though, headed for your hairdo, would I not be saving your life regardless of how old you were?
Looking "fine" outside of the womb does not mean that everything is "fine" internally. There's a lot of development that has to be done in terms of organs, circulatory, muscles, and brain development. So no, a pre-viable organism does not "look fine". They die a pretty quick death, but that's generally what happens when you force a non-individual to try and be an individual before it's ready to be an individual.
I've heard the "cake" line before. Sure, the non-individual will eventually become an individual, but in terms of whether a pre-viable organism should receive individual rights protections, I cannot say that they should, given that when they're pre-viable they're not an individual "yet", and so therefore don't have individual rights protections "yet". The "cake" line is a pretty weak argument.
Lastly, the woman's individual rights aren't superseding those of another, since there is NO other... individual, that is. Individual rights only apply to individuals; they don't apply to non-individuals.
When there's a pre-viable foetus/embryo inside a woman, the only one with individual rights is the woman. But when there's a post-viable (now) baby inside a woman, both of them have individual rights, but that's Ok now, because the (now) baby can be removed from the mother, and they can go their separate ways, both with intact individual rights.
Dear Murder Advocate:
Partial birth abortion candidates and victims can live just fine outside the womb. 3 month old fetus' look exactly like full term babies, which can fit in the palm of your hand.
When one follows a cake recipe properly, they end up with cake. When one follows the pregnancy recipe, they often end up pregnant. Personal responsibility would dictate they avoid that recipe.
Why should a woman's rights supercede (or supersede) those of another, regardless of where that other resides?
Were the first living cells on Earth aerobic or anaerobic?
What is your theory of life and how it came to be? Take us briefly from molecules to man if you please.
What philosophy of abiogenesis are you on about? It's certainly nothing I've spoken of. Abiogenesis is the idea that you can throw inorganic matter together and that it'll spawn life from it. I don't support such an idea. It doesn't make any sense. The beginnings of life require organic matter, so at the very least basic chemical compounds (ie. primordial soup), such as those that are found in asteroids and comets - Those are what spawn life. You aren't going to spawn life just by throwing some iron filings into a pot.
You say that it's "flawed" to equate selfishness with self-interest, but you offer no explanation of your own, nor reasoning for why it's "flawed". Do you just want people to take you on faith?
Quote: "I can't believe that you use politicians as examples of true Christians"
What's a "true" Christian - Jesus Christ? By that purist standard, nobody on this entire Earth is a true Christian. There are always shades of grey when it comes to such things, and politicians are no exception to that rule, albeit they do tend to be slightly darker grey than your average Joe, although that may be my bias shining through.
Quote: "You don't really know where that feeling of right and wrong comes from, do you?"
It's not a feeling. It's knowledge. When you're an Objectivist, it's possible to know what is right and wrong, because there is an objective standard by which to derive a moral code of right and wrong. As a religious person, you think that God is the objective standard by which to derive a moral code of right and wrong. We all seek an objective standard, when it comes to morality. Some say God, some say the state/society, whereas I say man's nature as a rational being.
Quote: "As much as you dislike believing people are individuals from conception, the two things God implants in us at conception is the soul and our seperate and distinct DNA"
It's not an issue of belief. It's an issue of knowledge.
Do you know that the word "individual" actually comes from the word "indivisible" (not able to divide any further)? Well until an embryo/foetus reaches viability and can exist separately from the mother, it is not indivisible, and is therefore not an individual. It is only when it reaches viability and can be removed from the mother, that it becomes an individual/indivisible.
Face it: You're forcing a woman, against her will, to grow something inside her that she does not want inside her. She wants it out. So just remove it and let's test your claim that pre-viable embryos/foetuses are individuals; see how long it survives (even with help) before it dies because it wasn't viable.
Great job Nuke, not that you need or want to hear that. Maybe you do...I know I like hearing it.
I like how Kordane says, and I paraphrase...that at least his philosophy of Objectivism "doesn't fly in the face of reason"...
I have to agree with him there because his philosophy of abiogenesis etc. doesn't fly in the face of reason, since it doesn't get close enough to reality's face to even see it, much less fly in it :-)
I think it rather stumbles and limps, (while trippin'), in the ashen face of a non-certified, unlicensed, deaf, dumb and blind, orthopedist, who died right before his bony theory arrived. Yet everyone else is the hypochondriac except him.
He should therefore change his name to Threadbare-ane.
'I advocate the morality of self-interest, ie. The morality of the productive.' - k
Not true. You advocate the morality of selfishness, and then you equate selfishness to self-interest. It is what you stated, but it is flawed.
'Christian scripture is always quoted by politicians as religious moral justification...' - k
I can't believe that you use politicians as examples of true Christians. Come on, even your word twisting can't be that dense, can it?
'I know what is right and what is wrong. I don't need no "God" to tell me what is right and wrong.' - k
You don't really know where that feeling of right and wrong comes from, do you? You think that it is just inherent in all of us (I guess you would say it's 'magic', just like creation is just 'magic'), but you can't disprove that it is in fact instilled in us by God, just like the feeling of self-preservation is implanted into our DNA and the mitochondria are implanted on our cells to determine longevity.
As much as you dislike believing people are individuals from conception, the two things God implants in us at conception is the soul and our seperate and distinct DNA (you and I, naturally, disagree on this). I believe imprinted on that DNA is all our moral code. Whether you twist words to deny it or not, you cannot disprove it.
You can't prove that it isn't anymore than I can prove that it is, so it doesn't give you the moral highground just to say so.
'I'm an Atheist yet I am a greater champion for the cause of individual liberty than the vast majority of Christians will ever be.' - k
Certainly not when it comes to unborn babies (those most in need of protection), so be careful how high you put yourself up there on that pedestal.
I feel you fall into that onerous trap of believing that you are the most right of all. It's a simple trap. Christians know the fallacy and weakness of man. That is why we believe in Christ as our Lord and Savior.
Abortion is consistent with the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, so long as it's done before pre-viability. I've explained this point in the past, so there's no need to repeat it here.
Those who advocate banning abortion are advocating a great evil, since they are advocating the violation of the individual rights of the mother, because they're stopping her from existing separately from the organism within her.
What's really sick about this is how religious folk are more than happy to strap down a mother to a bed for the whole 9 months, in order to stop her from having an abortion. The steps to which religious folk will go is quite grotesque. They even bomb abortion clinics, which is completely f'd up.
'I can give you a bloody good lecture if you want.' - k
Actually, you can't. You just think you can and the only one who believes you are giving a lecture is you. Quite an audience, if you ask me.
'And no, I'm not twisting words, because that would be dishonest.' - k
Glad you finally admit one thing about your argument, even though you don't accept that you just admitted it.
'I would ask that you at least show some gratitude for that.' - k
Gratitude?!?!? Ha, thanks for the laugh. You do have some humor in you after all. That made my day. Gotta go laugh for a while now. Later.
It's not a "philosophy of selfishness", since selfishness is merely the ethical system behind the philosophy; not the philosophy as a whole. Ethics is one of the five areas in philosophy. The others are metaphysics, epistemology, politics and aesthetics. I can give you a bloody good lecture if you want.
And no, I'm not twisting words, because that would be dishonest, and would violate my moral code. I try my best to speak as plainly and as politically incorrect as possible, and I would ask that you at least show some gratitude for that.
In your posts, you have proven to us what you believe in, so there's no need to play the word games. You've accepted that philosophy and no one wants to change you. It doesn't really matter how you twist the logic to justify your motives.
You base it all on a philosophy of selfishness and then twist and turn the words to convince yourself that you have done the right thing. No one else buys it, but that's okay. As long as you buy it, you should be okay - well, until judgment day that is, but that's between you and God.
Selfishness is simply: Concern with one's own self-interests.
Murdering people, stealing from people, defrauding people, and so forth, is NOT in one's self-interest. It's ALL self-destructive stuff, and what is the destruction of the self, other than a lack of concern with the self, ie. Self-less / selflessness. The whole act of self-sacrifice is an act of self-destruction. You are destroying some part or the whole of yourself for the sake of others.
The productive entrepreneur who goes out and starts a business, makes profits and produces goods/services that his customers can enjoy, may be said to be acting in his "self-interest", yet according to the altruist morality, that entrepreneur is utterly evil. How evil is a moral code that says that Steve Jobs was evil for forming and running Apple? How evil is a moral code that says that Bill Gates was evil for forming and running Microsoft? And so on.
My morality is the morality of the productive.
'Abortion is consistent with the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.' - k
Yeah, we've heard your arguments ad nauseum. You have stated that you live your life according to self-interest, but in fact, I believe you base your whole existence on a narrow part of self-interest, that being selfishness (which you have claimed to be the same).
It rules every decision you make, so it is consistent, at the very least. Concepts of God, abortion, and even capitalism are all determined by your sense of selfishness. This is, as I've stated before, your choice and your right to believe. However, don't expect anyone else to buy into it.
Uh, individual liberty without limits are vices, and eventually infringes on others so that they are manipulated into doing things that their violate their consciences. Your inclusion of Objectivism into the conversation does not bode well. Altruism is not the evil she made it out to be. Self-sacrifice in no way hurts Capitalism, that is a false meme, if I have worked for my money, and choose to spend it on others, I am still spending it. If I choose to build a ramp for someone else, I am NOT infringing on someone else's right to make money by building that ramp, I am choosing to spend my time, which is of a certain value, doing something that I want to do, AND, a company that sales building supplies is benefiting. I believe Objectivism is actually selfishness in disguise, backed up by a philosophical point of view that makes it seem ok.
Who said there were no limits? Having unalienable individual rights is only possible if one remains free from the initiation of force. So right there, that's a whole bunch of actions that are prohibited (eg. murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc).
I didn't bring up Objectivism. You did. I was making a general comment about the incompatibility of altruism with capitalism, and its compatibility with communism.
Preaching virtue as self-sacrifice, and self-interest as vice, is a morality which is utterly incompatible with a system (capitalism) where self-interest is the motive power behind it. To say self-interest is evil is to say that capitalism is evil, that the pursuit of happiness is evil, and that therefore the founding fathers were evil for including individual rights in the declaration of independence. This is a gross incompatibility which Christians MUST rectify if they are to become champions of individual liberty and rights.
Yes, Objectivism does advocate self-interest/egoism as its ethics. There is no 'disguise' about it at all. Selfishness is not the evil that you think it is. Selfishness is self-interest; it is what you do countless times each day, every time you eat food to stay alive, or drink water to stay alive, or breathe air to stay alive, or even your own desire to live. Self-sacrifice is the unnatural. Self-sacrifice is death. Self-sacrifice is the destruction of the self.
Altruism is not about choosing to give a dime to a beggar. It's about whether you have the right to exist if you don't give that beggar that dime. It's about whether you have to spend your whole life giving dimes to beggars, where you have to buy your life dime by dime from any and every beggar who comes up to you begging for a dime.
The bottom line is that altruism isn't benevolence. Altruism is a morality that tells you that self-sacrifice/self-destruction for the sake of others is the primary source of virtue and is a moral obligation. Altruism is a morality that tells you that if you act in your self-interest, no matter what it is, then you are being evil. That food you're eating - Evil. That water you're drinking - Evil. That air you're breathing - Evil. ALL self-interest is evil, ALL self-sacrifice/self-destruction for the sake of others is good.
That's the ideal answer, seeing that Kordane must have the last post in a thread. Let's see what comment follows, shall we. :)
One could say the big government liberals (both Democrat and Republican) are showing self interest by huge spending that keeps them in power.
'There are no other forms of selfishness, there is only ONE: Self-interest. One can be said to be selfish if one is acting in one's self-interest.' - k
There you just did it again. I don't think you even know that you are doing it. Let me see if I can change the nouns to show you your fallacy.
"There is no other forms of 'red delicious', there is only ONE: Apple. One can be said to have a 'red delicious' if one has an 'apple'."
You once again reversed the logic. Yes, selfishness is definitely self-interest. However, and this is important so listen closely, self-interest is not always selfishness. A 'red delicious' is indeed an apple, but all apples are NOT 'red delicious'.
But you knew that already, as you know every time you twist the logic. Yes, I say it is a form of dishonesty (your words, not mine), and you should realize people are aware of it. You are not fooling us, you are only fooling yourself.
Quote: "Republicans continually espouse "Free Market Principles", yet that would lead to Monopoly or Collusion of Industry. That may be good for the owners, but monopolies necessarily lead to high prices, low innovation, and those who need those items or services being cheated, which is what we are experiencing with oil prices today"
Spoken like a true Liberal.
Seriously, that sounded like it came right out of Obama's Marx-loving Capitalist-hating mouth.
Listen to the following refutations:
And there are MANY more where they came from.
One other thing, there is not one of us that acts within a "pure" system. Republicans continually espouse "Free Market Principles", yet that would lead to Monopoly or Collusion of Industry. That may be good for the owners, but monopolies necessarily lead to high prices, low innovation, and those who need those items or services being cheated, which is what we are experiencing with oil prices today. A great example of this was the north slope purposefully NOT being exploited by Exxon in order to make sure supplies were not very high on the world market. Their excuse was they did not have the technology to exploit it, however the found the technology pretty quickly when Sarah Palin threatened to take their leases away from them. And if they are doing that there, where else are they doing it. It would be interesting if Exxon had a direct line to Ahmadinejad and called him every once in a while when oil prices are low to say, "Hey Mad, it is time for another provocative statement, you seen the price of oil lately?"
I do not espouse that type of economy, I espouse an economy based on competition, where Corporatism is illegal, and they are unable to manipulate government to pass laws that discourage competition.
There are no other forms of selfishness, there is only ONE: Self-interest. One can be said to be selfish if one is acting in one's self-interest.
Otherwise, you'll get contradictions, like lumping Steve Jobs (a very productive man) and Bernie Madoff (a man who ran a ponzi scheme / engaged in fraud) together as "selfish" individuals, without distinguishing them from each other. The fact is that "selfish" is a derogatory word today. Everyone who gets called "selfish" is implicitly being called "evil" by the caller.
No, I do not accept that package deal. I distinguish a Bernie Madoff as being "self-destructive", and I distinguish Steve Jobs as being "selfish/self-interested". There is no contradiction there any more.
It's not anarchism. If you actually read what I said:
Quote: "Capitalism is a system in which the individual has the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... which are recognized by a government which is limited to the singular limited role of being the protector of those individual rights, under an objective rule of law."
Anarchism has no protection of individual rights, so clearly I am NOT speaking about anarchism.
So please, try reading my posts a bit better next time.
What you are describing is NOT capitalism, but anarchism. Capitalism depends on others doing commerce with you, if you are a JERK to others while they are doing capitalism with you, for, you see, it is an exchange of NOT IDEAS, but some sort of wanted item for wanted item, if you are that jerk, someone will figure out a way to make the same item you are exchanging and do it in a nice way.
The pursuit of happiness? What if murder makes you happy? Those three ideals are great, but they can be abused when you impose your will on someone else without their consent. You see, rights can be taken away if abused, which in "abused" very definition has a limiting factor on it.
I didn't "describe Objectivism", I merely articulated its ethics, but that doesn't mean that I am describing the philosophy as a whole, since philosophy is much broader than just ethics. Describing Objectivism would require me to articulate its metaphysics, its epistemology, its ethics, its politics and its aesthetics. Ethics is just one component of the greater whole. Sorry to lecture you, but that's how it is.
Quote: "I disagree why capitalism is practiced. I practice it because I do not want to be confined to what others limit me. Your mistake in Capitalism being selfish and not selfless is that you need others involved in it. If you do not think of others when you are making products or providing services, they will not be your customers very long."
Capitalism is the antithesis of Communism. Capitalism is a system in which the individual has the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... which are recognized by a government which is limited to the singular limited role of being the protector of those individual rights, under an objective rule of law.
If you contrast that with what Communism is - Absolute state control over the individual, where the individual has no individual rights whatsoever, and where the state is massive in size and scope.... then you'll see I'm right.
The bottom line is that we don't have Capitalism in America, although we did come the closest to achieving that goal in the early years of America, and have "progressively" been moving further away from that.
So, I cannot accept your claim to be "practicing capitalism", since it's not something that you can practice, but is simply a social system, and even if you then claimed to be "living under capitalism", then you'd be wrong there too, since there are countless government controls and taxes on the individual, the overwhelming vast majority of which violate the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... in a capitalist social system, then by its very nature it is a system that recognizes the fact that you should be free to act in your self-interest. Think about it "the pursuit of happiness" - It's not the pursuit of the happiness of others, it's YOUR life, YOUR liberty, YOUR pursuit of happiness. The founders understood that YOU should be free to act in YOUR self-interest.
Nobody is out there saying that you need freedom to sacrifice yourself for the sake of others - There has always been the freedom to do that, but when that is the ONLY freedom, then you are nothing but a slave, because you'd never be able to act in your own self-interest; you'd have to spend every waking hour acting in the interests of others, as a right-less slave to their needs; as nothing but a sacrificial animal.
Even under the most grotesque communist dictatorships, you had the freedom to sacrifice yourself for the sake of others. In fact, name ANY tyrannical system, and you will always find that you have the freedom to act 'selflessly' in it. But what you NEVER have under such systems is the freedom to act in your self-interest. THAT is what made America different; THAT is what made America a "capitalist" nation, at least to begin with.
So no, capitalism is not about selflessness - It's a system in which you have the freedom to act in your self-interest, so long as you don't violate the individual rights of others by causing harm to their lives/property. That is what had to be protected; that is what had to be recognized for the first time in the whole of human history.
Quote: "Your view on altruism is also skewed to the extreme, and what you describe is distorted, it has nothing to do with voluntary self-sacrifice, but a co-dependent need, as if one does not have a choice in it."
The moral code of altruism says nothing about it begin "voluntary". All it says is that self-sacrifice for the sake of others is the primary source of virtue, and is a moral obligation. That's it. Nothing about it being voluntary.
Ask yourself the following questions, and try not to give me a mystical answer such as "because God said so":
1. Why should Man sacrifice himself for the sake of others?
2. Why should Man be a sacrificial animal?
3. Why is self-sacrifice a good thing?
You will find that there is NO earthly reason for these questions. Altruism makes NO sense. It is self-destruction for the sake of self-destruction. I don't think that destroying/harming oneself is noble and good. I think it's downright evil.
Quote: "No one is saying you should not act in self-interest"
Philosophers throughout the ages, who have accepted altruism as the base of their ethics, have said that very thing. Immanuel Kant, for instance, said that self-interest is evil, and that if there is any self-interest in any self-sacrificial action, then it dilutes one's virtue.
No-one?? What about all those regulations that tell me that EXACT same thing. You can't do this, you can't do that, don't smoke, don't drink, don't watch pornography, don't play violent video games, don't shoot guns, don't have illicit sex... it's the same old line, the altruist line: "Self-interest is evil". And lawmakers, through the ages, have worked to implement that moral code on us ALL.
I can't act in my self-interest because government has put in place restrictions to stop me from doing so, and they've done that primarily because altruism told them to do so. Altruism told them that self-interest is evil, and so they've implemented policies (eg. regulations, taxes, other controls) to restrict self-interest. Altruism told them that self-sacrifice is good, and so they've implemented policies (eg. social security, medicare, medicaid, etc) to sacrifice individuals for the sake of other individuals.
Quote: "The Golden rule is a dual purpose, one you treat others nice for their sake, AND you should be able to expect in kind treatment"
Oh yes, the golden rule of "don't do unto others as you wouldn't want done to yourself" - But you know the loop hole in that? If I shouldn't do things to others that I don't want done to me... then all I have to do is figure out what I want done to myself, and then the golden rule permits me to do it to others. So for instance, if I want others to murder me, then the golden rule permits me to go around and murder others, OR if I want others to rob me, then the golden rule permits me to go around and steal from others.
I am wondering if I should address your arguments point by point, which would take a lot of space or generally. I will try generally.
You say you did not bring up Objectivism. You did not type the WORD, but you described it.
I disagree why capitalism is practiced. I practice it because I do not want to be confined to what others limit me. Your mistake in Capitalism being selfish and not selfless is that you need others involved in it. If you do not think of others when you are making products or providing services, they will not be your customers very long.
I knew a guy once that told me, the only reason to have friends is to use them, and they use you. This will limit your ability to maintain friends because people don't like to be used.
Your view on altruism is also skewed to the extreme, and what you describe is distorted, it has nothing to do with voluntary self-sacrifice, but a co-dependent need, as if one does not have a choice in it.
No one is saying you should not act in self-interest. The Golden rule is a dual purpose, one you treat others nice for their sake, AND you should be able to expect in kind treatment. Self-sacrifice depends upon the situation, If you are at your son's wedding and there is an accident outside in which you can help, you can sacrifice your time to help, postpone the wedding which is inconvenient for the guests and the couple, but helping someone survive a life threatening accident would be an acceptable self-sacrifice of those waiting and most would say and believe that. I am not going into the what if's in this scenario, as in what if the person you are saving is a rapist, that is not the point. What if it is your child that is helped and the father of the bride was the only one that could have saved her?
However, if my child and another child were involved in an accident and had similar life threatening injuries, and I could help either, it would probably be my child I help first in most cases. But if I chose to save the other child it would NOT be because I would feel that I am obligated to do so in a co-dependent way.
Selfishness is indeed a form of self-interest. Your fallacy is in the inverse. Self-interest isn't necessarily selfishness. Simple mistake.
BTW, just as you say you do not believe in God, I say I don't believe in true atheists. For this simple reason. You cannot possibly know if there IS or IS NOT a GOD, god, gods OR GODS. Just because you have not experienced something does not mean that something does not exist, for it does not need YOU in order to either exist or be justified in it's existence, for, you see Kordane, you are just not that important. You are here for such a short span of time. Am I trying to impugn or malign you? Not in the least, am I saying you have NO importance? Go back and read what I wrote, I did not say that either. There are hundreds of thousands every day that pass from this life and we never knew them nor anything about them, I hope you understand what I am saying. Anyway, have a great day, make a difference in a positive way those in your circle of infuluence!
'The killing of this life is a crime that no man-made law can alleviate or wash away.-
We also know full well that those little maturing bodies are not clumps of tissues. They in their development are functioning, fully human and marvelous.
You might enjoy this series and recognize a few of the people speaking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlVisFwoeQ8&playnext=1&list=PL8CAB0B0D5B9646D6&feature=results_main
'I apologize for my confusion...' - Jaels_Song
My apologies for responding here. The thread has run out of space, after 11 responses.
It fascinates me that atheists will consider a living being an individual, but they admit that a cadaver is only a dead body. Why the difference? Is it because the soul has left the vehicle? That very soul that they deny exists?
Our bodies are indeed wonderous creations of our God, and what remains after death is still an individual soul, albeit in a different place than the well-used wonderfully constructed vehicle we call a body.
That's what iritates me most about abortion advocates. The pro-death people consider the fetus only a lump of tissue, while completely ignoring the individual soul that I believe was instilled into it by God at conception (I believe that is the breath of life that the Bible mentions God breathes into us all). The killing of this life is a crime that no man-made law can alleviate or wash away.
I apologize for my confusion, at this time, I generally pull the “get out of causing confusion free blond card” as it works quite well.
On a serious note: I admire your depth of knowledge and study. I see the hand of God each time I work with the human body. In college, I was one of three nursing students chosen to participate on the human dissection team where we prepared cadavers for studies. Each time I looked into a body and dismantled its organs, muscles, peripheral and central nervous systems and vascular structures/systems (all the while understanding its microscopic and physiological realms) I found myself in reverent awe of Gods magnificent creation. Design screamed out as it solidified and deepened my belief and worship of God. To believe that "rock + time" delivered (especially the further one goes in study) life is abject foolishness and wishful thinking that demands the denial of the most basic laws of physics. Atheist can believe they came from a rock that was given enough time to evolve into living complexity integrated with complexity that requires simultaneous cooperation, but ... in light of the evidence I have seen, I chose not to place my belief in the rock god of the “Big Bang,” rather my faith (in light of Scripture) is in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
That is a common tactic of the agnostic (for that is the only alternative to deity-believers for God cannot be dis-proven, the only honest answer is "I do not know if there is or is not a god?") to say believers would rather say something they do not understand is "God did it." or "it is magic", however this does not go in hand with reality. Modern science was developed by God-believers, do I need to list them?
Empirical evidence????? Empirical science DEMANDS testability. This is NOT the case in your chosen belief system of Evolution. All of the testing of flies, microbes, spores, fish, cattle, dogs, show an inherent falsehood of Macro-evolution, and a truth of biblical KINDS, after all the genetic manipulation of drosophila has given us drosophila after thousands of generations. One key element of drosophila is their ability to breed out those manipulations in just a few generations.
Interesting that half of a man's material wealth at death is half of nothing. One would not want to barter with that.
When one believes that death is the end, one should be fearful of that occuring. I wonder what Voltaire thinks now, seeing how he has been able to witness that which science cannot measure. I'll bet he would certainly wish to live differently.
But, woe is he who rejects the Lord.
'but I'm fine with that because I'm more confident in my own hypothesis than I am in theirs.' - k
And therin lies the crux of the entire thread. You are more confident in your own hypothesis than you are in all the experts, both scientific and religious. Hmmm...
'Why should science have to do your dirty work for you?' - k
Why do you think it must do it for you? Don't deny it. You already said it.
I am a scientist and I also see the Hand of God in science. People that don't are just desperate to declare that "facts" stand against God. Well, I'm here to say that the more science "knows", the closer to God we approach. It doesn't ever refute God, it actually reinforces the belief in His work.
Kordane uses his 'religion' (Objectivism) to make his points. He claims he uses science, but it's clear that science is a foreign topic to him. Just my opinion from observation and listening to his words. I'm sure he would strenuously disagree with me.
Jaels does not articulate the 'misconceptions' because they have been articulated over and over again to you. Just waiting several posts down to say something isn't articulated doesn't discount them, no matter how much you strive to do so.
Okay, I was a little concerned, as I agree with you on your points. You stated that very well. As well as misconceptions, he loves to twist the words to make it appear logical. Logical it isn't.
"VOLTAIRE, the noted French infidel and one of the most fertile and talented writers of his time, used his pen to retard and demolish Christianity, of Christ, Voltaire said: "Curse the wretch!" He once boasted, "In twenty years Christianity will be no more. My single hand shall destroy the edifice it took twelve apostles to rear." Shorty after his death the very house in which he printed his foul literature became the depot of the Geneva Bible Society. The nurse who attended Voltaire said: "For all the wealth in Europe I would not see another infidel die." The physician Trochim, waiting up with Voltaire at his death, said that he cried most desperately:
"I am abandoned by God and man! I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give six months' life. Then I shall go to hell; and you will go with me. O Christ! O Jesus Christ!"
(Last Words of Saints and Sinners by Herbert Lockyer)
Voltaire did not die an atheist...
Yet you do not articulate what those "misconceptions" are.
You say that God "revealed himself/personality in scripture", but how do you know that to be true? It has to be taken on faith, of course, meaning that you've accepted the claim, regardless of the complete and utter lack of empirical evidence, and regardless of the fact that the claims fly in the face of reason and reality.
Let me ask you: Why this particular God? Why not other ones in all the multitude of other books/scriptures out there? They all have some "revealing of themselves and their personality" in said books/scriptures, so why is Book A better than Book B, C, D, E, and so on? There's no reason for it, other than that maybe that's just "what you were raised to accept" by your parents and/or the culture in general. Face it, all of those books/scriptures are just as valid as each other, which is to say that they're all baseless and totally lacking in empirical evidence.
There are others here who are much better than debating you than I am and I would be repeating much of what they are posting (attempt to anyways). I was not trained in debate, therefore, I won't pretend that I am. I can say this. You are describing a god of your own image, one that is made up in your mind. Not the One who has revealed himself/personality in Scripture. It seems your arguments bases upon the nature/personality of God begins with misconceptions.
Opps... that was to go to Kordane. Sorry Nukie...
The onus is on religious people to at least explain HOW such things work. It's insufficient to say "Have faith" or say "God works in mysterious ways". Such things will not do in this advanced technological age, just as saying "it's magic" will not do.
We do not call it magic. We believe it is the creation/design of an intelligent being. Your faith is in the scientist who attempt to give explanation of that creation. When I study science, I see the hand of God, form, function, deliberate design. When you study science you see the law of entropy. Oh wait, no you don't...
No, there is hypothesis, theory, and fact. A hypothesis' is when you have no experimental evidence to support your claim(s). A theory is when you have experimental evidence to support your claim(s). A fact is when you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is true.
Quote: "BTW, you are not in line with all of science when you say time is not a dimension. That is just your belief to fit your assumptions. As you say about religious people, it is merely used by you to 'make up' you ideas."
I know I'm not in line with mainstream physics on my hypothesis, but I'm fine with that because I'm more confident in my own hypothesis than I am in theirs. It's not a matter of belief, but probability. It's not merely about "making up ideas". It's about searching for the most probable answer.
Quote: "Time is not an event. Time is a dimension in which events occur. You choose to disbelieve that. You use science as your measuring stick to deny God, and then admit that science is speculation. As much as you like to parse words as your argument, you can't have it both ways."
Events occur in time. Events require time to occur. That is the nature of matter and energy's relationship with time. The "time is a dimension" hypothesis is plausible, but it's not something that I accept.
The only measuring stick I use to deny god is my sense of reason. Your fantasy story about god is about as believable as if someone told me that unicorns, orcs and goblins exist in the wild. It's all a bunch of completely baseless claims that defy reason and reality/nature. I won't accept them.
I really do think of your acceptance of the existence of god as being equal with people who claim that unicorns exist, that the loch ness monster exists, and so forth. Don't think that you're better than those kinds of people, because you're not! You all claim things that defy reason and reality, and provide no empirical evidence to support any of your claims, yet go around preaching "god exists" as if you have proof, even though you don't.
I think you're just wasting your life worshipping something that doesn't exist. You could be out there pursuing your happiness for the short time that you have in your life, yet you're bogged down in all this mystic/fantasy nonsense.
Quote: "It's been explained to you many times that science has yet to find the tools for analyzing the spiritual"
Why should science have to do your dirty work for you? The onus is on religious folk to provide the empirical evidence. Don't expect science to prove a negative; it isn't possible to prove a negative, and you should know that.
'It's all just hypothesis and speculation.' - k
What you fail to understand is that all of science is just hypothesis and speculation. It's all trial and error. BTW, you are not in line with all of science when you say time is not a dimension. That is just your belief to fit your assumptions. As you say about religious people, it is merely used by you to 'make up' you ideas.
'That's the best explanation I can give you for it [time], anyway.' - k
No that is just you babbling. Time is not an event. Time is a dimension in which events occur. You choose to disbelieve that. You use science as your measuring stick to deny God, and then admit that science is speculation. As much as you like to parse words as your argument, you can't have it both ways.
'then we just have to go on what we know right now, and therefore declare such claims as being unrealistic, defying the laws of physics, defying one's sense of reason, etc.' - k
Once again, you try to use the scientific method (which is proven to be only a guessing game) to explain the spiritual. If it isn't in the realm of science, then it doesn't exist. It's been explained to you many times that science has yet to find the tools for analyzing the spiritual. It's just being a 'flat earther' to think it has. In reality, you deny the spiritual right off the start and then say that it can't exist because you have dismissed it.
Always word playing, but it doesn't solve anything. Deny if you wish. It doesn't change what is.
Quote: "Just because you do not understand the concepts of the space-time continuum, does not, once again, mean that they do not exist"
Well neither does the individual who is making the claim in the first place. They might as well have said "it's magic", and that would have had just as much validity, ie. none.
Quote: "Time is only one of the four common dimensions. There are many more dimensions than that, but they are all we have available to measure our science"
It hasn't been proven that extra dimensions (beyond the three - x, y, z) exist, or that time is a dimension. It's all just hypothesis and speculation, but it's hypothesis and speculation which scientists think is the most probable, and so it has become mainstream thought.
To me, time is just the pre-destined events for our particular outcome/universe; our outcome being a unique outcome out of an infinite number of unique outcomes. All outcomes have pre-destined events, by their very nature as 'unique' outcomes. If those outcomes weren't unique then there'd be a chance for cross-overs in outcomes, which would not be consistent with infinity, since infinity requires uniqueness of outcome.
That's the best explanation I can give you for it, anyway.
Quote: "One more fallacy that you fall into is your finite concept of Physics. 'Physics' is a work in progress (as is all science)"
Sure, but until science (or religious people) can explain how something can exist "outside of time" and something can do actions without time to do them, then we just have to go on what we know right now, and therefore declare such claims as being unrealistic, defying the laws of physics, defying one's sense of reason, etc.
The onus is on religious people to at least explain HOW such things work. It's insufficient to say "Have faith" or say "God works in mysterious ways". Such things will not do in this advanced technological age, just as saying "it's magic" will not do.
Going on probability alone, religious allegations are almost completely improbable because they fly in the face of so much that we already know, and just basically sound unbelievable. Religious people accept religious allegations because they 'want' to, for their own personal reasons (eg. the desire for immortality, the desire to see deceased relatives again, the fear of death, etc). What are you going to accept: The most probable answer, or the answer that most suits your personal desires?
Just because you do not understand the concepts of the space-time continuum, does not, once again, mean that they do not exist.
One more fallacy that you fall into is your finite concept of Physics. 'Physics' is a work in progress (as is all science). What we now know about Physics is vastly more than what we knew hundreds of years ago. You are incapable of thinking outside the box, and in so doing, believe that 'the box' is all there is. It's your choice, once again, but in and of itself does not prove itself to be right.
Consider a 2-dimensional being. How does that being view a 3-dimensional sphere? It will see a sphere as a circle and only as a circle. It has no concept of a sphere without thinking outside it's own little 2-dimensional realm.
Try not to be two dimensional, but if you have to be, realize that you are limiting your own ability to conceive new thoughts. As an experiment, see if you can comprehend a 4-dimensional spatial cube. It's called a Tesseract, btw, but try to imagine it in your mind, if you can.
Time is only one of the four common dimensions. There are many more dimensions than that, but they are all we have available to measure our science (So far, that is. We are learning more and more every day). Because people back in the 'flat earth' days had never sailed around the globe did not mean that it was not spherical. It merely meant they had a misconception of it.
This changes with time and knowledge. It's important that you don't limit yourself with misconceptions.
When people make such claims as "outside of time" and doing actions without needing time, nobody ever explains HOW that works and HOW it came to be; it's just to be accepted 'on faith' and not questioned further. It makes absolutely no sense to me how anything, even a supernatural being, can do things without time to do them and can exist "outside of time". I mean, I could make all kinds of stuff up like that, if there's no requirement to make sense and sound plausible/realistic.
With my own hypothesis, it's within the laws of physics, it makes sense, and it doesn't fly in the face of reason. I'm sure you could come up with all kinds of fantasy explanations to still have the existence of a God, but the bottom line is that you won't be able to explain anything about how it works or how it came to be; it'll always have to be taken on faith, and that is why you will ultimately lose the battle for ideas.
" A creator would require a) time to exist..."
Isaiah 57:17 For thus says the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: "I dwell in the high and holy place, With him who has a contrite and humble spirit, To revive the spirit of the humble, And to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
God is not bound to time as we know it. He inhabits eternity. He is outside our time domain.
"and b) time to 'create' something."
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Prov 33:3 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.
God is that he is... His word commanded creation, it took no "time" at all.
Interesting. You are saying life did not exist before you were born and will not exist after you die. A very narrow-minded point of view, but one that is consistent with Objectivism. It's your choice to believe that but, by believing it does not necessarily make it true.
Edited for clarity.
I simply chose to accept a different view, where the universe wasn't created by some supernatural being, but instead was an outcome that began when time began. I've done away with the need for a 'creator'. A creator would require a) time to exist and b) time to 'create' something. If the universe began when time began then there was no time for anything before the universe, no God, no cause, no nothing. I've simply accepted a totally and utterly integrated view of creation and of reality. Sure, I don't know any of this for certain, but it is an answer that makes the most sense, which has no holes in it, and which doesn't require belief in things that defy reality. It's not agnosticism, by any means, because agnostics wouldn't stick with one view over another; agnostics think all answers have equal validity.