Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Let me explain it to you here then. Fucks like imcan claim to have deep feelings for embryos. IVF clinic create far more emybryos than are needed, meaning probably 80-90 per cent of embroyos are destroyed as surperfluous. I would like to know why he doesn't have a problem with this.

Yes, that is a double standard if he does not have a problem with it. According to him, an embryo is a living baby.

sthitapragya wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Let me explain it to you here then. Fucks like imcan claim to have deep feelings for embryos. IVF clinic create far more emybryos than are needed, meaning probably 80-90 per cent of embroyos are destroyed as surperfluous. I would like to know why he doesn't have a problem with this.

Yes, that is a double standard if he does not have a problem with it. According to him, an embryo is a living baby.

Oh wow. Clap clap. Carry on with your deep metaphysical arguments on practical women's concerns. Don't let me stop your fun.

Eating is murder - and often of sentient beings. Beings with feelings, likes and dislikes and relationships.

PS. I'm not vegetarian BTW, just a light and selective meat eater, but I can acknowledge that we need to kill to survive.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: IVF clinics create far more emybryos than are needed, meaning probably 80-90 per cent of embroyos are destroyed as surperfluous. I would like to know why he doesn't have a problem with this.

Give him a chance and I'm sure he'll tell you why he does. I'm still wondering when he believes that god puts the soul into a zygote. And where god says abortion is wrong, for that matter.

sthitapragya wrote:But you keep forgetting that even this whole cause effect thing is God's design.

Only Determinists think that, actually. Most Christians believe that the original design was good, but mankind chose to sever itself from God and thus to pervert the design. And that makes perfect sense of what we see: the world is filled with both goodness and evil. Nobody else even really has an account of what evil is...certainly Atheists don't.

And that's a good point: I've never heard a sensible explanation -- or really, any explanation at all -- for the existence of evil in our world, coming from an Atheist. And yet every Atheist I've ever met believes evil exists: and usually, they identify it with anyone who disagrees with them. They moralize, yet deny any grounds for morality: how does that make sense?

And how about your own argument here? In all this moralizing and breast-beating you do about children, if you are an Atheist you have cut yourself off from having any rational cause to complain. What is, is: that's all an Atheist perspective allows. Even extreme suffering, torture and death would not be "wrong" from any view consistent rationally with Atheism.

So why are you complaining, if you don't even believe in things like justice, righteousness, fairness or mercy? They're not real for Atheists -- they're just one option no better than their opposites, injustice, evil, unfairness and cruelty.

Really, you need to pick a horse and ride it. All this switching in midstream is bound to produce only one result.

But you know that. You sense that evil is real, and that's why you complain. And you don't feel unjustified in so doing. And you're not. But it's not from your Atheism that you get any warrant for it, but from your intuition that there really are such things as good and evil, and people like us should be able to agree on what they are, and even if we don't we ought to. You know that, and you count on it in every argument you make here.

And I agree.

Even if it was not God's design, He chooses to let it continue when He can very easily put a stop to it.

Yes, He could. But even He could not do so without two things you don't want to happen, I'm sure: namely, the removal of your freedom to choose and the subjecting of your actions to judgment. Are you ready for that?

Look at it this way: you can either have a merciful God who is not just -- who allows sin and evil to continue forever (which ironically, is not really merciful), or you can have a just God -- who then judges you and sets all to right. Be careful what you wish for, in both cases. Or there's a third option: God could allow freedom for a reasonable time, showing mercy to those who don't deserve a break, even; but eventually, if he's fair at all, He's got to judge and balance the scales. And when He does, if He's going to be shown to be righteous, He's got to be absolutely clear on justice.

I'm convinced the Supreme Being CAN do it. And Biblically, I'm convinced He WILL do it.

"Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds." (Rev. 20:11-12)

And at that time, the Bible promises, there will not longer be any question about what is fair and what is not. All mouths that protest will snap shut, with no more to say.

"Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God..."(Romans 3:19)

Again, God chooses to punish innocent babies and children by not changing his design to punish adults instead.

Wait for it...

And that brings us to the next problem. If it is free will, why does God choose to punish us for our acts?

Great question. So let me see...you've already said that IF God does not do anything to right the injustices that now exist in the world, He would be an unjust God. I agree. Now you say that IF God does do anything to right the injustices, then He's oppressing us. Well, you've got God in quite a bind, don't you?

Except you don't. God both gives you the freedom you are asking, and holds you responsible. He both withholds judgment and allows personal freedom, then creates perfect justice. You needn't worry about how the innocents will be recompensed on that day: but how will we all do, if we continue as we are?

That is the real question.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:But you keep forgetting that even this whole cause effect thing is God's design.

Only Determinists think that, actually. Most Christians believe that the original design was good, but mankind chose to sever itself from God and thus to pervert the design. And that makes perfect sense of what we see: the world is filled with both goodness and evil. Nobody else even really has an account of what evil is...certainly Atheists don't.

So now you think that God has no control over the world we live in? He is powerless? You say mankind chose to pervert the design. So you mean to suggest that mankind has the power to subvert God's design AGAINST HIS WISHES??!! Do you mean to suggest that mankind is more powerful than God?

Immanuel Can wrote:You needn't worry about how the innocents will be recompensed on that day: but how will we all do, if we continue as we are?

That is the real question.

I disagree, Mr Can. I think the real question is does this god of yours, that just happens to think exactly as you do, actually exist?
Others that spring to mind are:
At what point in an embryo's development does your god implant a soul?
And: Where does your god actually say that abortion is wrong?

Abortion can be either killing or murder.

In biblical Hebrew, as in English, killing (harag) and murder (ratzah) are two different words with two very different moral connotations, and the commandment uses the Hebrew word ratzah, which means that the proper translation of the commandment from Hebrew into English is, "Thou shalt not murder."

Matthew 5: 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,[a]and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

So abortion as an intended mercy killing is acceptable but abortions of convenience is not. Have you ever thought why this is so and who is actually harmed by abortions of convenience?

uwot wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: IVF clinics create far more emybryos than are needed, meaning probably 80-90 per cent of embroyos are destroyed as surperfluous. I would like to know why he doesn't have a problem with this.

Give him a chance and I'm sure he'll tell you why he does. I'm still wondering when he believes that god puts the soul into a zygote. And where god says abortion is wrong, for that matter.

He'll never answer my question, but his refusal to answer is an answer in itself. I don't know what sthi...gets out of giving the god-bothering, hypocritical piece of shit a platform and sounding-board for his vomit. It makes no sense that they would ban bill, yet a cockroach like that can preach his hatred ad-infinitum.
Notice how he's getting worse and worse, and doesn't even try to disguise his religious rantings any more.

IC (although Ican seems more appropriate)

Thanks indeed for your extensive discussion. Do I discern an Irish touch of the “gift of the gab”?
I submitted this strand for all and sundry’s scrutiny, including ”indoctrinated” sheep. We love sheep, still have 6 ewes grazing our small acreage. I am not a atheist, nor a fanatic. You may not like the thought of it but every living thing is a product of its environment . . . all of us are more or less indoctrinated. I have a fair idea of the twisting and turning of your mind to follow your faith. You mention talking to a "brick wall"; glad you are aware of the symptoms of talking to an indoctrinated mind, god-fearing or atheist.
Holy scripts are only holy to the believers. The scripts may be historical insofar that they can be dated to having been produced at some point in history but inherently it are subjective writings from a human, whose text will have been subject to repeated revisions and translations; hence the Rome Imprimatur. If you have done any translations from another language to your own you’ll be aware that your choice of word plays its part; even more so in translations from your own into a foreign language.
Theology is a matter of faith, lost by me.

What is your opinion about my crucial point: the difference between “being alive” and “having life”?
Whether or not you agree, it is a fact that a foetus, before birth is a growing part of a mother; a surrogate mother can fulfil that function. It is her part. If it is not, then those who say so, should and often do, pay for their imposition. I suggest that the pro-life fanatics divert their energy to stopping the killing in never-ending wars.

I wish you luck with your belief that God created the universe but consider this: planet earth is a ball of fire with a solid crust, the lower parts filled with water, cracks in the crust have volcanoes and produce earthquakes, an atmosphere that is charged with electricity, evaporation of water and downpours, droughts and floods. Yes, nature is beautiful and peaceful but it is also ferocious and cruel; add humans and it creates a rat race. The news media promote stardom for the young by hero-worshipping entertainment-, sports- and even professional sports-“stars”. The media foster “making” news when there is none, using whatever is controversial and likely to draw attention and sell quickly.

I’ve made my honest contribution to this world. At my ripe old age, my body’s aches remind me that my days/years are numbered. From my experiences I have come to some conclusions about our world. I have revealed some of it on this thread to see what others think and where I may be wrong.
It seems to me that your religious mindset spoils your reasoning ability but you appear to enjoy it; however, does it bear any fruit, is it making a positive contribution to this world?

.

Immanuel Can wrote:
And how about your own argument here? In all this moralizing and breast-beating you do about children, if you are an Atheist you have cut yourself off from having any rational cause to complain. What is, is: that's all an Atheist perspective allows. Even extreme suffering, torture and death would not be "wrong" from any view consistent rationally with Atheism.

So why are you complaining, if you don't even believe in things like justice, righteousness, fairness or mercy? They're not real for Atheists -- they're just one option no better than their opposites, injustice, evil, unfairness and cruelty.

Really, you need to pick a horse and ride it. All this switching in midstream is bound to produce only one result.

But you know that. You sense that evil is real, and that's why you complain. And you don't feel unjustified in so doing. And you're not. But it's not from your Atheism that you get any warrant for it, but from your intuition that there really are such things as good and evil, and people like us should be able to agree on what they are, and even if we don't we ought to. You know that, and you count on it in every argument you make here.

And I agree.

We have extensively discussed this on another thread where I explained to you how subjectivity works for me. You have obviously chosen to ignore everything I said there for reasons best known to you though I think this is just a diversionary tactic you are employing to shift the focus from abortion to subjective and objective morality. And that is why I am ignoring these pointless assertions of yours.

You have these little microbe-like cells or horrible little fishy things, and due to the existence of human DNA they are deemed more valuable than sentient members of other species that are capable to love and relatively sophisticated cognition.

It's completely irrational. If we are to speak of potential, let's compare the potential of a wanted child by parents who are ready and unwanted children born to junkies, crooks and generally screwed up people. It's insane to force some poor child into a dangerous, loveless and often abusive or neglectful childhood with a far higher chance than most of going to prison.

Life is not inherently good. It all depends on your circumstances. We let people go all the time. Every budget - especially the health budget - is a decision as to who lives and who dies, who suffers and who thrives. Making such a decision as regards small microbe- and fishlike embryos is far less important and should be a routine medical procedure. All the fuss about early stage abortions is based on superstition and hugely irrational.

Once a foetus has a fully formed nervous system then the poor thing probably morally has no choice and must be born to somehow brave a very possibly tortuous fate of lovelessness, poverty and danger.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:He'll never answer my question....

Tell me about it! This is the first thing I said to him:

On Oct 08, 2013 (bloody hell, I need to get a life) I wrote:Hello IC

So you're a philosophically inclined christian who wishes to be judged on current form, rather than any historical academic achievements. So far, so benign. Clearly you irritate some other contributors, frankly, who doesn't? Personally I think Immanuel Can is a ghastly pun, but I can't hold that against you. What puzzles me is that if Immanuel Can, why does he need you as a conduit? More to the point; what is the special access you have that justifies you presenting your views under that heading?

He didn't answer that, so I'm not anticipating an answer now.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:...but his refusal to answer is an answer in itself.

In the same thread he wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:I would tell you more about myself, but I'm being deliberately uninformative about that at the moment. I'm trying to let people judge me on the truth or falsehood of what I happen to say...

Here's the whole thread if anyone is interested: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11615
He thinks he is developing arguments, but actually, the initial premises are tautological, for instance, if he can bludgeon sthitapragya into accepting the proposition 'abortion is murder', he believes he has developed an argument that concludes: 'therefore, abortion is murder'.
sthitapragya will tire of it. Mr Can will have no one to proselytise to and keep his head down for a bit, until some one else shows the slightest interest.

sthitapragya wrote: So now you think that God has no control over the world we live in? He is powerless? You say mankind chose to pervert the design. So you mean to suggest that mankind has the power to subvert God's design AGAINST HIS WISHES??!! Do you mean to suggest that mankind is more powerful than God?

No. But I suggest that seeing your present freedom to say so as a gift from God is a wise move. Because at the end of the day, nothing "against God's wishes" as you put it, will stand. Mankind's option to do other than what is right, true and good is a temporary lease, granted so that he can have genuine free will to decide what he wants. And when the lease runs out, payment in full comes due.