Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by philpot123

  1. Two absolutely contradictory statements cannot both be right. My subjective opinion about the "rightness" of my beliefs does not make it right. If two religions claim exclusivity in salvation (*cough Christianity and Islam cough*), there is no "you're both right" option. Either one is exclusive and right, or the other is exclusive and right, or neither is exclusive and both are wrong. Logical contradictions do not a coherent philosophy make.
  2. This is self-defeating. You support laws because you BELIEVE things "ought" to be a certain way. Some people support open access to abortion because they believe a fetus violates a woman's bodily autonomy. They BELIEVE that a woman has bodily autonomy and ought to be able to exercise that by clearing an unwanted human offspring out of her womb. Some people support open access to abortion because they BELIEVE people have a right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Your beliefs have EVERYTHING to do with the sort of laws you support. You can't say that beliefs have nothing to do with laws, and then turn around and tell me you believe the law should recognize a woman's "right" to choose, because such a statement is based on your beliefs. What is the law based on if not beliefs in regards to rights, justice, etc?
  3. I worded that poorly. Of course it's offense of a different sort, which displays itself in different magnitudes in different cultures. But they both stem from ignorance, lies, and the same logical fallacy. It's poor argumentation, and it's simply untrue. I'm sure you would be offended if I based my opinions on all pro-choice folks on the hateful guy who assaulted us and damaged private property at a peaceful protest. I know you aren't all like that and I wouldn't assume so, so please, show the same courtesy. Not wanting to allow murder is not controlling other people's bodies. This difference in rhetoric is an insurmountable obstacle here, because no matter what services we offer to pregnant women or young mothers, you will ALWAYS misrepresent our beliefs and position, because in your mind, nothing can make up for our "oppressive" beliefs that you shouldn't be legally permitted to murder a developing human being. You couldn't care less that a large number of pro-life Christians DO care for the child and DO support the mothers and DO work to provide safe and reasonable alternatives, because we're hateful bigots who want to shove our beliefs down people's throats. You believe that, it won't change, and we can't get past it. Yes, many many many people who are pro-life are inconsistent with their claimed worldview, but that does not mean you're free to generalize about every single person who believes the unborn should have legal protection. You expect us to provide abortion alternatives without explaining why we believe abortion is morally abhorrent? That's ridiculous. Those of us who see inconsistencies are working to rectify them, and are personally doing our best to ensure that we remain consistent by providing counseling and health services to women.
  4. While this may be true in some cases, applying it broadly across the board is just as offensive as implying that all Muslims are extremists who carry around pocket bombs. I personally know at least half a dozen families off the top of my head who have adopted, sometimes in multiples, and almost every family in my church gives to local crisis pregnancy centers. I have volunteered with the local Hope House that provides services and abortion alternatives for pregnant women and women with young children. Yes, there are "pro-life" people who couldn't care less about children who have been born, but STOP saying we just don't care as a general rule. Thanks.
  5. I made no factual claims about the incident. A jury of peers found him not guilty, because the prosecution did not prove the essential elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how the judicidial system works and should work. To paraphrase Blackstone, better that ten guilty men walk because a prosecutor could not meet his high burden than that one innocent man be convicted for a crime he didn't commit. We may not always agree with the outcome in controversial cases, but that's how it works. Sock, you're making a factual/legal claim of "murder" that the evidence didn't support.
  6. Clearly the prosecution didn't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. To be honest, I'm tired of hearing opinions based on media hearsay. 90% of the people who claim to be angry about the outcome can't even tell me what the essential elements of the charge of 2nd degree murder consist of. The only people who know exactly what happened that day are the two who were involved in the altercation, of whom only one is still living. The only people who heard every fact presented in the case were the jury members, and there are certainly none of them here. Regardless of what happened that night or who was at fault, the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof. There was no injustice done in the courtroom.
  7. I'm asking you on what basis you know anything. On what basis do you justify the validity of your experiences, senses, and reasoning? Because we live in a fallen world where death happens. How do you know you can trust your senses? How do you know you can trust your powers of deduction? You believe in truth? True information and false information? Explain truth to me. How can something be objectively "true" in your worldview? If my thoughts are byproducts of chemical reactions, and my brain was created by chance, what makes my thoughts "false" and yours "true"? They're both just chance reactions. I'm just having trouble understanding it. To me, that seems a bit like asking me whether Dr. Pepper fizz or Mountain Dew fizz is true. They're both just chemical reactions, what makes one true or false, better or worse? So you believe in logic? How do you explain the existence of logic within your worldview? Where did an unchanging, immaterial, universal system of rules of reasoning come from? How do you know when something has been proven? Again, how do you validate your reasoning? I'm saying your foundation for knowledge is exactly the same as my foundation. Your foundation is revelation from the God of scripture, found in nature and written on your heart by virtue of being created in the image of God, because without that revelation, "knowledge," "truth," and "logic" have no basis in reality. My point is that there is no foundation for knowledge, truth, and logic within an atheistic worldview, because there is no explanation for the existence of any of them. So any knowledge claims by an atheist presuppose something that doesn't exist within their worldview. How do you evaluate your experiences and what you learn? If you can explain to me how you validate your reasoning, I'd love to hear an explanation. That was a very well-reasoned paragraph. But I still haven't gotten a good answer to the basic question of how you know your reasoning is valid Feel free to be skeptical. You'd have to go to the sources he cited and challenge their validity. Hers wasn't an ectopic pregnancy. You're confusing issues. You don't consider it a human, but that doesn't mean it isn't. How do you know those things have been proven? I believe in dinosaurs. You're not following what I'm saying. I didn't say you have to profess belief in God to say that you know something. I'm saying the fact that you DO know things presupposes the existence of God, whether you profess belief in Him or not. Do you know for certain that reason doesn't exist? Sounds like an absolute knowledge claim to me. How do you know reason doesn't exist? Did you reason your way to that conclusion? Again, I'm not arguing that reason doesn't exist. I believe in objective, universal laws of logic. I'm saying that apart from the existence of an immutable being to provide these immutable laws, there is no explanation for them other than "we just think they exist." How does supernatural intervention into natural creation violate the accepted laws of logic? Then stop telling me I can't rape and molest children and steal. You can believe it's wrong if you want, but don't enforce it on me.
  8. Not what I said. My point is that you have no foundation for knowledge within your worldview. You want facts. How would you interpret those facts if you were to see them? With your reasoning? How do you justify the validity of your reasoning? I'm confused as to what you're asking. Are you asking for an explanation for disease and death based on my beliefs?
  9. Debate 10: Ectopic Pregnancies That deals with the issue pretty thoroughly. I don't believe I can be wrong about everything I claim to know, and I don't think you can be either. I have certainty in my knowledge that I am alive, that I'm sitting on a chair, and that I am typing at a computer. I am certain about this because, while I don't have all knowledge, I have revelation from a being who does. The fact that we as humans know anything presupposes divine revelation. Again, in order to know anything for certain, you would have to know EVERYTHING (to be certain that nothing contradicts your supposed knowledge), or have revelation from someone who does know everything. Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools. Knowledge of any sort presupposes the existence of God. Humans know of the existence of God, because He has revealed Himself through creation. We are created in the image of God (incidentally, why abortion is wrong), and are aware of His existence. Unless you begin with the existence of God, you have no foundation for knowledge claims.
  10. You'd be referring to Matthew 24, where Jesus outlines the "signs of the times" to warn the apostles of things to come. The exact verse is Matthew 24:34 where Jesus says "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." So that begs the question of what "all these things" is referring to. If you go one verse prior, you see "So also when you see all these things, you will know he [the son of man, Christ, the second coming] is near, at the very gates." So clearly Jesus means all of the signs he has previously mentioned will occur before his second coming, within the generation of the apostles. Now, you refer to "the apocalypse." By that, I believe you mean a "Left Behind"-ish idea of a rapture, tribulation, etc? I hold to a preterist view of Biblical eschatological prophecy. That is, these "signs of the times" and most apocalyptic prophecies in scripture refer not to a future tribulation, but to the historical destruction of Jerusalem. Essentially, these "signs of the times," and specifically the "abomination of desolation," that Jesus prophesied of were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD. Look at the prophecies... there will be wars and rumors of wars, famines, the apostles will be delivered up to persecution and sometimes death... All of these things took place between the time Jesus spoke these words and the time that the last apostle died. So Jesus's words were very clearly fulfilled, while Joseph Smith's prophecy about the building of the temple did not come true within the generation to which he spoke. You're right that those who hold to a "Left Behind" view in which these prophecies speak of events that have not yet occurred are left with an internal inconsistency, but quite frankly, I think that position is not Biblically supportable. Hope that helps
  11. If you could be wrong about everything that you claim to know, how can you know anything? If I told you "I think the speed limit outside my house is 25MPH, but I'm really not sure," do I really know it? Knowledge is obviously limited. We can't know everything. And if we don't know everything, something in the sphere of "things we don't know" could contradict what we claim to know right? So in order to know anything, you would have to know everything. Or, alternatively, have revelation from someone who does. So do you know things? What's your basis for knowledge? In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there are medical procedures that can be performed to attempt to save the life of the child and the mother. They have minuscule rates of success and the child typically dies, but there is a fundamental difference between attempting to save both lives and intentionally terminating one. That's why intent is a HUGE part of homicide law. So no, the answer to ectopic pregnancy is not "wait and see." We just don't believe that an intentional killing of the child in the womb is necessary.
  12. So your reasoning is valid because you reasoned that it's valid? Isn't that circular? My point is that if the laws of logic aren't universal, then your statement that "logic is different from person to person" is meaningless, because the opposite could also be true without violating any laws of logic, because the laws of logic don't apply beyond my own consciousness. I'm not talking about apparent contradictions. I'm talking about abstract logical contradictions. All A is B, Some A is not B. Can both of those statements be true? If the laws of logic aren't universal, then they could be. Do you think that you could be wrong about all these things you claim to know? *edit* I've clearly gone off track, so I'll just end it for the day. You can PM me if you want to play tennis with this whole knowledge topic some more. Thanks for the rousing discussion
  13. So your judgement that causing pain is wrong (generally) is based on your perception and reasoning? How do you know your perception and reasoning are valid? If logic is different from person to person, then logic isn't different from person to person. Or is it absolutely true that two contradictory statements cannot both be true? So based on that reasoning, even though you fundamentally disagree with me, you're essentially conceding that my view is morally equivalent to yours. But that doesn't make sense, because you morally disagree with it... I know I'm getting off on a little epistemological side track, but I believe this is really relevant to the abortion issue. How can you claim anyone is wrong about anything without an absolute standard of truth?
  14. Why is causing harm wrong? So you believe in the laws of logic? Are the laws of logic universal? I guess I'm just wondering where you get these absolute truth claims and the idea of universal, immutable logic within your worldview.
  15. Being refused an abortion didn't kill her. I would consider those who call child sacrifice a choice to be pro-death. 55 million+ children destroyed in the womb attests to that.
  16. It's not propaganda, it's responses to typical pro-death arguments. Where scientific backing is required, the answers are supported with links to viable sources. But here's a great one. Abortion is never medically necessary If you looked into AHA, you'd see that they do incredible things for expectant mothers who decide not to murder their child. They have found women homes, adoptive parents, temporary care, you name it. We absolutely care about the women involved. We just don't think that murder solves problems. How do you know science has proven that with absolute certainty? How do you know that people have rights? From where do you derive your sense of morality?
  17. You say it's biased as if you aren't.
  18. I promise I'm not scared of you. I just have many serious problems with your worldview and the inconsistencies therein. How do you reconcile the Doctrines and Covenants claim the Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, when his false prophecies (such as D&C 84:4, claiming the Missouri Temple would be built in "this" generation) show that he is a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 18:22? How do you reconcile the doctrinal claim that God is spirit (Lectures on Faith, 5:2) with the D&C claim that the Father has a physical body (D&C 130:22)? How do you reconcile the D&C claim that men become gods (D&C 132:20) with the Book of Mormon claim that there is only one God (Alma 11:28-29) and the Biblical claim that there are no Gods before or after Yahweh (Isaiah 43:10)? These are contradictions. If your source of knowledge is LDS doctrine, your source of knowledge is contradictory. If your source of knowledge is contradictory, how can you know anything for certain? Those aren't the only problems I have with Mormonism, those are just a few glaring contradictions.
  19. "The fetus is just a clump of cells"
  20. “I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else” - Cornelius Van Til "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." - Ayn Rand
  21. I'm getting ready to demolish a building. I'm really not sure if there's someone inside or not. There might be, but I'm just going to go for it on the off chance that there isn't anyone there. Of course that's a silly example. But no, it's not a matter of opinion. Just like the fact that Africans are men and brothers was not a matter of opinion, regardless of how many slave owners argued that it was MERELY an opinion that they should be treated as equals. All the proof needed is the biological fact that life begins at conception, and the absolute fact that it is a fetus is a developing human offspring. It's a separate body with separate DNA. Saying that being against abortion is reducing a woman to the status of a broodmare is absolutely ridiculous. Do I want women to carry conceived children to term? Yes, because the alternative is the murder of a human being. This has nothing to do with how highly I esteem women. No one of any gender has the right to commit murder. Why does she have the right to end a life? How do you know that she has that right?
  22. What a woman does with her body is her business. What a woman does to the body inside her body is another matter entirely. Any law is arguably forcing a belief system on someone. Whether or not you agree with it does not change the fact that murder is illegal. Would you say I was trying to force someone to conform to my belief system if I was protesting against rape? But in reality, rape and abortion are both wrong for the same reasons. They are both violent acts of aggression upon other people's bodies. Side note, the abolitionists of slavery were told to keep their personal beliefs to themselves as well. "Don't like slavery, don't own a slave," right? When we're dealing with issues of absolute morality, that argument falls flat. That's not always what happens. I've posted before about local crisis pregnancy centers in my area who do that exact thing. I know little ol' east Tennessee isn't unique.
  23. I understand some Jewish traditions name her, but she isn't named anywhere in the text used for the Christian Bible.
  24. I didn't ask because I needed an answer. I asked to make people think. So viability determines humanity? A fetus is worth protecting at 28 weeks? Not 27? That's a little arbitrary, don't you think?