Why do people ask questions they don’t really want to hear an answer for? If someone is going to dismiss everything said in a reply to a question or be deliberately obtuse in because they can’t refute the answer, they can just save everyone time and aggravation.
Here’s a rational explanation for being pro-life. https://youtu.be/AMwkQVpy98A
But many will see the source and ignore the points being made, if they even bother to listen.
If you said that, I’d say Pascal was far more rational than you.
Wrong. States like New York permitted abortions before Roe v Wade.
I never said they didn’t. Roe v. Wade took the ability to legislate abortion from the states by creating an imaginary right called “privacy” and equating it with guaranteed, specific constitutional rights. If a state* law* allowed abortion, that does not make it a right.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the states will be have the legislative power to decide for their own state. It would not immediately make abortion illegal in the US.
I don’t watch videos, regardless of source. Care to summarize?
As for us allegedly not wanting to hear your answers, here’s my perspective. You think your god tells you that abortions are Teh Devil. This position, I hope you can see, is utterly dependent on the belief that your god isn’t bullshit. Unfortunately I believe your god is bullshit - a position upon which we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Having established that we disagree about the existence of your god, it is incumbent upon you to realize that I’m not going to be impressed by arguments based on it. If you believe your god thinks abortions are bad then good for you, but I’m not convinced. To me it’s exactly as bad an argument as “the voices in my head are telling me to murder people, so let me kill you.”
If you wish to engage with people in debate, you have to use premises that they’re not going to find laughable. Because if your premises are rejected your conclusions fail.
Please clarify. My post said many things and I don’t know what you’re objecting to.
Flying spaghetti monster is absurd and using it as an argument in a discussion in which someone want to be logical is not rational. And then you tell me not to use premises that people find laughable.
You don’t believe in God? Fine.
Why does an 8-inch journey transform a fetus into a person? Why is it legal to kill the fetus months, or even days, before birth, but illegal immediately after birth? Why is it a fetus, or “clump of cells,” or “Product of conception” if it is unwanted, but a baby if it is wanted? Why is it legal to kill it if the mother doesn’t want it, but murder if someone else kills it when the mother does want it? What gives the mother, and only the mother, the right to decide if the fetus has value or worth? Why does the mother get a choice, but not the father?
A woman has the right to control her body, but the fetus is not her body; it is in her body. Science has proven that the fetus is a separate being, with different DNA from the mother.
Why is it legal to destroy an unborn human, but a criminal offense to destroy an unborn bird in the egg? Why do animals, which are not persons, have rights, but a “non-person” fetus does not?
To me El/Yahweh and the FSM are equally absurd. Asking you to picture the FSM statement was me asking you to see your argument through my eyes.
That there’s a lot of questions, and if we boil them down and lower the excitement level a couple of notches, they become interesting questions. (Well, aside from the ones about law; they’re like they are because fiat.)
It’s universally agreed that the process is as follows: sex -> conception -> development in womb -> birth -> baby -> teenage rebellion. It’s universally agreed that by the end of this process there’s a additional person that wasn’t there prior to the process starting. Which raises the question: when does the person come into existence?
There is debate on this subject, and multiple ways of looking at it that can each be defended.
When we bake a cake, at what point does it stop being a pile of separate ingredients and become a cake? Trick question - there’s an intermediate step after the ingredients have been mixed but before it becomes a cake. It’s not unreasonable to consider whether human development is similar - there’s a point after it stops being separate sperm and egg but where it’s nothing like a human. First it’s a single cell. Then two. Then four. And so on. The process of building a human is one of continuous growth from not-human to human. So when is it human?
There are various ways to decide this. Myself I look at what the thing is. Is it a thinking thing? Is it aware? (Difficult to tell - does it seem aware?) Is it human-shaped? Does it have organs? How many? How humanlike? What’s actually going on in there?
I don’t myself have the biological and prenatal knowledge to determine this precisely - at least not to the level of writing laws myself. Some people do have this knowledge, and they don’t say “it’s a baby at the instant of conception!”
There are other people that just point at little blobs of insensate matter and declare that it’s a human. Sometimes they cite a god, sometimes they point out that all the ingredients have been mixed together so it’s a potential cake. I don’t find either of these arguments impressive, myself.
*If you don’t believe in God, why do you feel the need to ridicule Him?
*Fiat is why people don’t just accept what is imposed on them by top-down laws.
*Nope, not universally accepted. Just because you and your group agree doesn’t mean everyone does.
*Consensus of opinion is neither science nor legal justification.
Comparing your deity to the FSM isn’t ridiculing it. It’s just not taking it seriously. It’s been my observation that christians tend to be extremely hypersensitive about people not taking their deity uber-seriously, presumably because if you don’t take it seriously the entire edifice collapses like a house of cards.
I am unable to deduce what inferences you intend me to draw from this.
Okay, everyone that I can even pretend to take seriously believes that the process goes sex -> conception -> pregnancy -> thing that screams and poops. There may be other people who believe in storks and cabbages and such, but I cannot engage them in proper discussion about abortion because *they don’t even believe in the process that would be being aborted.
I am unable to deduce where you’re intending to go with this either.
I don’t think that’s the reason, at least not for most Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. I think it’s more like hearing someone insult one’s mother or child in that those who do believe often feel a strong and intimate spiritual and emotional connection with their deity/deities.
If I’m parsing you right, you’re saying that CelticKnot is insulting the FSM, by claiming that an equation between the two fictional entities is an insult. Should I be insulted on behalf of the FSM?
The annoying thing about this Christian offendibility is that I don’t even have to actually insult the entity to trigger the Christian; the mere fact that I don’t believe in their deity is a grave insult to it somehow. It’s like if I believed that my hairstyle was the greatest thing ever and that any failure to quickly and constantly praise it is a grave insult: I’d be offended all the time and absolutely nobody would be impressed. Well, other than other worshipers of my lustrous hair.
That’s what he said, they are hypersensitive. They take the mere notion that you don’t believe in their god and act as if you had insulted their mother or child. That’s not rational, that’s being hypersensitive and defensive.
There are some christians and jews and such who do not over react at the notion that someone doesn’t believe the same as they do, in fact, that’s probably the vast majority. It is only a few who take any criticism of their beliefs as a personal affront. Unfortunately, they seem to be a larger portion, as they are the most vocal.
Ummm, is that a flying spaghetti monster on your head?
Actually I’m just happy to see you.
Sometimes, it is hypersensitivity. But some—not all, but some—references to the FSM are made in the context of saying (or at least not-unreasonably being interpreted as saying) not just “I don’t believe in your God” but “I find your God ridiculous, and consequently you are ridiculous for believing in him.”
And this sort of thing can happen with respect to all sorts of differences of opinion, not just belief in God. It can be a short step from “I don’t believe X” to “I find X unbelievable” to “There’s something wrong with people who do believe X.”
The FSM is somewhat interesting because it is simultaneously:
When an atheist such as myself equates some arbitrary variant of the christian god “God” and the FSM, I am pretty much always intending to underscore the fact that not everybody is going to take their God seriously. For example in the current debate about abortion, the debate will go absolutely nowhere until “My God says X, thus X is right, QED” is acknowledged to be an unacceptable argument. A person can believe that their God is the mandating dictator of rightness, but they can’t argue based on that.
For myself, though, wielding the FSM is not intended to say that the theist is silly for believing in their god. Admittedly this is a fine point - if I reject their god as being unworthy of note, aren’t they silly for disagreeing? Well, probably yes. But that’s not my point - the intent isn’t to insult or denigrate the other person. But I don’t have a choice but to point out their god has no argumentative authority here, and literally every way I have to do that they can and probably will take personally. So since that particular issue is probably a lost cause I use the method I can type in a simple three characters: FSM.
But seriously, if I wanted to say that a given theist is a moron for harboring their beliefs, I’ll do so directly. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time.
Anti-abortion people will often use the argument about standing before God and answering for murdering your baby. That assumes that (a) God exists, (b) you have to stand before him after you die, and © God cannot understand and/or forgive the act.
The first two are total speculation, and the third one is simply wrong in any understanding of the Christian “god.”
No, it is quite literally saying, “There is exactly as much evidence for your god, or for any gods, as there is for the FSM.”
Any ridiculous feelings involved in believing something for which there is no evidence is on the part of the believer.
I believe things with no evidence, and even things with evidence to the contrary. I believe that tomorrow will hold something worth waking up for. I believe that people are generally good, and want to do good things for others. I believe that evil exists as an aberration in civilization, rather than a feature.
I do feel a bit ridiculous holding those beliefs in some circumstances that work to prove otherwise. But, I do not use my beliefs to tell others how to live their lives. If I did, then I would expect them to ask for evidence, and point out evidence that I was wrong.
Try this instead - “There’s no good reason to believe X” -> “I don’t believe X” and “There’s something wrong with people who do believe X”. As Sam Harris put it:
“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.”
I mean, how are we defining “there’s something wrong with people who do believe X”?
Not him. You. Well, not you specifically, but it might as well be. Let’s be clear here - these arguments that exist to make belief look silly aren’t mocking god. They’re mocking believers. They’re mocking the act of belief. They’re saying, “This thing you believe is very silly, here’s something that’s basically analogous that throws that silliness into stark relief”.
As for why we do it… Well, ridicule is a powerful tool. If you can’t earnestly argue for an idea without making people laugh at you, it makes it pretty difficult to spread that idea. If an idea is (or at least looks) so stupid that people can barely take you seriously when you put it forward, not only will you struggle to convince others, but it’s going to impose a social cost on you that dissuades you from trying to spread it.
And the idea that the Christian god literally exists, the idea of heaven, the idea that the bible is a good source of morality, the idea that the bible is largely accurate… These are really bad ideas. All of them fall between “baseless” and “demonstrably wrong”, and all of them are very often harmful in important and meaningful ways. And the sooner we’re rid of them, the better.
Interesting how some people are saying “Just because we don’t believe what you believe, you think we’re ridiculing you. That shows how thin-skinned and hypersensitive you are”; while other people are saying “Damn straight we’re ridiculing you.”
Part of it is that at that point (third trimester, 27 weeks), something like 90% of babies born at that point survive. With that in mind, it shifts in a lot of people’s heads from terminating a fetus to murdering a baby.