(February 25, 2020 at 10:58 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(February 24, 2020 at 11:00 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Well, I think it's unethical for a government to force a father to pay alimentation. Unless the father stole the money from the mother. The father might have legitimate reasons for refusing to pay. Maybe he needs that money more than the mother does, maybe he needs that money to pay for his medication which he will die if he doesn't manage to pay. The government can't be expected to always have the information it needs to make such decisions.

All those are the kinds of things family courts routinely make decisions about; and if the father doesn't make the court aware of the relevant information, that's hardly the court's fault. Maybe where you're from the father must pay child support if he's penniless and at death's door but in these parts the courts will make allowances for the father's situation; and the mother's as well; not all women need child support to meet their child's needs.

My guess Klorophyll is from a country where, as a man, all he has to do to abdicate all parental responsibility is to face Mecca and shout "I divorce you!" three times.

Assuming he's married to the mother of his children, that is. If not all he has to do is denounce her as a whore.

Maybe, but the misconception here is just a part of a larger and sillier misconception. There are god bothers who wonder how atheists even manage to get out of bed every morning. For people who base their entire worldview, including their moral propositions, on a belief in a magic book - they can't imagine how others manage without one.

Even though they must see that we do, in fact, get out of bed every morning and live our lives and make moral decisions.

(February 25, 2020 at 12:22 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: It's not about defending abortion, nobody likes it, and it is a last mean for a person to handle that problem and usually for a person to save her life.

Saving the mother's life is a different issue. You're still prepared to back up all other kinds of abortion.

(February 25, 2020 at 12:22 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: That's why atheists are trying to solve that problem by letting gays adopt kids, by educating people in sex, by making contraception more available, and so on, most of which you and those like you object and just want to force women into doing what you think is your God ordering you to do.

I don't get why "letting gays adopt kids" is the first solution that pops into your mind. All religions unanimously condemn homosexuality altogether, and as a result, we don't solve a problem by creating another one.

Aside from that, it's not like we're advocating for prosecuting women who perform abortion, we're simply against legalizing it.

(February 25, 2020 at 5:22 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Sure it can.  I don't believe in gods, I know that there are different kinds of life.  Why did you think this would be difficult?

It's difficult because you can't make one kind of life more valuable than another, all life is made up with the same stuff, following essentially the same biological processes etc. and as such all lives are on an equal footing, and deserve equal chances of survival, unless religion kicks in.

(February 25, 2020 at 5:22 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Now we're on to materialism.  It's important to point out that atheists don't have to be materialists, but it's no more difficult for a materialist to offer a set of value judgements than it is for you to do the same.  None of these things you're asking about are problems.  Who told you they were?  Why would they be?

The value judgments you're about to offer can't be justified. Supposing god automatically makes the human life more privileged. Other than that we're just a pack of matter.

Quote:Aside from that, it's not like we're advocating for prosecuting women who perform abortion, we're simply against legalizing it.

The trouble with is that abortions are going to continue whether or not abortion is criminalized.  In that case, ANYONE who performs an abortion will be subject to prosecution.

Quote:Supposing god automatically makes the human life more privileged.

You can't possibly know that without presupposing that the 'holy' books are true as written.  Suppose God created the universe for the comfort and support of cockroaches (they're hardier and more adaptable than human beings) and the precious texts were written by humans who wanted to make themselves feel better.


Boru

(February 26, 2020 at 9:05 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 25, 2020 at 5:22 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Sure it can.  I don't believe in gods, I know that there are different kinds of life.  Why did you think this would be difficult?

It's difficult because you can't make one kind of life more valuable than another, all life is made up with the same stuff, following essentially the same biological processes etc. and as such all lives are on an equal footing, and deserve equal chances of survival, unless religion kicks in.

That's something that -you- think, not something that atheists think.  Your own inability to understand why the differences in life lead to different moral conclusions about how we treat life is your own problem, and not atheist's problem.  

Any human being with two brain cells to rub together can recognize a moral difference in using a hedge trimmer on a bush, and a human hand.  It doesn't matter whether or not gods exists, and obviously we don't need to talk about gods to show why that would be a problem.  We need only refer to the differences between a bush and a human being.  

Hoping to offer some criticism of atheism, instead...you've indicated that you..personally, would not know why that was wrong in the absence of some djinn.  Is that really true?  

Quote:

(February 25, 2020 at 5:22 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Now we're on to materialism.  It's important to point out that atheists don't have to be materialists, but it's no more difficult for a materialist to offer a set of value judgements than it is for you to do the same.  None of these things you're asking about are problems.  Who told you they were?  Why would they be?

The value judgments you're about to offer can't be justified. Supposing god automatically makes the human life more privileged. Other than that we're just a pack of matter.

Sure they can.  More to the point, supposing god has no bearing on objective moral values anyway.  Either things are morally true with respect to facts about the object or act....moral realism - or they are true with respect to facts about some subject - their attitudes, feelings, and wishes.  Moral subjectivism.

You're only telling me than nothing is objectively right or wrong in your moral system..and that you, incapable of an objective moral calculus, must presuppose that morality is subjective.  All well and good, but as a subjectivist..you don't really have the ability to make claims regarding others lack of justification. At the worst, the very worst, they're equally as subjective as your own moral system, and we're all bickering over whether chocolate or vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream. Obviously, I think there's a difference between the best flavor of ice cream, and whether or not it's morally acceptable to trim a bush or trim a human hand....and that the difference isn't some silly fucking gods preference for people.

You're free to expound upon that opinion though, and show why I'd have to refer to your god, or any god, in order to have a justified opinion on the moral status of those two acts. Can you do that, or is this just another thing that you believe in the absence of any justification and in spite of facts directly in front of you? Let;s be clear here. Do you really believe that the only possible moral systems are those that involve ghosts, or would it be more accurate to say that you understand that those moralities are possible..and do, in fact, exist...and that they are wrong...?

Quote:Saving the mother's life is a different issue. You're still prepared to back up all other kinds of abortion.

We already have well all you have done is repeat "it's bad " over and over so stuff tough talk 

Quote:I don't get why "letting gays adopt kids" is the first solution that pops into your mind.

Because i's a solution 

Quote: All religions unanimously condemn homosexuality altogether, and as a result, we don't solve a problem by creating another one.

No one ars what you cave dweller cult condemn nor is it a problem  

Quote:Aside from that, it's not like we're advocating for prosecuting women who perform abortion, we're simply against legalizing it.

Which is just as bad 

Quote:It's difficult because you can't make one kind of life more valuable than another, all life is made up with the same stuff, following essentially the same biological processes etc. and as such all lives are on an equal footing, and deserve equal chances of survival, unless religion kicks in.

Baseless assertions no arguments 

Quote:The value judgments you're about to offer can't be justified. Supposing god automatically makes the human life more privileged. Other than that we're just a pack of matter.

No it's in fact your religion that can't in a way that's not fallacious or arbitrary .We on the other have no problem with this .So kindly shut up .

---

(February 26, 2020 at 9:18 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Aside from that, it's not like we're advocating for prosecuting women who perform abortion, we're simply against legalizing it.

The trouble with is that abortions are going to continue whether or not abortion is criminalized.  In that case, ANYONE who performs an abortion will be subject to prosecution.

Quote:Supposing god automatically makes the human life more privileged.

You can't possibly know that without presupposing that the 'holy' books are true as written.  Suppose God created the universe for the comfort and support of cockroaches (they're hardier and more adaptable than human beings) and the precious texts were written by humans who wanted to make themselves feel better.


Boru

And even granting all that it still justifies nothing

---

(February 26, 2020 at 9:18 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(February 26, 2020 at 9:05 am)Klorophyll Wrote: It's difficult because you can't make one kind of life more valuable than another, all life is made up with the same stuff, following essentially the same biological processes etc. and as such all lives are on an equal footing, and deserve equal chances of survival, unless religion kicks in.

That's something that -you- think, not something that atheists think.  Your own inability to understand why the differences in life lead to different moral conclusions about how we treat life is your own problem, and not atheist's problem.  

Any human being with two brain cells to rub together can recognize a moral difference in using a hedge trimmer on a bush, and a human hand.  It doesn't matter whether or not gods exists, and obviously we don't need to talk about gods to show why that would be a problem.  We need only refer to the differences between a bush and a human being.  

Hoping to offer some criticism of atheism, instead...you've indicated that you..personally, would not know why that was wrong in the absence of some djinn.  Is that really true?  

Quote:The value judgments you're about to offer can't be justified. Supposing god automatically makes the human life more privileged. Other than that we're just a pack of matter.

Sure they can.  More to the point, supposing god has no bearing on objective moral values anyway.  Either things are morally true with respect to facts about the object or act....moral realism - or they are true with respect to facts about some actor - their attitudes, feelings, and wishes.  Moral subjectivism.

You're only telling me than nothing is objectively right or wrong in your moral system..and that you, incapable of an objective moral calculus, must presuppose that morality is subjective.  All well and good, but as a subjectivist..you don't really have the ability to make claims regarding others lack of justification.  At the worst, the very worst, they're equally as subjective as your own moral system, and we're all bickering over whether chocolate or vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream.

Obviously, I think there's a difference between the best flavor of icecream, and whether or not it's morally acceptable to trim a bush or trim a human hand.  The difference isn't some silly fucking god.

Now watch him write a wall of assertions or fallacies and proclaim himself  right.That seems to be his style .

(February 26, 2020 at 9:05 am)Klorophyll Wrote: Aside from that, it's not like we're advocating for prosecuting women who perform abortion, we're simply against legalizing it.

(February 25, 2020 at 5:22 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Sure it can.  I don't believe in gods, I know that there are different kinds of life.  Why did you think this would be difficult?

It's difficult because you can't make one kind of life more valuable than another, all life is made up with the same stuff, following essentially the same biological processes etc. and as such all lives are on an equal footing, and deserve equal chances of survival, unless religion kicks in.

(February 25, 2020 at 5:22 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Now we're on to materialism.  It's important to point out that atheists don't have to be materialists, but it's no more difficult for a materialist to offer a set of value judgements than it is for you to do the same.  None of these things you're asking about are problems.  Who told you they were?  Why would they be?

The value judgments you're about to offer can't be justified. Supposing god automatically makes the human life more privileged. Other than that we're just a pack of matter.

So you're claiming that Dawkins didn't point out that we are more inclined to assist and defend those who share a greater degree of genetic material with ourselves than those who don't in The Selfish Gene?

He's the only obstacle to his own understanding.

As far as the above goes, that would be a subjectivist justification if it was offered in that context, as it is it's a description of functional relativism or functional subjectivism - which is true regardless of what meta-ethical position turns out to be the accurate one.

It's still a justification, just as surely and of precisely the same type as "presupposing god" is. Dawkins famously confuses moral objectivism for moral absolutism, and thinking that there are compelling arguments against moral absolutism, discards objectivism. In this, Dawkins is not alone. Similarly, he confuses moral objectivism with god beliefs.....which is a very common misunderstanding in the atheist community. I like to cut the god botherers some slack here. The subject is complicated, the terms used can be (or at least seem to be) misleading, and atheists are constantly shitting the moral bed when asked about their own position on morality. It's not completely out of the blue that the dipshits get it wrong.

Underneath all of this, what believers are trying to get at, trying to express, the deliverable good they attribute to a god...is going to be pretty much the same thing that objectivists are saying without any reference to gods. They think that there are moral facts, things truly right and wrong. They simply lack command of the semantics and inferences. God, as always, reduced to a crutch.

(February 26, 2020 at 9:39 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: He's the only obstacle to his own understanding.

That's a generous assessment

(February 20, 2020 at 4:00 am)Agnostico Wrote: On one hand there are people who want to make all abortion illegal for everyone
On the other hand some people are happy to have abortion available up until birth

A fair compromise would be to make abortion legal in the 1st trimester, up to 12 weeks
By the 6th week a woman knows if she's pregnant. That gives her 6 weeks to have the abortion done. Plenty of time
2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should only be performed if there is a physical danger

Would that be a fair decision?

Nope.

You are clearly not a parent.

You are obviously avoiding the whole notion of spontaneous abortion.

You seem to have some happy clappy idea that it all just works because magic.

From 50 years experience, I can tell you that it does not work like that at all. Not even close.

The religious inflict all manner of horror upon women. It's their MO.

I have no need of your trite religious platitudes. I have lived that nightmare. I have two fine healthy children. But their predecssor was spontaneously aborted. We wept bitter tears. A child. A planned child. A child that we named and even had a relationship with.

And your god saw fit to kill it.

That makes your god a c**t. He/she/it/housecat does not care. You believe in a deity who is randomly cruel. 

Grant a child to loving parents? Who will love and cherish and provide for such a child? Nope. Your god apparently prefers to allow the birth of children that will suffer in agony. Because he likes it.

All that superstitious nonsense tells anyone is that your superstition is more important to you than anyone's life, let alone children.

This is what religion does to you. It makes you abdicate normal human morals in favour of some imaginary Santa Claus that fixes everything while fixing nothing.

Frankly, you sound like a kid.