woolley

Well I don't think you can. I think we can make indirect claims, but how do you attack the topic head-on? From the atheist side you have to invoke specific qualities about the idea of God and then shoot those down, right? If I was an atheist that would bug the hell out of me. From the theist side, how do you really begin asserting that a God outside of material reality can possibly exist? All you really have is deduction or an appeal to authority (Bible, Pope, etc). Personally I'm a theist. The biggest problem with theism, looking at it objectively (ha), is defining God. That's why I'm loathe to define God when discussing this with others, although I have my own ideas about God. The term "god of the gaps" is used derisively and dismissively *but damnit that's the best a theist can do*. I don't like dichotomies...but...its either Sagan's the cosmos is all there is, all there was, all there ever will be, or, it's there's more than the cosmos. The first is atheism, the second is something else. God(s) would be something outside and/or above and beyond the cosmos. The limits of science are so elementary to me that it really annoys me when so-called science types get all brash and blusterbus and talk down to other people. I appreciate the benefits of the scientific method and understand how it's made my life more comfortable, but you can understand how to repair a motorcycle and believe in God at the same time. You can understand how mitochondria work and accept Christ. You truly can. And there's no objective value in atheistic thinking anyhow. You can appreciate the benefits of science and be theistic, so who the hell cares? In the end you've got people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett in mutual admiration societies basking in their smartness own and the stupidity of believers. So what? Death is the great equalizer, a believer and an atheist can equally pass an electricity/magnetism exam, and the world will continue to be spherical whether humans believe it is or not.

No, I am not mistaking science and religion. Just saying that science is not equivalent to objective reality. Before science there was objective reality. Science is a methodology in which humans recognize and explain objective reality (as best as we can, at the time).

Usually you have to think yourself *out* of believing in God, so it ought to go without saying that an atheist/agnostic has put mucho thought into it. Typically a construct of God is established, "science and logic" are applied, and the construct is rejected. If God is objectively real, science and logic probably couldn't directly establish that fact. Science and logic are human tools to satisfy human needs (or at least psychogically felt needs). God is not contingent on human methodologies.

For the Christian, God allowed his son to be crucified. So that's the kind of God we're talking about. The existence of extreme suffering and injustice as a proof against the existence of God/Jesus...how would the mechanism work? A just God/Jesus would intervene before every murder of an innocent takes place? The gun will misfire...the knife will magically transform into a muppet...a speeding car will disappear and reappear in Morocco? Just think it through. What is the line where suffering becomes suffering that a "good" God ought not allow? If God allows some bad things and does not allow some really bad things...or...how would God prevent really bad things...or, what kind of world would it be with such an interventionist God... If there's no God, that's fine. If there is a God, I reckon things can happen in any way he wants, no? The good news is that if there is no God it doesn't matter if people believe that or not. If there is a God, who the hell knows I guess. I'm not saying Pascal's wager, I'm just saying is all. Go Bills!

Amen! God knows I wanted us to sign him back in 2004. Re: Christians...there's a verse about God's eye being on the sparrow. If it's on the sparrow, it's probably on a football game too. Personally I think that God cares about everything we do, to some extent or another. I'm sure he'd be the first to say that God doesn't care about football like he does about big issues facing humanity. That doesn't mean God does not care about human pursuits. Sports brings out some of the best aspects of humanity, and let's face it, humans are REALLY REALLY interested in sports. It can be a vehicle for an athlete to...dare I say...be a role model. The annoyance some feel about Warner's articulated faith has more to do with us than with Warner. Because frankly, if Warner is wrong, does it really matter? For him? For us? Hell, his faith may very well make him a better football player. Beats PEDs.

Hypotheticals detached from reality are absolutely useless. I could call a non-origamied piece of paper a monkey. I mean, you know, just hypothetically. It's a non-starter. Nice job with the name calling there, that is certainly one way to respond to stress.

Some people would extend this to say if I truly believe what I say, I should shoot an abortionist. I don't live my life black and white style. There are inarticulable calculi that determine my behavior. To try to articulate, I don't see what good it would do to track down 15 year olds who are going to get abortions and make them feel miserable. Maybe you see this as a litmus test for courage, or non-wussiness. This way of thinking that you have makes no impression on me. Scratching an itch to make a point? I'm not for the imprisonment of women who get abortions. Abortion is legal. Do I still believe abortion kills innocent life? Absolutely. If you find this irreconcilable, let me tell you that it isn't. I'm not as simplistic as you'd like me to be, perhaps. What do you mean by make her carry it to term? If she asked me to drive her to a Planned Parenthood clinic, I would refuse. I wouldn't chain her to her bed. If she really wanted an abortion I guess she could climb out a window or threaten to commit suicide, or something. I dunno. Nothing she does will take the fact that a rape occurred away. If looking at the baby makes her remember the rape, we could look into adoption or something. Personally, I think I would truly be cold-blooded if I freely allowed her to get an abortion, washing my hands of the matter like Pilate. OK, point taken. Those people ought to fix themselves. This changes nothing re: my opinion about abortion. It's tough. I had a hard time as a mixed kid living in an all white neighborhood. Kind of like choosing a spouse...sometimes you'll take factors into consideration when you consider difficulties that may arise in life. You can call it anything you like. I'll spare you the personal anecdotes I could share, better to just think that white people hesitant to adopt black babies are racist. If you think that unadopted babies are a greater issue than unadopted children in foster care, that's on you. It doesn't matter I guess. They're both important. In general, yes, I think that killing someone is worse than not actively helping someone who is alive. OK. Yeast is an ingredient in bread. I think the better analogy is the sperm, or the egg, before they merge to become zygote. Once the ingredients are mixed, the ingredients are no longer distinct, and yeast would be a distinct ingredient.

I don't know what's the best way for any life to live. Do you? Rich parents can have kids who are drug addicts, poor single mothers can have kids become nuclear physicists. Let life live, that's what I say. Given that abortion is legal, there may be countless millions of women who have considered abortion before giving birth, maybe for a few minutes, maybe for a few days. I think consideration of abortion is not a litmus test for anything. Ok, our disagreement is fundamental then.

Your hypothetical has never existed in the history of the world. Pass.

If I'm considering driving through a red light, am I obviously ill equipped to drive a car? I'd say no. I'd say most drivers, maybe 75% or more, have at one time considered driving through a red light. Humans consider all sorts of things, all the time. I'm sure 99.9% of people have considered doing something illegal. If you believe that abortion is the *killing of innocent human life*, don't you think this would override any ideological position, such as fiscal conservatism?

I don't think I could do this, no. That doesn't change what I believe....namely, the fact that an abortion kills an innocent child, regardless of the circumstances behind the pregnancy. Both. I believe that land is the primary issue in the minds of the Arab political leaders in the region. Are white parents hesitant to adopt black children? Sure. And the fact remains, the primary issue is not babies (black or other) not being adopted, but the large numbers of children in foster care. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/us/17adopt.html?_r=1 Not sure what the point is. Is the point that there are pregnant women getting abortions because they feel that if they give birth, their child will not be adopted? If that is the point, how informed is that point, do tell? The hypocrisy of sinners...I won't accept that as a reason for overriding the fact, or an opinion, that abortion is the killing of innocent life. Meaning...if we both accept, or believe, that abortion is the killing of innocent life, we diverge in that you would use the fact of hypocrite Christians to make abortion acceptable. I don't believe that the existence of hypocrisy makes abortion acceptable.

But this goes for everything. Murder is illegal, and people keep committing murder, legality be damned. If murder was legal, I'd have less of a risk of being shot by a cop if I try to shoot somebody else, right? If heroin was legal, fewer people would get HIV from dirty needles. And I would ask you, is abortion murder? Or is that question irrelevant to you?

No, it is a religious belief, as well as being what you call a universal one. There are non-religious people opposed to abortion.

To prevent anarchy?

Another thing about this... Religion leads to war, ergo, religion is bad. As previously stated, territorial expansion and border disputes are easily the top reasons behind the majority of wars in the history of the world. Does it follow that property possession leads to war, ergo, property possession is bad?

Your hypothetical is so outrageously outrageous that your post has no impact on me whatsoever, besides noting its outrageous outrageousness.

Personally, I think it's too late to tell someone who's had an abortion what they should have done. The more important issue, I think, is that your friend does not believe she had her child murdered, correct? Are there any victims of rape out there who've given birth, later to regret to *not* having an abortion? Probably, but they most likely wouldn't talk about it I'm thinking. I absolutely disagree. Most wars in history were about expansion, not religion. You're making a very sweeping statement here. Most of us haven't given money to starving people in Botswana. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're more concerned with what you're going to wear to work today than starving people in Botswana. It's not because we don't care for them, it's just the way things are, you can't worry about every issue under the sun, not enough time/money to do that. Let me add, there aren't a surplus of unadopted babies in this country. The foster-care thing is a major issue. I don't think women get abortions for the supposed fact that there are legions of unadopted babies.

I think your predictions are poorly formed, and will certainly not come to pass. I also question your understanding of irony, but whatever.

Intelligent people are responsible for the materials and methods which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. Are you opposed to intelligence? Most people in the history of the world have been religious, so this is hardly surprising anyhow. Any *thing* that gets you riled up, gets you inspired, can lead to the greatest good or the greatest evil. Like love. Like courage. Like whatever inspired Stalin (not church going or religious).

The question I'd have for you is when are human rights bestowed on a human? The government should protect basic human rights. So, I'll guess that you do not believe humans have life until they exit the womb, or until the umbilical cord is clipped. If I believed this, I would be of your mindset. Except I don't, so I'm not. But not a bad position IMO.

I'd guess that they have more sympathy for them than the abortionists.

It's a valid point, but it's independent of the question of whether or not abortion is moral or immoral. I'm sure there were tens of thousands of Northerners who were opposed to slavery, but could care less about giving assistance to freed slaves. We should all be the best we can be, agreed.

So this has occurred to you 4 times in the past 20 years. There are tens of millions of pro-lifers, and you're going to have a handful of wack-jobs. I wish it weren't so. You're going to have some husbands kill their wives. We're talking about men who took vows to love and cherish and all that. Do you find that ironic too? I mean, hundreds if not thousands of husbands have killed their wives in the past 20 years, so surely you've taken note.

I yield, I guess. Of all the unsolved murders in the history of the world I'd reckon many a detective would very likely say "I have no clue" when it comes to the perp, even though they do in fact have "clues" as to who the perp is. Like, they have a clue who the murderer is because they can't exclude 33,988 persons in the general vicinity who may not have an alibi, but that's effectively being clueless, and this is semantics. Personally, I'm opposed to dogmatism when it comes to this topic. I also don't think the poster was "clueless" in the most literal sense, but he can speak for himself. Also, I agree you should definitely have reasons for excluding possibilities. With this particular topic, reasons are not objectively reasonable because it really doesn't matter what any of us thinks about whatever the objective reality of the unobserved and untestable/non-repeatable past is, reason being contingent on human thought and not existing independent of that. Unless it does, in which case...but that's a whole other thing.

Let's take an unsolved murder. It's quite possible that the police would have no clue as to who the perpetrator was, while, at the same time, excluding the possibility that the husband was murdered by the wife. I don't think that it's necessarily more reasonable to express contingent certainty than general doubt.