When Does Life Begin?

real life wrote:

But since you haven't, the most reasonable course is to note that the proposition is either true or false.

Either there is a God who made all......

.......or there is not.

No third option.

sorry kiddo.

you could still be wrong - and we may find out someday.

The real world doesn't work by Grade 8 debate club rules.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

That you posted a photo which utilizes the application of science i.e. technology and then by some bizarre stretch of the imagination then claim that exempts you from your simplistic agrarian society's superstitious mores in the context of modern medical science is the height of absurdity.

To suggest that right and wrong are affected by how many technological devices one owns is pretty funny as well.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

real life wrote:
But since you haven't, the most reasonable course is to note that the proposition is either true or false.

Either there is a God who made all......

.......or there is not.

No third option.

sorry kiddo.

you could still be wrong - and we may find out someday.

The real world doesn't work by Grade 8 debate club rules.

Yes, my position -- 'There is a God who made all' may be wrong.

Or the opposite position -- 'There is NOT a God who made all' may be wrong.

But both cannot be wrong. One is correct and one is not.

Your sneering reference to 8th grade notwithstanding, you are completely unable to posit a third alternative that you had initially implied.

Perhaps dismissively labeling someone 'kiddo' worked for you in the 8th grade as well, but unless you have more than an empty box to show, your implied knowledge of a 'deeper' understanding to life (and a third alternative to the question at hand) can't be taken too seriously.

But I'll be glad to talk with you if you ever come up with something.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
That you posted a photo which utilizes the application of science i.e. technology and then by some bizarre stretch of the imagination then claim that exempts you from your simplistic agrarian society's superstitious mores in the context of modern medical science is the height of absurdity.

To suggest that right and wrong are affected by how many technological devices one owns is pretty funny as well.

Yeah, what you said.

The fact that the bible was written to be understood by those without formal education is not to imply that those without formal education are unable to see past Chumly's constant sidestepping of the issues.

True, they may not use polysyllabic words like pretentious.
They may simply say duh!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
That you posted a photo which utilizes the application of science i.e. technology and then by some bizarre stretch of the imagination then claim that exempts you from your simplistic agrarian society's superstitious mores in the context of modern medical science is the height of absurdity.

To suggest that right and wrong are affected by how many technological devices one owns is pretty funny as well.

Being a rational sort, I don't abide by your religious moral absolutism as personified by your belief in fantastical myths. Further your claim that I suggest "right and wrong are affected by how many technological devices one owns" is pure straw man.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

The fact that the bible was written to be understood by those without formal education.......

I'd love to see you squirm as you try and qualify and quantify this as a so-called "fact".

This so-called "fact" of yours in no way alters the circumstances that all you are doing is taking simplistic agrarian superstitious mores and trying to apply it to modern medical science. As discussed by default that makes many religious people closet Neo-Luddites hence often hypocrites in their stance towards the application of modern science i.e. technology.

0 Replies

Me too! I love the way religionists continue to interpret the bible to their own liking. It's still poofism.

0 Replies

Hi MeToo,

How are you this afternoon?

Had any original thoughts today?

How many gadgets can one own before it affects what is right and what is wrong?

(For instance, if murder is wrong, does it become right if you own a lot of highly advanced hardware?)

What I mean by that is:

Are right and wrong dependent on how technically advanced your society is?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

How many gadgets can one own before it affects what is right and what is wrong?

666 gadgets of course. The Mark of the Beast.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
That you posted a photo which utilizes the application of science i.e. technology and then by some bizarre stretch of the imagination then claim that exempts you from your simplistic agrarian society's superstitious mores in the context of modern medical science is the height of absurdity.

To suggest that right and wrong are affected by how many technological devices one owns is pretty funny as well.
Further your claim that I suggest "right and wrong are affected by how many technological devices one owns" is pure straw man.

You are the one who suggested that the relative level of technological sophistication of a given society bore any relation to morals. No proof was offered however. No surprise there.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
The fact that the bible was written to be understood by those without formal education.......
I'd love to see you squirm as you try and qualify and quantify this as a so-called "fact".

This so-called "fact" of yours in no way alters the circumstances that all you are doing is taking simplistic agrarian superstitious mores and trying to apply it to modern medical science. As discussed by default that makes many religious people closet Neo-Luddites hence often hypocrites in their stance towards the application of modern science i.e. technology.

I did not realize that medical science had reached consensus on the question of when life begins. If so, I am sorry to have intruded into this lofty discussion.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
I did not realize that medical science had reached consensus on the question of when life begins.
You so aptly make my point for me.

Source?

0 Replies

Heh Heh. What goes on the internet stays on the internet. Laughing

0 Replies

The source for your view that "medical science" has not "reached consensus on the question of when life begins"

neologist wrote:

I did not realize that medical science had reached consensus on the question of when life begins.

No worries on the prior post!

0 Replies

Are you asking me to prove a negative?

0 Replies

I'll safely assume you do not see the inherent hypocrisy of on the one hand inferring you would accept medical science's consensus on the question of when life begins and yet on the other applying your interpretation of simplistic agrarian superstitious mores to that same question.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I'll safely assume you do not see the inherent hypocrisy of on the one hand inferring you would accept medical science's consensus on the question of when life begins and yet on the other applying your interpretation of simplistic agrarian superstitious mores to that same question.

Are you saying that the inability of medical science to reach consensus somehow proves that the bible is a collection of "simplistic agrarian superstitious mores"? Or are you just showing us that you can spell big words?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Are you saying that the inability of medical science to reach consensus somehow proves that the bible is a collection of "simplistic agrarian superstitious mores"?

Only by the same token that the planets have shown no ability to reach consensus on how much they like the sun. The question itself is not only self-serving and absurd but one of your making not mine neo-straw-man.

neologist wrote:

Or are you just showing us that you can spell big words?

If you wish to honor ignorance be my guest.

0 Replies

You were the one who claimed the pro life folks eschewed science by your neo Luddite characterization. All I sought to do was ask substantiation for your assertion. Sorry if you find defending your arguments difficult

0 Replies

I recommend from now on that you quote me directly instead of relying on the straw man logical fallacy. I did not say "the pro life folks eschewed science by your neo Luddite characterization" I said something very different indeed. Further be aware of your argumentum ad nauseum logical fallacy brought about by your straw man logical fallacy.

Chumly wrote:

The whole (so-called) "moral question" can perhaps best be put into perspective by considering:

A simplistic agrarian society's superstitious mores are trying to be applied to modern medical science.

By default that makes many religious people closet Neo-Luddites hence often hypocrites in their stance towards the application of modern science i.e. technology.
Quote:
Those on the right who are "neo-Luddites" generally oppose technology on the grounds that it may contribute to any or all of the following: decay of social mores, dehumanization, a snowball effect towards a "Brave New World", the collapse of traditional ways of life, consumerism, or atheism and the decay of religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-luddism

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know