what is an Atheist?

[Lunar Shadow]

What is an Atheist?

An atheist is a person who does not believe that any gods exist.


Why don't you believe in God?

There is simply no more evidence for Jehovah than there is for Zeus. Christians find no reason to believe that Zeus exists, so they do not believe in him. For the same reason, I do not believe in Jehova. God himself is more than welcome to share an honest conversation with me. Until he does, I have no reason to trust that anyone is a reliable spokesman for any god.


Don't you want to go to heaven?

I do not believe there is a heaven. But even if a real heaven did exist, and for some reason a god chose who went and who didn't, if that god is a good and noble being he will judge me for my value as a human being, and not for my belief in him.


How can you turn your back on true happiness?

I cannot imagine being happier than I have been already. I live a very spiritual, fulfilling life, and am filled with an abiding love of being and thinking. I find love, reason and a practical, humble approach to life to be more than enough for me.


How can you trust sinful humans, ignoring all the good god does?

It offends me that an invisible god is given credit for every good thing that happens in the world, while every evil is blamed on humanity. There is much evil in the world that is not the fault of human beings, such as ignorance and disease and droughts, and most of the things that are good are entirely the product of human love, effort or genius, such as friendship and vaccines and even irrigation pipes.

Not all human beings are evil. We all possess great potential for good. Yet a god could do so much good in the world that is not being done, such as warning innocent children when to stay away from danger, or preventing too many people from being born, or turning all the weapons in the world into flowers. Surely a loving god would do these things, and more, just as any wise and compassionate human being would if they had the means.

And so, when a doctor saves someone's life, we truly owe our thanks to the doctor, and the society that made her education possible. It is insulting to both when a god is thanked for something that he could have done himself but didn't. If a loving god really existed, we would not need doctors in the first place.


If there is no god, then where do you think the universe came from?

I do not even know if the universe had a beginning, much less what may have started it. No one knows. Inventing a god to do the creating only leaves open the question of where that god came from.


So why be moral?

I dislike the kind of people who hurt me or lie to me or who are insincere or inconsiderate. Thus, if I were to be like such people, I could not escape disliking myself. I could never do something that would make me the sort of person I hate, because I could never be truly happy if I hated myself, no matter how hard I tried to rationalize what I have done. But this also means that to truly like myself, and thus to be truly happy, I must be the sort of person I really like, and I like people who are honest and principled and who care about others. So I strive to be like the sort of person I see to be good. I have also found that virtue earns stronger and fonder friendships, and secures the trust of my neighbors, and both of these things are essential to living a good, full life.


What do you think happens when you die?

I see that the brain is what gives me existence, and I depend on its health for my ability to think and survive. When the brain dies, I die, and when the brain ceases to exist, so do I. I do not find this to be sad. We all enjoy everything we experience, even when it doesn't last. I love life deeply, and as death would end my experience of living and loving I do not want to die. But I do not fear death, because there is no reason to fear the end of fear itself.


What about all the people who experience god?

There are people in the world who experience the essence of Buddha, who remember past lives, who truly feel the power of ritual magic in their lives, or who walk with the spirits of their ancestors. There are so many different experiences I do not think it is wise to arbitrarily assume that any one of them is truer than another.

I have looked all over the world, and I see Buddhists are mostly in Asia, Hindus mostly in India, Muslims mostly in the Middle East, and Christians mostly in the West. The idea of god, and all the assumptions of our respective religions, are taught to us as children. That Americans are mostly Christian is more likely the result of Christianity being taught there, and not the result of that religion actually being true or superior to any other.


Haven't Christian values done much good in the world?

I know that people have done much good in the world, whether they were Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., or Hindus like Gandhi, or atheists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Honesty and compassion are good values anywhere. They are not unique to Christianity.


So what do you believe in?

I believe in many things. I believe in the potential of humanity, in the power of reason, in the comfort of love, and in the value of truth. I also believe in the beauty and joy of human experience, and the nearly unlimited power of the human will to endure almost any hardship or solve almost any problem.

I believe that faith can mislead people into falsehood, and that we need reason and doubt as necessary checks against our capacity for error. I believe that we need to allow our fellow human beings to make choices for themselves and to live the life they wish to, in mutual peace and goodwill.

I believe that political negotiation and compromise -- fuelled by an honest measure of respect for different opinions, beliefs and lifestyles -- is the only way the world will find universal peace and goodwill, and that using the scientific method is the only way the world can arrive at an agreement on the truth about anything.

I believe that it is better to preach the gospel of "be good to your fellow man, and love each other as life itself," than to preach the gospel of "believe in our religion or be damned." For it is better to be good to each other and to build on what we all agree to be true, than to insist that we all think alike.



What is Atheism Really All About? (1996)
by:Richard Carrier
Copyright 1996. Copying is freely permitted, provided credit is given to the author. No material herein may be sold for profit

[creedsister]

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA DONT THANK GOD THANK JERRY LEE, Dennis Quade Greatballs Of Fire Lovley Speach

[no_fixd_address]

http://www.carl-olson.com/articles/atheism_envoy.html

Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist
http://origins.org/articles/mcinerny_burdenofproof.html

PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD
GAUDIUM ET SPES
CHAPTER I THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
15, 19, 20, 21, 22
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...t-spes_en.html



“Reason cannot eliminate the mystery of love which the Cross represents, while the Cross can give the reason the ultimate answer which it seeks” (Fides et Ratio 23).

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by no_fixd_address)

http://www.carl-olson.com/articles/atheism_envoy.html

This article is full of fallacies: ad hominem fallacy, appeal to faith:

Quote:

Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist
http://origins.org/articles/mcinerny_burdenofproof.html

Here is my question after reading the article.... why should a skeptic have the burden of proof when "god/s" hasn't even proven with reasonable doubt that he/they exist/s? Or for that matter that theists have yet to give a reasonable argument that "god/s" exist/s. if this is your life long crusade where is the evidence? personally I don't give a damn if people believe that god/s exist/s let them no skin off my back but in the world of science it is so that if you are trying to prove something the burden of proof is on you no on the skeptic.

Quote:

PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD
GAUDIUM ET SPES
CHAPTER I THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
15, 19, 20, 21, 22
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...t-spes_en.html

yet more fallacies: ad hominem, confirmation bias, appeal to faith, argument from authority


I mean the list goes on and on here shall I continue?

[no_fixd_address]

(Originally Posted by no_fixd_address) http://www.carl-olson.com/articles/atheism_envoy.html

Quote:

This article is full of fallacies: ad hominem fallacy, appeal to faith:

“ad hominum”, according to the dictionary term , is not a fallacy. You appeal to faith every day in ordinary every day living. You refuse to define faith according to your personal opinion, so I cannot have a discussion with you until we have an agreement as to what faith is. It’s not my fault you refuse to dialogue, and come up with such a redundant non-response as this. I would be happy to explain what Catholic faith is, and what it is not. I am certain you haven’t a clue because your atheist cult leader Richard Carrier doesn’t have a clue.
Can you copy and paste any paragraph that indicates where Carl Olson’s ideas are wrong because he himself is flawed? It’s not there and you refuse to give an answer and then you complain about all the stupid Christians who you claim don't answer you. This is my evidence of your redundancy.

Noun ad hominem (ad hominems)

1. a logical fallacy, arguing that an idea or concept is wrong because its proponent is flawed
2. an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself
3. a personal attack

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ad_hominum <<that is called posting your source

Quote:

Here is my question after reading the article.... why should a skeptic have the burden of proof when "god/s" hasn't even proven with reasonable doubt that he/they exist/s? Or for that matter that theists have yet to give a reasonable argument that "god/s" exist/s. if this is your life long crusade where is the evidence? personally I don't give a damn if people believe that god/s exist/s let them no skin off my back but in the world of science it is so that if you are trying to prove something the burden of proof is on you no on the skeptic.

...that there are certain basic propositions which do not include 'God exists' and, two, that other such propositions as 'God exists' must be justified by grounding them in basic beliefs. The theist can accept this model of justification and blandly add that 'God exists' is one of his basic propositions. Why not?
This should not be understood in a private or subjective sense. When Job says that he knows that his redeemer liveth, he is not simply reporting on his psyche; he doesn't mean that he knows that he knows something or other, it doesn't matter what. It is the object proposition and the truth it contains he is asserting. Does the believer who says 'God exists' is basic for him want simply to report on his idiosyncratic convictions?
If he does, he may be saying only that he has as much right to take 'God exists' as basic as his critic does to take sense data or truths about the world as basic. Perhaps that is all Plantinga wishes to do. The upshot is then to claim that the believer and his critic are in the same boat. They agree on some formal account-that there are basic propositions and propositions derivative from them-but there is no way to adjudicate claims as to what propositions, materialiter loquendo, can function as basic. The skeptic is simply wrong if he thinks some version of empiricism is beyond dispute or, worse, that it is part of the formal theory.
My own first question envisages a meatier interpretation than that. I am asking whether the skeptic is justified in calling into question the truth of 'God exists.' Why not put the burden on him? Why not insist that he is attempting to convict of irrationality generations of human beings, rational animals like himself, whole cultures for whom belief in the divine and worship are part of what it is to be a human being? Were all those millions, that silent majority, wrong? Surely to think something against the grain of the whole tradition of human experience is not to be done lightly. It is, need one say it, presumptuous to pit against that past one's own version of the modern mind. This suggests that the present generation is in agreement on things incompatible with belief in God. Or that all informed people now alive, etc. etc. Meaning, I suppose, that all present day skeptics are skeptics.
Is there thus a prima facie argument against atheism drawn from tradition, the common consent of mankind both in the past and in the present time? I think so. There is a way in which it is natural for human beings to believe in God. I think of St. Thomas who on several occasions observed that a person need only look around at the world and gain the idea of God. The order and arrangement and lawlike character of natural events impose the idea. Indeed, so easily does the idea come that it seems almost innate.
This may be taken both as a factual historical remark as well as a theoretical claim. Thus it has been in the experience of the race. The difficulty with this all but universal acceptance of the divine lies in the identification of God. That is, trees and wind, sun and the world itself have been identified with God, nor has it been necessary to choose among these possibilities. This diversity does not tell against the naturalness of the recognition.
Let me cite a parallel in St. Thomas in order that it may be clear what he is and what he is not saying here. Thomas, as you know, agrees with Aristotle that there is an ultimate end of whatever we do, that any human action of any human agent aims at the supreme good or ultimate end which is happiness. The familiar objection to this is that humans have very different aims when they act and that any given human appears to have a plurality of aims not easily reducible to the kind of unity Thomas's view suggests. Since Thomas was not the village idiot, we may presume that he is aware of the diversity mentioned and that he does not think it tells against his doctrine of ultimate end. How not?
He distinguishes in any action the ratio boni, the note of goodness, the formality under which we do any action, on the one hand, and, on the other, the particular deed done in which we take that formality to be realized. What the dizzying variety of deeds done have in common is the reason we do any of them, our aim, and that is that they are good for us to do, meaning, to do such-and-such is perfective of the kind of agent I am. A vast variety of types and tokens of act fill that bill. Some do not. Just as I may, misled by a miracle diet plan, think ground glass is good for me, so I may think theft is a kind of action perfective of the kind of agent I am. To want to be healthy, the presumed goal of dieting, with being wealthy and wise following hard upon, of course, is an unquestionable good for man; physical well-being is a constituent of any adequate account of a fulfilled human life. The problem lies with the ground glass.
No need to go on about this here. What I wish to recall is the way in which Thomas holds that human agents always act under the same formality-aiming at what is perfective of them-and that this in no way precludes legitimate and illegitimate diversity in action.
In similar fashion, the idea of the divine, the concept of a god, is what is shared; the identification of this or that or the other thing as God does not destroy the common assumption. Men disagree about who and even what God is. Another way Thomas makes this point is by saying that 'God' is a common noun, not a proper name.
Consider Thomas's remark about Anselm's proof. Someone might not agree that 'God' means that than which nothing greater can be conceived. What does Thomas think is the common formality of the term 'God.' The etymology of the Greek term suggests to him: one who sees, with the connotation, I think, of one to whom we are responsible, one on whom we depend for being or well-being, one to thank, petition, worship, placate.

[no_fixd_address]

Thomas's reference to Anselm is in a discussion in which he argues that 'God exists' is not a self-evident truth. At first blush, this seems incompatible with his other view that knowledge of God is natural, easily had, widely shared, kind of unavoidable. There is no incompatibility because the latter claim, that knowledge of God is natural, means that men easily make the requisite inference as, e.g., from the order in the world.
Does not the burden of proof then fall on the shoulders of the skeptic? Yes. And the skeptic is the first to admit this-or at least to exemplify it. I would hazard the view that more attention is paid to theism, religious belief, the existence of God, as a problem to be dealt with, as something that is an intellectual task, by the skeptic than by the believer. I have met many more militant skeptics than I have believers who look as if they were going to toss and turn all night unless they developed an airtight proof for the existence of God.
The Thomist distinguishes rigorously between theism and Christianity in terms of the distinction between praeambula fidei and mysteria fidei. The preambles of faith are truths about God which happen to have been revealed but which had been discovered, independently of revelation, by the pagan philosophers. Theism, call it natural theology, establishes truths about God on the basis of other truths which are accessible in principle to any human being. Mysteries of faith, on the contrary, are truths about God which cannot be established as such by grounding them in or deriving them from what anyone knows.
This distinction would seem to imply that even if the best conceivable results were obtained on the level of theism, this would do nothing to establish the truth of the mysteries of faith, precisely those truths which are the heart and soul of Christianity, viz. that Jesus is both human and divine, that there is a Trinity of persons in the one divine nature, that we are called to an eternity of blissful union with God, etc. The distinction between nature and grace, between the natural use of human reason and reasoning which is aided by grace and revelation, makes it clear that while Thomas holds that theism is natural and relatively easily attained, he does not regard this as making the further step into Christian belief as a continuation of the same sort of thinking.
It is, of course, within the ambiance of his own religious faith that Thomas makes such distinctions, just as it is in reflecting on revealed truths and on what philosophers have accomplished that he distinguishes the preambles from the mysteries. Given the distinction, there would be no way in the world that the believer can respond to the nonbeliever's demand that he show that the central truths of Christianity are true. Current day skeptics doubtless think that theism is in every bit as much trouble as Christian mysteries and thus that the distinction does not make much difference.
Indeed, the skeptic might well say to me that my suggestion that the burden of disproof is on him in the case of theism should lead me to the same claim with respect to Christian mysteries. That is, he might say, an awful lot of people over the last two thousand years and an awful lot of people today are Christians. Do I accordingly think that it is natural to be a Christian and that until proven otherwise Christianity ought to be accepted as true?
Of course the parallel does not hold. It is the Christian who makes the distinction. St. Paul says that the misbehaving Romans are inexcusable because they can come to knowledge of the invisible things of God from what God has made. Just as men have a law written in their hearts which is not identical with the law of the Gospel. It is the Christian who insists that it is only thanks to the grace of Christ that he has accepted the word of God.
It might seem that the believer would have no particular interest in theism. From the point of view of the fullness of revelation the truths about God men could learn on their own are few in number and relatively exiguous. There are several reasons why someone like Thomas Aquinas exhibits such an interest, but let me stress only one here, the one which enables him to formulate an argument for the reasonableness of belief.
The truths of faith, the mysteries, are truths about God whose truth cannot be established by natural reason. (Nor can their falsity.) Does this mean that Thomas is a fideist if by fideist we mean one who holds that nothing we know counts either for or against Christianity? No, because Thomas has devised proofs on behalf of the claim that it is reasonable to accept as true propositions whose truths we cannot now comprehend. And one of those arguments makes use of the preambles of faith.
It is not that preambles of faith provide premises from which mysteries of faith could be concluded to be true. That would of course erase the difference between preambles and mysteries. The argument is rather this. If some of the truths about himself that God has revealed can be known to be true (the preambles), it is reasonable to hold that all the rest (the mysteries) are true. It is that argument, and its far reaching implications, that explains the historic interest of Christian believers in theism and natural theology. If theism is accepted by the non-believer, he has one less obstacle to accepting the grace of faith. The believer believes on the basis of Romans 1:19, and the Roman Catholic on the basis of Vatican I, that men can come to knowledge of God by natural reason. The believer does not need such proofs. He does not fret when relevant objections are brought against his own efforts to formulate one. He will return to the task, not to shore up his own faith and certainly not in search of something that will argue another irresistibly into the faith. There is only one way to come to believe.
This is why, in discussions with skeptics, the believer confines himself to philosophical theism. His aim is not to triumph, to crush, to embarrass, even simply to succeed, since success in natural theology has such an oblique relation to what is truly important, that all men recognize and accept the pearl of great price. If there is something that makes the believer toss and turn it is the thought that he might become an impediment to another's acceptance of the gift of faith.

My position is solid, you gave no real response, you remain defeated because you refuse to explain why God does not exist. It takes alot more faith to accept a flat-earthism concept of an osscilating universe than it does the existence of a Creator. I am still waiting for you to provide one reliable astro-physicist that accepts it, something else you ran away from and started a new thread over.

[/quote]Quote: PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD
GAUDIUM ET SPES
CHAPTER I THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
15, 19, 20, 21, 22
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...et-spes_en.html

Quote:

yet more fallacies: ad hominem, confirmation bias, appeal to faith, argument from authority.

This is not a reply whatsoever.

See my first paragraph. Don't pretend you read this one. The dignity of the human person is a reality, not some airy principle.

Truth has no bias, or it wouldn’t stand on its own merits.
1) On Whose Authority does the Catholic Church make infallible proclamations?

2) Is the killing of innocent unborn human life moral?

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by no_fixd_address)

(Originally Posted by no_fixd_address) http://www.carl-olson.com/articles/atheism_envoy.html

“ad hominum”, according to the dictionary term , is not a fallacy. You appeal to faith every day in ordinary every day living. You refuse to define faith according to your personal opinion, so I cannot have a discussion with you until we have an agreement as to what faith is. It’s not my fault you refuse to dialogue, and come up with such a redundant non-response as this. I would be happy to explain what Catholic faith is, and what it is not. I am certain you haven’t a clue because your atheist cult leader Richard Carrier doesn’t have a clue.
.

Noun ad hominem (ad hominems)

1. a logical fallacy, arguing that an idea or concept is wrong because its proponent is flawed
2. an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself
3. a personal attack

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ad_hominum <<that is called posting your source

look at the bold type in your quote come on.... the one right there

have you researched Carrier? do you know his background? or are you making a presumtion based on your bias agianst atheists/naturalists?

because if you did or did not reasearch his back ground and made that comment...
that is an ad hominem fallacy right there have a nice day


P.S. I worship no man, nor woman. I do not worship myself, nor do I worship money, I do not worship period.

I will say I am faithless (in any god or supernatural being)


You could say I have faith in my driving abilities and I have faith in my marriage and such like that but that is a different faith they are not one in the same.

[Lunar Shadow]

See it’s easy to post links

Here are some common arguments for the non-existence of a god if you have any questions please send your e-mails to [email protected] (it’s a joke) enjoy your enlightenment.


http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...rame/tang.html

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/1997/august97/barker.html

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/no_god.htm


P.S. I am postign links for a couple reasons

one I will share with you.... you will not find me passing others work as my own

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by no_fixd_address)

Truth has no bias, or it wouldn’t stand on its own merits.
1) On Whose Authority does the Catholic Church make infallible proclamations?

2) Is the killing of innocent unborn human life moral?

Answer for #1 if you say "god" or the church or the pope for that matter that argument is circular


Answer for #2 but according to you no human life is innocent due to the fact that we are born in to sin

but here is my answer anyway I have no objection if the abortion is preformed prior to the 10th week after conception because up to this point there are neither heart nor brain activity hence no "human life"

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist)

but here is my answer anyway I have no objection if the abortion is preformed prior to the 10th week after conception because up to this point there are neither heart nor brain activity hence no "human life"

Not true. People without brain activity can still exist.

Also, I find it interesting that you kept appealing to such concepts as good and evil in your post--why? There is no such thing for you. For you, all is neutral, since there is no God. The punching of another person is just some muscles moving in a certain way as to impact with another person's face and change the structure of the face. And if you need to cheat lie steal and murer to enjoy yourself, who cares? Who says those things are wrong?

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Not true. People without brain activity can still exist.

Also, I find it interesting that you kept appealing to such concepts as good and evil in your post--why? There is no such thing for you. For you, all is neutral, since there is no God. The punching of another person is just some muscles moving in a certain way as to impact with another person's face and change the structure of the face. And if you need to cheat lie steal and murer to enjoy yourself, who cares? Who says those things are wrong?

I will reply with a quote from my eariler post

Quote:

So why be moral?

I dislike the kind of people who hurt me or lie to me or who are insincere or inconsiderate. Thus, if I were to be like such people, I could not escape disliking myself. I could never do something that would make me the sort of person I hate, because I could never be truly happy if I hated myself, no matter how hard I tried to rationalize what I have done. But this also means that to truly like myself, and thus to be truly happy, I must be the sort of person I really like, and I like people who are honest and principled and who care about others. So I strive to be like the sort of person I see to be good. I have also found that virtue earns stronger and fonder friendships, and secures the trust of my neighbors, and both of these things are essential to living a good, full life.

it is obvious you did not read the opening of the thred or else you would not have asked that question to begin with. regaurdless your argument is a fallacy.

[creedsister]

i know it i remembered your quote ..

[no_fixd_address]

Quote:

have you researched Carrier? do you know his background? or are you making a presumtion based on your bias agianst atheists/naturalists?

[color=RoyalBlue]I am making an ad hominum attack against Carrier’s ignorance on Catholicism. At least I am not pretentious about it. For the second time, anarkist, one cannot make an ad hominum attack on a fallacy. A fallacy is not a person. Look at the definition again. This is evidence that you read into only what you want to read into anything. Then you whine about “biased”. Perhaps I should post the definition of fallacy and hypocrisy from 5 encyclopedias, and 10 dictionaries. Would that help?? NOT!!![/COLOR]

Quote:

because if you did or did not reasearch his back ground and made that comment...
that is an ad hominem fallacy right there have a nice day

I know he has more degrees than a thermometer, and I don’t care. You don’t care that Pope John Paul II the Great has 2 Ph.D.’s. So what. He rejects the Gospel and should be shunned as a reprobate and a tax collector. He lies about the facts of history by making it up to suit his God-hating doctrines. I have no respect for revisionists. I have searched the net and have not found one debate where he debates with a Catholic apologist. If you know of any, please post it. Until I see one, I would say he is a coward. you have a nice day too

Quote:

P.S. I worship no man, nor woman. I do not worship myself, nor do I worship money, I do not worship period.

Define "worship". Try the Greek word "latria".
Worship means to acknowledge something greater than yourself. Since there is nothing or no one greater than yourself, and all reality is the end product of the firing of neurons in your brain, you worship yourself. You transcend existence itself. You are your own god. It’s all you have left.

Quote: (Originally Posted by no_fixd_address) Truth has no bias, or it wouldn’t stand on its own merits.
1) On Whose Authority does the Catholic Church make infallible proclamations?
2) Is the killing of innocent unborn human life moral?

Quote:

Answer for #1 if you say "god" or the church or the pope for that matter that argument is circular.

Wrong. Prove that it is circular. Again, you make a stupid remark without any support, proof, or reasonable argumentation. You are too proud to admit that you don’t know, but you assume to know, like a typical Protestant. I am not expecting you to believe that Jesus Christ lives in the Church, or that the Church is Jesus Christ on earth, but you haven’t got the decency to permit me my beliefs with your empty, blanket statement. That makes you no different than athiests Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. For them, the belief is circular as well.
but here is my answer anyway I have no objection if the abortion is preformed prior to the 10th week after conception because up to this point there are neither heart nor brain activity hence no "human life"

Wrong. Human life begins at the moment of conception, which is a medically established fact. The heart begins to beat in 7 weeks, and the whole body is encoded in the dna, establishing the potential for a fully developed human being. You choose to be blind to "potential" that defies logic. You have no argument, and neither does the anti-life movement.

Quote:

I dislike the kind of people who hurt me or lie to me or who are insincere or inconsiderate. Thus, if I were to be like such people, I could not escape disliking myself. I could never do something that would make me the sort of person I hate, because I could never be truly happy if I hated myself, no matter how hard I tried to rationalize what I have done. But this also means that to truly like myself, and thus to be truly happy, I must be the sort of person I really like, and I like people who are honest and principled and who care about others. So I strive to be like the sort of person I see to be good. I have also found that virtue earns stronger and fonder friendships, and secures the trust of my neighbors, and both of these things are essential to living a good, full life.

Why are you in a faith/religion forum shoving insulting God-hating philosophy down everyone’s throat? What is the payoff for ya? Perhaps I should post the definition of hypocrisy from 5 encyclopedias, and 10 dictionaries. You can debate on a forum without being so dam snotty and irritating, but you manipulate the whole forum to prove the only thing you can prove.

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote:

Wrong. Prove that it is circular. Again, you make a stupid remark without any support, proof, or reasonable argumentation. You are too proud to admit that you don’t know, but you assume to know, like a typical Protestant.

Well if the catholic church is infallible and they say "God exists" then he must. Then "God" goes makes the church (pope in this case) infallible then they 2 are supported and dependent on eachother hence circular. Is there any confusion here? Yes I know it is a simple explaination but it gets the point across.


If I were a "typical Protestant" then wouldn't I believe in "God" ?? or did I miss something here and no Protestant believes in "God"?

and here you are condeming blanketed statments and here you are making a banketed statement about Protestants you know you can't have it both ways if you are going to set forth something I am going to hold you to that standard so whats it gonna be??

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist)

I will reply with a quote from my eariler post




it is obvious you did not read the opening of the thred or else you would not have asked that question to begin with. regaurdless your argument is a fallacy.

No I did read your earlier post and your position is still untenable. You say you would "Hate yourself" for doing thigns you don't like other people do. That makes no sense. As long as you are furthering YOUR goals, it is good for you, and since there is no right or wrong, good for you is jsut good period. Without a standard by which to judge good and evil, there IS NO good and evil, and with no good and evil, your adhering to any sort of standards except what makes you FEEL good is absurd.