Ep. 85: Cosmic Morality

[mitchellmckain]

I was always surprised at Mitch because he mainly attacked me for holding to a particular view and felt justified in attacking me for that, yet missing the total irony of his own very particular and specific view.

On the contrary I attacked your arguments by explaining why they did not work and you responded by attacking me with all sorts of accusations and so I followed where you decided to lead the discussion and demonstrated that yours were the quirky opinions not mine. Sure the atheists just love you, because that is the Christianity that they love to attack and paint all the rest of Christianity with as well. Hey maybe while we have you here you can confirm this. The post which they are refering was one explaining these 10 beliefs to be the reason why no commonality can be found between Christians and atheists.

Here are the "10 Things That Theists Believe That Will Prevent Them From Agreeing on the Other 10 Things."

1. Any common qualities between atheists and theists only prove that all men are sinners who deserve hell;
2. Any "goodness" or morality atheists have left is a holdover from before they willingly gave themselves over to destruction;
3. It would actually be unkind to atheists to pretend they can be good people, because it would only encourage atheists to believe they have hope apart from (insert a god's name here);
4. It isn't theists from whom atheists are truly estranged: it is (insert a god's name here);
5. When a Christian does something wrong, he's either been deceived by Satan or is still struggling with his sin nature, whereas a bad atheist is just displaying his true nature;
6. It mocks (insert a god's name here) to suggest there is any kind of parity between (insert religion here) and atheism;
7. It doesn't matter if atheists sincerely believe what they're saying, because they've all been deceived by their father, Satan.
8. It's a lie to say that atheism has brought the world any good, because science is an invention of Christianity (I'm not exaggerating on this; I know plenty of Christians who insist it's the case)
9. It's a GOOD thing when an atheist is offended, because their anger only proves they need to hear MORE of a god's wisdom.
10. Theists may not be able to harrass atheists out of existence, but (insert god)'s gonna wipe them off the map with one fist.

Come on, Christians... prove me wrong here. Give us good evidence that my ten things don't better describe Christian thinking than the Other 10.

So what about it Tony? Does this describe the way that you think?

So, there are laws and structures involved? Yep that is my point. not nothing....

I don't see the word "nothing" in what Equinox said. This correction you are making to what you said is good, but this doesn't change the fact that Equinox was correct and you were wrong.

[Keep The Reason]

Jim, thanks for the honest question.

I'm not Jim.

That article I wrote was rhetorical in nature, I do not think it is wise or effective to kill abortion doctors. There are a ton of steps that should happen first.

Okay, and then it's okay to kill them?

Strong protests, passive resistance and publicity stunts used in a wise fashion, yet the society is steeped in moral decay without regard to the innocent children and very few think clearly enough to realize the tragedy that is occurring with over 50,000,000 dead so far.

I won't say not a single person has actually died because there have been mistakes, but most of those 50m are zygotes and partially formed fetuses. Not people. Anyway, that's a different argument.

Regarding the old Testament stoning of adulterers. This was for a specific time and a specific reason. The theology would bore you but simply put, God was doing a direct work without regard to grace so holiness was both a reality and a purposeful point for our use and example. In Islam, you can kill the man who sleeps with your wife. I don't agree with that. In fact, I met with the guy who was with my wife and ended up leading him to the Lord, forgiving him and helping him restore his own marriage. My marriage is struggling for many other reasons in addition to this event.

Hmm. I see. Thank you for the answer.

When slavery was the norm, there was no act that could stop the mind from doing evil. When killing Jews was the norm, no resistence would stop the powers that be. We need a great awakening to the reality of what is happening.

Well, the "power that be" regarding slavery was Yahweh. He certainly endorsed it. Quite a lot, in fact. So did Jesus.

[JustJim]

Besides going along with the desire to reserve a right to nastiness for atheists alone, it is so much easier to tear Tony's arguments to shreds (by Jim's own admission) which fits Jim's preference to believe that Christians are just irrational and stupid.

I have no desire to reserve the right to nastiness for atheists alone. If you're saying I do, prove it. I have no "preference to believe" that Christians are just irrational and stupid. Some are irrational, some are stupid, some are both, and most are neither. The same applies to atheists. THAT'S what I "prefer to believe." Since you've claimed otherwise, prove it.

These are exactly the kinds of things you say to/about other people that we others perceive as unsupported, uncalled for nastiness on your part, Mitch. They're wild-ass, exaggerated, intolerant, intentional misrepresentations of what other people say, mean, and believe - spewed out either to bolster your own sense of self-worth by degrading others, or to distract people from your arguments and/or the fact you haven't adequately dealt with theirs. The saddest part of it all is that you seem to think we're all too stupid to see through your vitriol into your apparent self-disdain.

I think everyone has the right to be nasty if they so choose, and that others have the right to call them out on it. When they're called out on it, though, I think some evidence should be offered in support of the claim that they're being nasty. I provided evidence of that in a quote from your keyboard. I could easily offer hundreds more examples, if I had the time and thought it was worth the effort or would make any difference. Do you think you could do the same with the people on whom you smear your verbal feces?

Jim

[tonyenglish7]

I won't say not a single person has actually died because there have been mistakes, but most of those 50m are zygotes and partially formed fetuses. Not people. Anyway, that's a different argument.

Sorry, I made a mistake in calling you Jim... Yeah, that really is the crux of the issue. Let me ask you, if those "Zygotes" were human, would they have rights? At what point do they become human? Does breathing air make them human? When do rights obtain? See, the issue really is not, is it ok to defend helpless humans from manslaughter, but are fetuses human? The reason so many are angry about my article is not that they feel stronger then I that doctors have a right to life, but they don't see that fetuses are humans as well with the exact same right to live.

[Keep The Reason]

I won't say not a single person has actually died because there have been mistakes, but most of those 50m are zygotes and partially formed fetuses. Not people. Anyway, that's a different argument.

Sorry, I made a mistake in calling you Jim... Yeah, that really is the crux of the issue. Let me ask you, if those "Zygotes" were human, would they have rights? At what point do they become human? Does breathing air make them human? When do rights obtain? See, the issue really is not, is it ok to defend helpless humans from manslaughter, but are fetuses human? The reason so many are angry about my article is not that they feel stronger then I that doctors have a right to life, but they don't see that fetuses are humans as well with the exact same right to live.

You've been gone but this has been covered extensively in the podcast thread (Pro Life / compatibility). What makes us human is our sapience because other animals:

Have hearts
Breathe (respirate)
Reproduce
Feel
etc.

Humans think -- and do so at such a vastly higher level that this drives and defines our humanity. So I would put the demarcation at the point where our nervous systems and our brains are formed enough for the distinctive and unique patterns that make us human. After that point, I'm very uncomfortable with abortion (exceptions would be extremely deformed babies / quality of life issues, and death of mother).

This is very simplistic but it does give people enough time to come to grips with whether or not they can deal with the pregnancy (like in rape/incest cases), but after that time -- and the closer to a helathy baby being born comes into play, the line gets more and more indistinct.

As to your query about zygotes being "human"? You cannot be human if you don't have a human brain. Our brains are what defines us as human, and no zygote has a brain-- that's why they are zygotes and not people.

[JustJim]

As to your (Tony's) query about zygotes being "human"? You cannot be human if you don't have a human brain. Our brains are what defines us as human, and no zygote has a brain-- that's why they are zygotes and not people.

Are they not human zygotes, as opposed to, say, giraffe zygotes or salamander zygotes? I think that's what Tony's asking about. I don't think he's contending that human zygotes have functional brains and nervous systems. He's saying they don't have them yet. I don't think he'd agree with your definition of what makes us human, either, but we shall see. I also think he would say that abortion interrupts a zygote's otherwise unobstructed path toward eventually developing a functional brain and nervous system - i.e., on its path to becoming a human being (according, that is, to your definition of when that happens, but not necessarily according to many other opinions and definitions and ideas of when that happens. Some might say, for example, that it is our DNA that defines us as human, and not our brains. But that's another thread....)

It's going to be very difficult, considering all the possible ways to define when human life begins, to avoid a whole slew of straw man arguments. But it should be interesting nonetheless, I think. Where's whosanightowl (Sue) when we need her?!?

Jim

[tonyenglish7]

Keep the Reason,

Humans think -- and do so at such a vastly higher level that this drives and defines our humanity. So I would put the demarcation at the point where our nervous systems and our brains are formed enough for the distinctive and unique patterns that make us human. After that point, I'm very uncomfortable with abortion (exceptions would be extremely deformed babies / quality of life issues, and death of mother).

So, once someone has been able to think, then stops thinking, do they lose the right to live? What if you are in a coma? Are you no longer human? Is having the potenial to think make you human under your view? Do people that think "better" more human and have a higher right to life then those that think less? I think humaness is the type of thing that is not on a continuum yet has features that are. Yet every human has equal rights despite the features that are on a continuum, i.e. ability to think, size, verbal skills, breathing ability, money to hire a lawyer, etc...

[Keep The Reason]

So, once someone has been able to think, then stops thinking, do they lose the right to live? What if you are in a coma? Are you no longer human? Is having the potenial to think make you human under your view? Do people that think "better" more human and have a higher right to life then those that think less? I think humaness is the type of thing that is not on a continuum yet has features that are. Yet every human has equal rights despite the features that are on a continuum, i.e. ability to think, size, verbal skills, breathing ability, money to hire a lawyer, etc...

No, of course not. I also noted the nervous system being developed given that sensation (pain) is a factor as well. But once you cross the rubicon into thinking, you are a thinking human and gain rights. Just because you lose your ability to think later on doesn't mean you retroactively lose your human rights.

All your other comments are irrelevant because even the worst thinking human (in terms of quality) is light years beyond any other animal, so that's no guideline for you to use. And we make exception for those born so severely handicapped because they have crossed into the world and we deal with them.

I really don't care to debate this with you because you have an "all or nothing" ideology here and the challenge is not so simply drawn. I could easily turn it around and demand you account for children born into horrible abusive homes where they are tormented and raped by parents who are broken and crazy -- where do you stand on saving those kids, tony? Do YOU save each one personally? Or parents who cannot support a child becuase of circumstances, or a fetus that will suffer from severely agnoizing pain due to abnormalities?

Advocate for whatever you wish. As long as you cause no harm, you're then harmless. If you start shooting people, I'm sure the authorities would be glad to pay you a visit. Rhetorically, of course.

[Keep The Reason]

As to your (Tony's) query about zygotes being "human"? You cannot be human if you don't have a human brain. Our brains are what defines us as human, and no zygote has a brain-- that's why they are zygotes and not people.

Are they not human zygotes, as opposed to, say, giraffe zygotes or salamander zygotes? I think that's what Tony's asking about. I don't think he's contending that human zygotes have functional brains and nervous systems. He's saying they don't have them yet. I don't think he'd agree with your definition of what makes us human, either, but we shall see. I also think he would say that abortion interrupts a zygote's otherwise unobstructed path toward eventually developing a functional brain and nervous system - i.e., on its path to becoming a human being (according, that is, to your definition of when that happens, but not necessarily according to many other opinions and definitions and ideas of when that happens. Some might say, for example, that it is our DNA that defines us as human, and not our brains. But that's another thread....)

It's going to be very difficult, considering all the possible ways to define when human life begins, to avoid a whole slew of straw man arguments. But it should be interesting nonetheless, I think. Where's whosanightowl (Sue) when we need her?!?

Jim

Well, I naturally assumed we are talking about human zygotes. No argument from me that human zygotes are potential humans. So is sperm, ova and the food one eats if you want to drill down granular enough. What I'm saying makes us human is simply the objectively identifiable characteristics. Otherwise, we're pretty much like most mammals-- closer to some, further from others.

[tonyenglish7]

Keep the Reason,

Well, I naturally assumed we are talking about human zygotes. No argument from me that human zygotes are potential humans. So is sperm, ova and the food one eats if you want to drill down granular enough. What I'm saying makes us human is simply the objectively identifiable characteristics. Otherwise, we're pretty much like most mammals-- closer to some, further from others.

Except maybe a Zygote has all the DNA in a continuous manner that you and I do. They need a safe environment to develop, like you and I do. They are alive separately from their mother, like you and I are. And they have all that is needed to progress the common life cycle of a human being. There are no clear cut stages other then conception that starts this life from exsisting. The rights of all humans are not earned over time, developed with features like intelligence, consciousness or size. It seems like the right to life begins for a human being when the life begins. Any other starting point for rights seems arbitrary and contrived in an effort to secure some other lesser rights of the mother.

[Keep The Reason]

Keep the Reason,

Well, I naturally assumed we are talking about human zygotes. No argument from me that human zygotes are potential humans. So is sperm, ova and the food one eats if you want to drill down granular enough. What I'm saying makes us human is simply the objectively identifiable characteristics. Otherwise, we're pretty much like most mammals-- closer to some, further from others.

Except maybe a Zygote has all the DNA in a continuous manner that you and I do. They need a safe environment to develop, like you and I do. They are alive separately from their mother, like you and I are. And they have all that is needed to progress the common life cycle of a human being. There are no clear cut stages other then conception that starts this life from exsisting. The rights of all humans are not earned over time, developed with features like intelligence, consciousness or size. It seems like the right to life begins for a human being when the life begins. Any other starting point for rights seems arbitrary and contrived in an effort to secure some other lesser rights of the mother.

It's a completely subjective position on both sides. I'd opt for the well being of a living, functional responsible human being. You'd grant rights to a blob of protoplasm. We're not going to agree.

[tonyenglish7]

Keep the Reason,

It's a completely subjective position on both sides. I'd opt for the well being of a living, functional responsible human being. You'd grant rights to a blob of protoplasm. We're not going to agree.

Yes, I agree we will likely not agree but the discussion is stimulating and maybe others will be swayed in my direction? (;-0)

Your comment that it's completely subjective on both sides is troublesome to me. Are you saying it is unknowable as to which position is correct yet there is a correct one? Or, there is no actual correct position so it doesn't matter? And, is the statement that it is completely subjective on both sides an objective statement of truth?

It seems you are saying you "feel" like the more functioning human being has a right to kill the less functioning human being if the less functioning human being is an inconvenience? Is this just a feeling, or a well thought out moral opinion?

[ScottBarger]

To me, the fundamental question in the abortion debate is, "At what point does a fetus become human enough to have its right to live trump its mother's right to not be pregnant?" Some have argued that this right begins at conception, others have argued that the right is not granted until the fetus has the ability to assert such a right, even if it is well after birth. If we assume that the right to live is something that all humans have by virtue of being human and it is not something they have to earn, than the question is one of "person-hood" not "life." There is no doubt that a fetus is alive, nor is there any doubt it is human (as opposed to some other species), but is it a person with rights? Why or why not? I think this is the question.

[tonyenglish7]

Scott,

To me, the fundamental question in the abortion debate is, "At what point does a fetus become human enough to have its right to live trump its mother's right to not be pregnant?"

I think this is a loaded question, more fundamentally, is it even possible to be human and not have a right to life? The right to live comes with being alive as a human. Why is it that a human fetus has to develop "Humanness" as one of their features.?

Some have argued that this right begins at conception, others have argued that the right is not granted until the fetus has the ability to assert such a right, even if it is well after birth. If we assume that the right to live is something that all humans have by virtue of being human and it is not something they have to earn, than the question is one of "person-hood" not "life." There is no doubt that a fetus is alive, nor is there any doubt it is human (as opposed to some other species), but is it a person with rights? Why or why not? I think this is the question.

It is the question that is forced upon the debate by those who would like to strip the baby of it's human personhood. The Jews, the american Indians, and the Hutu's are all considered less then human by those who would like to kill them for selfish reasons. The right to life is not granted by society or by philosophers, but by God. So, it seems to me that those who would like to strip the unborn of their human rights need to make the case themselves and need to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Until then we need to ere on the side of life which is not above anyones pay grade.

[ScottBarger]

I think this is a loaded question, more fundamentally, is it even possible to be human and not have a right to life?

Yes.

But the question of person-hood remains the primary one.