(September 8, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: Still being willfully obtuse?
Let me dumb it down a bit. An atheistic worldview is a worldview that has atheism as a part of it. It isn't atheism itself that is the worldview, but rather the rest of that belief system that makes it a worldview.
Perhaps I am the one who has to dumb things down a bit. Atheism actually is a worldview, it just happens to incorporate theories of knowledge and morality from other atheistic worldviews such as naturalism, empiricism, and humanism; this however does not make atheism not a worldview. Christian Theism is also a worldview, even though Christians differ on their theories of knowledge and slightly on some theories of morality. I wish you would stop with the semantic games so we can actually have a meaningful discussion one day.
(September 8, 2011 at 8:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: An admirable attempt, you failed to account for the fact that their are only two basic worldviews Shell. His own, and those that are incorrect.
Perhaps there is hope for you yet, hence why Christian Theism is proven true through the process of negation, all other worldviews fail where it does not.
(September 8, 2011 at 8:44 pm)Shell B Wrote: I was stupid
Only when you run away from discussions.
(September 8, 2011 at 9:03 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Naturalism is one atheistic worldview. This doesn't mean that atheism itself is a worldview any more than Christianity being a worldview makes theism one. Atheism is a characteristic of several worldviews, but it is not a worldview in and of itself.
I disagree with you here, atheism is a worldview; it just requires some additional theories that may differ from atheist to atheist much like Christian Theism.
Quote: 1.) The logic is that by keeping it legal and regulated, it can be done by knowledgeable doctors in a sterile environment, thereby reducing the rate of mortality for the mothers
Again, this logic just does not follow. We could provide a safe and sterile place where men could rape women and not be harmed but that does not logically mean rape should be made legal just to protect the health of a few rapists. Those mothers can give birth to the child and put it up for adoption.
Quote: while making infections considerably less frequent, all while not contributing to the rising rate of health care.
Or the mothers could just not kill their baby with a coat hanger and thus make infections less frequent and reduce health care costs for everyone.
Quote: 2.) Parents who shove Jesus/Allah down the throats of their children can be very judgmental. Instead of facing the shame of confronting their parents, many girls opt for abortion. It's easy to see why:
This still does not justify the act of abortion.
Quote: Because of awesome religious morals, many girls are not informed on how to have safe sex.
Religious morals are awesome, but anyways if you don’t know how to drive a car maybe you shouldn’t be driving cars. If you don’t know how to have safe sex maybe you should not be having sex. Irresponsible behavior in no way justifies the murdering of a child.
[quoteIf someone's god gave a fuck about waiting until marriage, girls would magically have their first menstruation on their wedding night. L O G I C. [/quote]
It’s scary what you consider to be logic. The only way to know what “God gives a f**k about” is to read what He has revealed to us in scripture, and I assure you it is quite clear that His creatures are commanded not to engage in sexual immorality.
Quote: Embryos are not babies because you can't freeze babies. I thought we went through this?..and I thought I pointed out to you that you were being logically fallacious by begging the question. How do you know you can’t freeze babies? If embryos are babies then obviously you can freeze babies, so your statement proves nothing.
Quote: Unless they find a way to grow babies in a petri dish
They have, they are called embryos.
Quote: You can purchase them all day long. Is it legal to purchase babies? Kinda. Christians do it all the time. Must be right!
It is illegal to purchase babies post birth, but apparently it is still legal to purchase babies pre-birth (just like it is legal to kill them). As to your comment about Christians buying babies, besides the fact that you just contradicted your own statement that it was illegal for people to purchase babies I am not really sure what you are even referring to here.
Quote: You just compared Nazi insanity to stem cell research. I'm done with ya!
Yes I did, can you prove it’s a false analogy rather than running away with your tail between your legs? …Oops, I guess not!
Quote: Hope that was a sufficient response.![]()
…in length yes, in rationality no.
(September 8, 2011 at 9:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Excellent work, Alei. You figured out that Waldork was a dick in no time at all.
Easy there gramps, why such hostility? Did you Hoveround break down again this week?
(September 8, 2011 at 10:39 pm)padraic Wrote: No,it's not irrelevant: Pregnancy termination is a female health issue,between her and her doctor,and NOBODY ELSE,period.
No it’s not, it is a human rights issue and is therefore all of our business. “No, it's not irrelevant: Slavery is a plantation economic issue, between the plantation owner and his slaves, and NOBODY ELSE, period.” If I can use your exact same argument to justify slavery then maybe you need to change your argument or your position, one of the two.
Quote: OF COURSE you are entitled to a different opinion/values/world view. No problem,until you try to impose your values,world view/opinion on me and the rest of society,then we have a problem.
This is a self refuting position, by telling me that I cannot impose my values on others you are actually imposing your relativistic values on me and thus refuting your own position.
Quote: It has been observed by both women and some men,that if men had babies there would be an abortion clinic at every supermarket and convenience store.
Meaningless speculation, you act as if there are no pro-life women.
(September 8, 2011 at 11:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: People who invent some reality of their own where there is some equality in this, or where a man has a claim of ownership to an unborn child, or in the extreme example, that some god has a claim of ownership, are twats.
So you will use this same argument to justify slavery because the slave owner “owns” the slave and therefore has sole right to making decisions regarding that slave’s well being and length of life? Of course not, the slave is a separate human being just as much as the unborn baby is. No person has ownership over the unborn child.