Debate on Abortion.

[Willamena]

but this is not according to the definition of a naturalistic worldview...

How so?

 

[Memories]

UU is the Church of Unitarian Univeralism.
Unitarian Universalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks will, I wasent sure what the UU stood foor or the ''rogue'' in her belief description.

 

[JeLy]

but this is not according to the definition of a naturalistic worldview, this leaves you with Agnosticism at best.

Not at all. Agnosticism is a view on things that the person believes they cannot know. That is not my stance.

 

[Memories]

How so?

In the sense that a naturalist will say their is only the physical world, he wont say ''mabey'' theirs somehting else.

 

[Willamena]

In the sense that a naturalist will say their is only the physical world, he wont say ''mabey'' theirs somehting else.

Ah, but that's the materialst.

 

[Memories]

Not at all. Agnosticism is a view on things that the person believes they cannot know. That is not my stance.

so in this case you wont say that , ''you cannot know'' that the supernatural exists you will simply say, I know It does not exist. right?

 

[Storm]

Did I say that it was?

Yes, you did:

No one forces a woman to bear a child because no one forces a woman to get pregnant.

Guess what? I was forced to get pregnant. I was molested by my stepfather, and he got me pregnant at 13. When he and my mother found out, they beat me until I miscarried.

But that's ok, so long as girls in my position aren't making their own choices, right?

 

[JeLy]

In the sense that a naturalist will say their is only the physical world, he wont say ''mabey'' theirs somehting else.

No. We can only prove the existence of a natural/physical world. That is entirely different from saying it is the only thing that exists. Sheesh, are you not exhausted with running around in circles yet?

 

[JeLy]

so in this case you wont say that , ''you cannot know'' that the supernatural exists you will simply say, I know It does not exist. right?

I would never say that something does not exist because that is a ridiculous standpoint. I do not believe it exists because there is clear evidence to the contrary. However, because I cannot test something supernatural (yet), then it is unreasonable for me to believe that it does exist. That does not say that I don't believe it could exist. Get it yet?

 

[Smoke]

Well, it's interesting to know what you look like.

Now about that inability to articulate an intelligent thought ...

 

[Memories]

Not at all. Agnosticism is a view on things that the person believes they cannot know. That is not my stance.

you cannot have claims like that without having evidence to support them, you need to make more modest claims like '' I dont know'' but this leaves you with agnoctisism. and not a materialist naturalistic view such as yours, their is absolutely no way of proving that the supernatural does not exist using science, reason or whatever, therefore you hold this conviction by faith. If you say '' I dont know'' then you are not a naturalist or materialist by their definitions.

I do not believe it exists because there is clear evidence to the contrary.

Go ahead provide some, I challenge you.

 

[Smoke]

Does anyone else find it amusing that Memories has completely derailed hir own thread?

Yeah, it's pretty funny.

 

[JeLy]

Did I say that it was?

Actually, that's exactly what you said.

Surely that makes it OK. Guess what else animals do, they kill each other, rape each other, fight with each other, defecate anywhere it pleases them, etc.

I guess it's OK for us to do that stuff too, after all, we're only animals.

Where did I say that any of it was "okay?" I was merely pointing out the fact that sex is a part of life for all animals. Don't try and twist that into some self-righteous talk on murder/rape/defecating. (Although, we all poop, too don't we?)

 

[Humanistheart]

Wrong. God is the decider here. Its all dishonest wordplay on your part. He created these moral codes and if he so changes them then they will change.

And you base this on what?

I think some of the problem here is your misunderstanding of what God is all about.

Which god? I think some of the problem here is your assuming your god is real, that you know his will, and that he has both the right and desire to impose said will on others.

Incedently I think it's been about 2 pages since any posts of direct relevance to the OP have been made.

 

[Memories]

Guess what? I was forced to get pregnant. I was molested by my stepfather, and he got me pregnant at 13. When he and my mother found out, they beat me until I miscarried.

But that's ok, so long as girls in my position aren't making their own choices, right?

Appealing to emotions will not win you an argument im sorry.

We all heard of these little sad stories wipping them out here is of no use to the discussion.

 

[Smoke]

Surely that makes it OK. Guess what else animals do, they kill each other, rape each other, fight with each other, defecate anywhere it pleases them, etc.

I guess it's OK for us to do that stuff too, after all, we're only animals.

Apart from defecating anywhere you want, all those things are commanded in your holy book, so I'm not surprised you think they're okay.

But nowhere in your holy book is abortion forbidden. Interesting.

 

[Kerr]

Did I say that it was? I simply do not believe that a person should be allowed to kill a fetus solely on the basis that they don't want it.

So it does not matter if it was forced or not?

And I would never say that it is solely a matter of what someone wishes when we deal with something like rape. There is a lot more to it then.

 

[Storm]

Appealing to emotions will not win you an argument im sorry.

We all heard of these little sad stories wipping them out here is of no use to the discussion.

And to think, just a moment ago, you were telling me to be more loving. I think my irony meter just exploded.

My story was a direct response to the specific claim that no pregnancies are the result of force. It wasn't an appeal to emotion, it was disproof.

 

[Smoke]

Appealing to emotions will not win you an argument im sorry.

We all heard of these little sad stories wipping them out here is of no use to the discussion.

Appealing to your imaginary friend won't win you any arguments, either -- and your complete lack of compassion won't win you any respect.

 

[JeLy]

you cannot have claims like that without having evidence to support them, you need to make more modest claims like '' I dont know'' but this leaves you with agnoctisism. and not a materialist naturalistic view such as yours, their is absolutely no way of proving that the supernatural does not exist using science, reason or whatever, therefore you hold this conviction by faith. If you say '' I dont know'' then you are not a naturalist or materialist by their definitions.

Go ahead provide some, I challenge you.

None of my "claims" require faith, first off. I do not believe in anything because of absence of evidence - which is what faith is.

Can you prove that the supernatural does or does not exist? Not by scientific standards in either direction. Therefore, my stance is that I do not believe that it does... which is entirely different from saying that it does not.

The fact that no supernatural evidence has ever been proven via scientific theory is evidence enough, isn't it? If someone could provide such evidence, they would be a millionaire thanks to the James Randi Foundation who offers a million for such proof.