Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 rational positions

[BreezeWood]

2,000.
The Crusades, about 250... Salem witch trials, less than 50.

2,300 total.

Roughly 700 years. The official start is usually given as 1231 A.D., when the pope appoints the first “inquisitors of heretical depravity.” The Spanish Inquisition, which begins under Ferdinand and Isabella, doesn't end until the 19th century — the last execution was in 1826.

try to deny your complicity in the event ...

A human is a unique living organism in the state of being, a human being.

enslaving women to your religious principles remains today the same as 1231 AD you strive to rekindle.





.

 

[sakinago]

2,000.
The Crusades, about 250... Salem witch trials, less than 50.

2,300 total.

View attachment 167670


Roughly 700 years. The official start is usually given as 1231 A.D., when the pope appoints the first “inquisitors of heretical depravity.” The Spanish Inquisition, which begins under Ferdinand and Isabella, doesn't end until the 19th century — the last execution was in 1826.

try to deny your complicity in the event ...

A human is a unique living organism in the state of being, a human being.

enslaving women to your religious principles remains today the same as 1231 AD you strive to rekindle.





.

Oh shoot, someone shut them up, they caught the church tying someone to water wheel and decided not to take pictures, but to illustrate it instead for effect

 

[Czernobog]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

The problem with atheists is that they believe just as much as the religious believe.

I don't believe God exists. I don't believe God doesn't exist. Because I don't know. I can speculate, but I don't know.

Believing in things you have no idea about isn't really being open minded.

:
I've responded to this so many times, it has become tedious. I swear I'm just going to print this out in a word pad, and copy and paste it, every time some ignorant person posts this:

You presume that atheism is a conclusion: "I conclude, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no God," However, rational atheism is. Not. A Conclusion. It is a premise: "Proposed: There is no God." As soon as objective, verifiable, evidence is presented to the contrary, the premise will change.

Theism, on the other hand, is not a premise. It is a conclusion, arrived at with no objective, verifiable evidence, that God exists.

 

[Czernobog]

So, a human being is nothing more than the collection of its organs, and cells? That seems contradictory to your "spiritual" argument. I mean, if a human being is nothing more than a collection of organs, and cells, with a non-viable fetus nothing more than the early stages of this organism, where, then, does your "spirit" fit in?

I'm just stating a biological fact. Human life begins at conception. There is no other time it "becomes" what it already is. When it obtains sentience or capacity for thought, that's debatable and we can certainly entertain that debate, but there is no debating it's a human being in the fetal stage of development.

And that sentience is exactly the point. As soon as a fetus can beg me not to kill it, then I will treat it just like anyone else able to do so. Until then, I will rely on viability as the standard.

 

[Czernobog]

Nope. The difference matters. What makes a non-viable fetus a person? The fact that it is genetically human? So is a cancer cluster. The fact that it is living tissue? So are a number of things, including a cancer cluster. Or is a person defined by something more? You see, you claim to be a spiritualist, yet you want to equate a person with all of the emotions, memories, desires, hopes, fears, dreams that make a person a person with a clump of non-viable that has none of these things. Yet, you insist that I am the one being irrationally inconsistent.

No, a cancer cluster is not a living human organism. A human is a unique living organism in the state of being, a human being. An organism is a system of organs and tissue working together to carry on the process of life. It is decidedly human because it comes from human gamete cells through a process of fertilization and conception.

"Person" is an ambiguous term, we've been over that already. Do you not understand what "ambiguous" means? A human being is not an ambiguous term, it is defined by biological fact.... science.

So, a human being is nothing more than the collection of its organs, and cells? That seems contradictory to your "spiritual" argument. I mean, if a human being is nothing more than a collection of organs, and cells, with a non-viable fetus nothing more than the early stages of this organism, where, then, does your "spirit" fit in?

It’s not even about where “spirit” fits in. If you’re going off the Christian definition of “spirit” (or in your case “person”) your a shitty atheist. We have already defined life. If we want to get into attributing fiscal or whatever value on human life itself, then that means a human with Down syndrome, or autism, or even one that has mental or physical ailments is worth less than you or I. Then you could further split that up into “healthy” people that “produce” vs healthy people who are felons, or “stupid”, physical unfit.

I don't. I go off viability. When a fetus is viable, it is a separate individual. If it is not, it is a symbiotic organism relying on its host for survival. As long as that is the case, its host gets to decide what to do.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Oh shoot, someone shut them up, they caught the church tying someone to water wheel and decided not to take pictures, but to illustrate it instead for effect

water wheel - you might notice they have a fire burning beneath the "water Wheel", roasting them while alive -

your another one yearning for the supremacy evil brings to your heart, the three desert religions are one in the same.

 

[sakinago]

Nope. The difference matters. What makes a non-viable fetus a person? The fact that it is genetically human? So is a cancer cluster. The fact that it is living tissue? So are a number of things, including a cancer cluster. Or is a person defined by something more? You see, you claim to be a spiritualist, yet you want to equate a person with all of the emotions, memories, desires, hopes, fears, dreams that make a person a person with a clump of non-viable that has none of these things. Yet, you insist that I am the one being irrationally inconsistent.

No, a cancer cluster is not a living human organism. A human is a unique living organism in the state of being, a human being. An organism is a system of organs and tissue working together to carry on the process of life. It is decidedly human because it comes from human gamete cells through a process of fertilization and conception.

"Person" is an ambiguous term, we've been over that already. Do you not understand what "ambiguous" means? A human being is not an ambiguous term, it is defined by biological fact.... science.

So, a human being is nothing more than the collection of its organs, and cells? That seems contradictory to your "spiritual" argument. I mean, if a human being is nothing more than a collection of organs, and cells, with a non-viable fetus nothing more than the early stages of this organism, where, then, does your "spirit" fit in?

It’s not even about where “spirit” fits in. If you’re going off the Christian definition of “spirit” (or in your case “person”) your a shitty atheist. We have already defined life. If we want to get into attributing fiscal or whatever value on human life itself, then that means a human with Down syndrome, or autism, or even one that has mental or physical ailments is worth less than you or I. Then you could further split that up into “healthy” people that “produce” vs healthy people who are felons, or “stupid”, physical unfit.

I don't. I go off viability. When a fetus is viable, it is a separate individual. If it is not, it is a symbiotic organism relying on its host for survival. As long as that is the case, its host gets to decide what to do.

Wow got it, so a lamprey on a shark or a finch on the back of the water buffalo, or a tapeworm inside a pig isn’t it’s own life form...got it. Wow atheist like this are supposed to be all about “science”, even when they cherry pick science. Bullshit, you pick sides just as much as Christians.

Viability isn’t even a defined solid term. Wildly subjective, back before the invention of the incubutor “viable” premies were as good as dead, and that was invented in the 1920s I believe, and our tech/“viability standards” have only increased by leaps and bounds since. Do you really expect me to believe that your standards are going to change along with technology? Even as we are creating artificial wombs as we speak?

What does viability have to do with life? If I choke off the blood supply to your brain and heart, you are no longer viable. If I chain you to a wall so you can’t hydrate, you are no longer viable. If I created a substance that would counteract the surfactant, and production of surfactant in your lungs, you would no longer be viable. If I were doing heart bypass surgery on you, you are no longer viable on your own...it would still be murder/manslaughter if I choose not to correctly get your circulatory system back in order.

If you were brain dead, and your family wanted to pull the plug...but your doctor said, “don’t, he’s got a 60% chance to pull through and make a full recovery within 7 months.” Would it be wrong for your family to pull the plug?

 

[sakinago]

.

Oh shoot, someone shut them up, they caught the church tying someone to water wheel and decided not to take pictures, but to illustrate it instead for effect

water wheel - you might notice they have a fire burning beneath the "water Wheel", roasting them while alive -

your another one yearning for the supremacy evil brings to your heart, the three desert religions are one in the same.

Damnit you caught me again, I was totally trying to hide the fire. damn you and your centuries old illustration. You better not look into the Salem witch trials...

 

[Czernobog]

Nope. The difference matters. What makes a non-viable fetus a person? The fact that it is genetically human? So is a cancer cluster. The fact that it is living tissue? So are a number of things, including a cancer cluster. Or is a person defined by something more? You see, you claim to be a spiritualist, yet you want to equate a person with all of the emotions, memories, desires, hopes, fears, dreams that make a person a person with a clump of non-viable that has none of these things. Yet, you insist that I am the one being irrationally inconsistent.

No, a cancer cluster is not a living human organism. A human is a unique living organism in the state of being, a human being. An organism is a system of organs and tissue working together to carry on the process of life. It is decidedly human because it comes from human gamete cells through a process of fertilization and conception.

"Person" is an ambiguous term, we've been over that already. Do you not understand what "ambiguous" means? A human being is not an ambiguous term, it is defined by biological fact.... science.

So, a human being is nothing more than the collection of its organs, and cells? That seems contradictory to your "spiritual" argument. I mean, if a human being is nothing more than a collection of organs, and cells, with a non-viable fetus nothing more than the early stages of this organism, where, then, does your "spirit" fit in?

It’s not even about where “spirit” fits in. If you’re going off the Christian definition of “spirit” (or in your case “person”) your a shitty atheist. We have already defined life. If we want to get into attributing fiscal or whatever value on human life itself, then that means a human with Down syndrome, or autism, or even one that has mental or physical ailments is worth less than you or I. Then you could further split that up into “healthy” people that “produce” vs healthy people who are felons, or “stupid”, physical unfit.

I don't. I go off viability. When a fetus is viable, it is a separate individual. If it is not, it is a symbiotic organism relying on its host for survival. As long as that is the case, its host gets to decide what to do.

Wow got it, so a lamprey on a shark or a finch on the back of the water buffalo, or a tapeworm inside a pig isn’t it’s own life form...got it. Wow atheist like this are supposed to be all about “science”, even when they cherry pick science. Bullshit, you pick sides just as much as Christians.

Viability isn’t even a defined solid term. Wildly subjective, back before the invention of the incubutor “viable” premies were as good as dead, and that was invented in the 1920s I believe, and our tech/“viability standards” have only increased by leaps and bounds since. Do you really expect me to believe that your standards are going to change along with technology? Even as we are creating artificial wombs as we speak?

What does viability have to do with life? If I choke off the blood supply to your brain and heart, you are no longer viable. If I chain you to a wall so you can’t hydrate, you are no longer viable. If I created a substance that would counteract the surfactant, and production of surfactant in your lungs, you would no longer be viable. If I were doing heart bypass surgery on you, you are no longer viable on your own...it would still be murder/manslaughter if I choose not to correctly get your circulatory system back in order.

If you were brain dead, and your family wanted to pull the plug...but your doctor said, “don’t, he’s got a 60% chance to pull through and make a full recovery within 7 months.” Would it be wrong for your family to pull the plug?

Clearly you understand nothing about the term viability. First, I can't become non-viable, as viability is a measurement that only applies to a fetus. Viability is, in fact, the ability of a fetus to exist outside of the womb. Period. So your asinine example of choking me is as absurd as it is insulting. Second, there is nothing "subjective" about viability. It is the ability of a fetus to survive outside of the womb, and is measured as a percentage, determined by statistical data. With current technology the earliest that a fetus has any chance of viability is 22 weeks, and even that is, at best, 10%. As a fetus at 24 weeks has a 40-50% chance of viability, that would be a rational cutoff for elective abortion.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Oh shoot, someone shut them up, they caught the church tying someone to water wheel and decided not to take pictures, but to illustrate it instead for effect

water wheel - you might notice they have a fire burning beneath the "water Wheel", roasting them while alive -

your another one yearning for the supremacy evil brings to your heart, the three desert religions are one in the same.

Damnit you caught me again, I was totally trying to hide the fire. damn you and your centuries old illustration. You better not look into the Salem witch trials...

.

Damnit you caught me ...

you and boss are two peas in a pod ... the woman is best suited for slavery.

 

[sakinago]

No, a cancer cluster is not a living human organism. A human is a unique living organism in the state of being, a human being. An organism is a system of organs and tissue working together to carry on the process of life. It is decidedly human because it comes from human gamete cells through a process of fertilization and conception.

"Person" is an ambiguous term, we've been over that already. Do you not understand what "ambiguous" means? A human being is not an ambiguous term, it is defined by biological fact.... science.

So, a human being is nothing more than the collection of its organs, and cells? That seems contradictory to your "spiritual" argument. I mean, if a human being is nothing more than a collection of organs, and cells, with a non-viable fetus nothing more than the early stages of this organism, where, then, does your "spirit" fit in?

It’s not even about where “spirit” fits in. If you’re going off the Christian definition of “spirit” (or in your case “person”) your a shitty atheist. We have already defined life. If we want to get into attributing fiscal or whatever value on human life itself, then that means a human with Down syndrome, or autism, or even one that has mental or physical ailments is worth less than you or I. Then you could further split that up into “healthy” people that “produce” vs healthy people who are felons, or “stupid”, physical unfit.

I don't. I go off viability. When a fetus is viable, it is a separate individual. If it is not, it is a symbiotic organism relying on its host for survival. As long as that is the case, its host gets to decide what to do.

Wow got it, so a lamprey on a shark or a finch on the back of the water buffalo, or a tapeworm inside a pig isn’t it’s own life form...got it. Wow atheist like this are supposed to be all about “science”, even when they cherry pick science. Bullshit, you pick sides just as much as Christians.

Viability isn’t even a defined solid term. Wildly subjective, back before the invention of the incubutor “viable” premies were as good as dead, and that was invented in the 1920s I believe, and our tech/“viability standards” have only increased by leaps and bounds since. Do you really expect me to believe that your standards are going to change along with technology? Even as we are creating artificial wombs as we speak?

What does viability have to do with life? If I choke off the blood supply to your brain and heart, you are no longer viable. If I chain you to a wall so you can’t hydrate, you are no longer viable. If I created a substance that would counteract the surfactant, and production of surfactant in your lungs, you would no longer be viable. If I were doing heart bypass surgery on you, you are no longer viable on your own...it would still be murder/manslaughter if I choose not to correctly get your circulatory system back in order.

If you were brain dead, and your family wanted to pull the plug...but your doctor said, “don’t, he’s got a 60% chance to pull through and make a full recovery within 7 months.” Would it be wrong for your family to pull the plug?

Clearly you understand nothing about the term viability. First, I can't become non-viable, as viability is a measurement that only applies to a fetus. Viability is, in fact, the ability of a fetus to exist outside of the womb. Period. So your asinine example of choking me is as absurd as it is insulting. Second, there is nothing "subjective" about viability. It is the ability of a fetus to survive outside of the womb, and is measured as a percentage, determined by statistical data. With current technology the earliest that a fetus has any chance of viability is 22 weeks, and even that is, at best, 10%. As a fetus at 24 weeks has a 40-50% chance of viability, that would be a rational cutoff for elective abortion.

No, viability is not fetal specific, because it isn’t a real scientific term. Nor is it a clearly defined one. You are wading into waters you do not understand. “Viability” (as you think of it) is completely different case to case, the greatest factor in this is surfactant of the undeveloped lungs. A “viable” premature “fetus” WILL NOT survive with without an incubator, because the Lungs are the last to develop, and therefore do not do the best job at exchanges gases. Some have more surfactant, some have less. Surfactant is just like the engine oil that keeps and engine running smoothly, but if you run a care without oil, your going to throw metal chunks into your engine. Some have lungs that are better developed with less surfactant, Some have less developed lungs with greater surfactant. There is no clear definition of viability, since it’s been continually moved further and further back. It also has nothing to do with whether or not one is living or “dead”. The levels of surfactant are about to be made moot with artificial wombs...are you going to change your definition of viability then?

I’ll ask again. Is it ok to pull the plug on a coma Patient on life support when the prognosis is overwhelmingly good for that patient?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nope. The difference matters. What makes a non-viable fetus a person? The fact that it is genetically human? So is a cancer cluster. The fact that it is living tissue? So are a number of things, including a cancer cluster. Or is a person defined by something more? You see, you claim to be a spiritualist, yet you want to equate a person with all of the emotions, memories, desires, hopes, fears, dreams that make a person a person with a clump of non-viable that has none of these things. Yet, you insist that I am the one being irrationally inconsistent.

No, a cancer cluster is not a living human organism. A human is a unique living organism in the state of being, a human being. An organism is a system of organs and tissue working together to carry on the process of life. It is decidedly human because it comes from human gamete cells through a process of fertilization and conception.

"Person" is an ambiguous term, we've been over that already. Do you not understand what "ambiguous" means? A human being is not an ambiguous term, it is defined by biological fact.... science.

So, a human being is nothing more than the collection of its organs, and cells? That seems contradictory to your "spiritual" argument. I mean, if a human being is nothing more than a collection of organs, and cells, with a non-viable fetus nothing more than the early stages of this organism, where, then, does your "spirit" fit in?

It’s not even about where “spirit” fits in. If you’re going off the Christian definition of “spirit” (or in your case “person”) your a shitty atheist. We have already defined life. If we want to get into attributing fiscal or whatever value on human life itself, then that means a human with Down syndrome, or autism, or even one that has mental or physical ailments is worth less than you or I. Then you could further split that up into “healthy” people that “produce” vs healthy people who are felons, or “stupid”, physical unfit.

I don't. I go off viability. When a fetus is viable, it is a separate individual. If it is not, it is a symbiotic organism relying on its host for survival. As long as that is the case, its host gets to decide what to do.

Wow got it, so a lamprey on a shark or a finch on the back of the water buffalo, or a tapeworm inside a pig isn’t it’s own life form...got it. Wow atheist like this are supposed to be all about “science”, even when they cherry pick science. Bullshit, you pick sides just as much as Christians.

Viability isn’t even a defined solid term. Wildly subjective, back before the invention of the incubutor “viable” premies were as good as dead, and that was invented in the 1920s I believe, and our tech/“viability standards” have only increased by leaps and bounds since. Do you really expect me to believe that your standards are going to change along with technology? Even as we are creating artificial wombs as we speak?

What does viability have to do with life? If I choke off the blood supply to your brain and heart, you are no longer viable. If I chain you to a wall so you can’t hydrate, you are no longer viable. If I created a substance that would counteract the surfactant, and production of surfactant in your lungs, you would no longer be viable. If I were doing heart bypass surgery on you, you are no longer viable on your own...it would still be murder/manslaughter if I choose not to correctly get your circulatory system back in order.

If you were brain dead, and your family wanted to pull the plug...but your doctor said, “don’t, he’s got a 60% chance to pull through and make a full recovery within 7 months.” Would it be wrong for your family to pull the plug?

Viability is a matter of the law, where prior to viability an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ as a fact of Constitutional law, and not entitled to Constitutional protections, as the woman’s protected liberty is paramount.

The right to privacy safeguards your liberty to believe that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, and to not have an abortion pursuant to that belief, just as the right to privacy prohibits the state from seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

 

[Czernobog]

So, a human being is nothing more than the collection of its organs, and cells? That seems contradictory to your "spiritual" argument. I mean, if a human being is nothing more than a collection of organs, and cells, with a non-viable fetus nothing more than the early stages of this organism, where, then, does your "spirit" fit in?

It’s not even about where “spirit” fits in. If you’re going off the Christian definition of “spirit” (or in your case “person”) your a shitty atheist. We have already defined life. If we want to get into attributing fiscal or whatever value on human life itself, then that means a human with Down syndrome, or autism, or even one that has mental or physical ailments is worth less than you or I. Then you could further split that up into “healthy” people that “produce” vs healthy people who are felons, or “stupid”, physical unfit.

I don't. I go off viability. When a fetus is viable, it is a separate individual. If it is not, it is a symbiotic organism relying on its host for survival. As long as that is the case, its host gets to decide what to do.

Wow got it, so a lamprey on a shark or a finch on the back of the water buffalo, or a tapeworm inside a pig isn’t it’s own life form...got it. Wow atheist like this are supposed to be all about “science”, even when they cherry pick science. Bullshit, you pick sides just as much as Christians.

Viability isn’t even a defined solid term. Wildly subjective, back before the invention of the incubutor “viable” premies were as good as dead, and that was invented in the 1920s I believe, and our tech/“viability standards” have only increased by leaps and bounds since. Do you really expect me to believe that your standards are going to change along with technology? Even as we are creating artificial wombs as we speak?

What does viability have to do with life? If I choke off the blood supply to your brain and heart, you are no longer viable. If I chain you to a wall so you can’t hydrate, you are no longer viable. If I created a substance that would counteract the surfactant, and production of surfactant in your lungs, you would no longer be viable. If I were doing heart bypass surgery on you, you are no longer viable on your own...it would still be murder/manslaughter if I choose not to correctly get your circulatory system back in order.

If you were brain dead, and your family wanted to pull the plug...but your doctor said, “don’t, he’s got a 60% chance to pull through and make a full recovery within 7 months.” Would it be wrong for your family to pull the plug?

Clearly you understand nothing about the term viability. First, I can't become non-viable, as viability is a measurement that only applies to a fetus. Viability is, in fact, the ability of a fetus to exist outside of the womb. Period. So your asinine example of choking me is as absurd as it is insulting. Second, there is nothing "subjective" about viability. It is the ability of a fetus to survive outside of the womb, and is measured as a percentage, determined by statistical data. With current technology the earliest that a fetus has any chance of viability is 22 weeks, and even that is, at best, 10%. As a fetus at 24 weeks has a 40-50% chance of viability, that would be a rational cutoff for elective abortion.

No, viability is not fetal specific, because it isn’t a real scientific term. Nor is it a clearly defined one. You are wading into waters you do not understand. “Viability” (as you think of it) is completely different case to case, the greatest factor in this is surfactant of the undeveloped lungs. A “viable” premature “fetus” WILL NOT survive with without an incubator, because the Lungs are the last to develop, and therefore do not do the best job at exchanges gases. Some have more surfactant, some have less. Surfactant is just like the engine oil that keeps and engine running smoothly, but if you run a care without oil, your going to throw metal chunks into your engine. Some have lungs that are better developed with less surfactant, Some have less developed lungs with greater surfactant. There is no clear definition of viability, since it’s been continually moved further and further back. It also has nothing to do with whether or not one is living or “dead”. The levels of surfactant are about to be made moot with artificial wombs...are you going to change your definition of viability then?

I’ll ask again. Is it ok to pull the plug on a coma Patient on life support when the prognosis is overwhelmingly good for that patient?

Actually, that would be a question for that individual, or the person they left with their medical surrogacy to answer. I'm sure you are familiar with DNR, and No Heroic Measures orders?

Further, you continuing to claim that viability is not a medical term that has no specific meaning doesn't magically make it so.

 

[sakinago]

No, a cancer cluster is not a living human organism. A human is a unique living organism in the state of being, a human being. An organism is a system of organs and tissue working together to carry on the process of life. It is decidedly human because it comes from human gamete cells through a process of fertilization and conception.

"Person" is an ambiguous term, we've been over that already. Do you not understand what "ambiguous" means? A human being is not an ambiguous term, it is defined by biological fact.... science.

So, a human being is nothing more than the collection of its organs, and cells? That seems contradictory to your "spiritual" argument. I mean, if a human being is nothing more than a collection of organs, and cells, with a non-viable fetus nothing more than the early stages of this organism, where, then, does your "spirit" fit in?

It’s not even about where “spirit” fits in. If you’re going off the Christian definition of “spirit” (or in your case “person”) your a shitty atheist. We have already defined life. If we want to get into attributing fiscal or whatever value on human life itself, then that means a human with Down syndrome, or autism, or even one that has mental or physical ailments is worth less than you or I. Then you could further split that up into “healthy” people that “produce” vs healthy people who are felons, or “stupid”, physical unfit.

I don't. I go off viability. When a fetus is viable, it is a separate individual. If it is not, it is a symbiotic organism relying on its host for survival. As long as that is the case, its host gets to decide what to do.

Wow got it, so a lamprey on a shark or a finch on the back of the water buffalo, or a tapeworm inside a pig isn’t it’s own life form...got it. Wow atheist like this are supposed to be all about “science”, even when they cherry pick science. Bullshit, you pick sides just as much as Christians.

Viability isn’t even a defined solid term. Wildly subjective, back before the invention of the incubutor “viable” premies were as good as dead, and that was invented in the 1920s I believe, and our tech/“viability standards” have only increased by leaps and bounds since. Do you really expect me to believe that your standards are going to change along with technology? Even as we are creating artificial wombs as we speak?

What does viability have to do with life? If I choke off the blood supply to your brain and heart, you are no longer viable. If I chain you to a wall so you can’t hydrate, you are no longer viable. If I created a substance that would counteract the surfactant, and production of surfactant in your lungs, you would no longer be viable. If I were doing heart bypass surgery on you, you are no longer viable on your own...it would still be murder/manslaughter if I choose not to correctly get your circulatory system back in order.

If you were brain dead, and your family wanted to pull the plug...but your doctor said, “don’t, he’s got a 60% chance to pull through and make a full recovery within 7 months.” Would it be wrong for your family to pull the plug?

Viability is a matter of the law, where prior to viability an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ as a fact of Constitutional law, and not entitled to Constitutional protections, as the woman’s protected liberty is paramount.

The right to privacy safeguards your liberty to believe that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, and to not have an abortion pursuant to that belief, just as the right to privacy prohibits the state from seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

Your suiting up for a game already in third quarter.

That being said by YOUR standards...once viability is made moot (already happening with cow fetuses in testing), abortion will be illegal?

 

[deanrd]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

I always thought for Republicans, the 10 commandments was a bucket list of things they planned on doing before they died.

 

[Boss]

I don't. I go off viability. When a fetus is viable, it is a separate individual. If it is not, it is a symbiotic organism relying on its host for survival. As long as that is the case, its host gets to decide what to do.

Well it's a separate individual because it has it's own DNA, heartbeat, brain activity, circulatory and nervous system, etc. And it's alive because you want to kill it. So we agree it is an organism, a human organism that is living in the state of being.

You maintain that the caretaker gets to decide what to do. Of course, we are not having an argument over what the current law allows, that's kind of stupid. The question is, should another human being have the autonomous right to end that human being's life at any stage of development an for any reason whatsoever? I don't think they should.

Using your "viability" standard or it's ability to "beg you not to kill it" then we could easily make it legal for mothers to kill their children up to two years old or more. Granted, little kids can be a real pain in the ass... so maybe that's the standard you think we should set... if the "host" wants to do that?

Again, it's brilliant the way you are totally annihilating your "rational positions" manifesto on this one issue alone. As we can see, the value of a human life is nothing to you. That's where your moral compass is at and you've made it abundantly clear. Well done!

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

The problem with atheists is that they believe just as much as the religious believe.

I don't believe God exists. I don't believe God doesn't exist. Because I don't know. I can speculate, but I don't know.

Believing in things you have no idea about isn't really being open minded.

:
I've responded to this so many times, it has become tedious. I swear I'm just going to print this out in a word pad, and copy and paste it, every time some ignorant person posts this:

You presume that atheism is a conclusion: "I conclude, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no God," However, rational atheism is. Not. A Conclusion. It is a premise: "Proposed: There is no God." As soon as objective, verifiable, evidence is presented to the contrary, the premise will change.

Theism, on the other hand, is not a premise. It is a conclusion, arrived at with no objective, verifiable evidence, that God exists.

Atheism is a conclusion. If it weren't a conclusion you wouldn't be an atheist, you'd be a non-believer.

Definition of ATHEIST

"a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods :"


Atheist definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

"An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God. Compare agnostic."

Agnostic definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Agnostic

"An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not."

So, you're telling me that an atheist is an agnostic. Er.... why?

 

[deanrd]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

The problem with atheists is that they believe just as much as the religious believe.

I don't believe God exists. I don't believe God doesn't exist. Because I don't know. I can speculate, but I don't know.

Believing in things you have no idea about isn't really being open minded.

:
I've responded to this so many times, it has become tedious. I swear I'm just going to print this out in a word pad, and copy and paste it, every time some ignorant person posts this:

You presume that atheism is a conclusion: "I conclude, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no God," However, rational atheism is. Not. A Conclusion. It is a premise: "Proposed: There is no God." As soon as objective, verifiable, evidence is presented to the contrary, the premise will change.

Theism, on the other hand, is not a premise. It is a conclusion, arrived at with no objective, verifiable evidence, that God exists.

Atheism is a conclusion. If it weren't a conclusion you wouldn't be an atheist, you'd be a non-believer.

Definition of ATHEIST

"a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods :"


Atheist definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

"An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God. Compare agnostic."

Agnostic definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Agnostic

"An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not."

So, you're telling me that an atheist is an agnostic. Er.... why?

Trump says he believes in God.

Do you believe Trump?

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

The problem with atheists is that they believe just as much as the religious believe.

I don't believe God exists. I don't believe God doesn't exist. Because I don't know. I can speculate, but I don't know.

Believing in things you have no idea about isn't really being open minded.

:
I've responded to this so many times, it has become tedious. I swear I'm just going to print this out in a word pad, and copy and paste it, every time some ignorant person posts this:

You presume that atheism is a conclusion: "I conclude, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no God," However, rational atheism is. Not. A Conclusion. It is a premise: "Proposed: There is no God." As soon as objective, verifiable, evidence is presented to the contrary, the premise will change.

Theism, on the other hand, is not a premise. It is a conclusion, arrived at with no objective, verifiable evidence, that God exists.

Atheism is a conclusion. If it weren't a conclusion you wouldn't be an atheist, you'd be a non-believer.

Definition of ATHEIST

"a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods :"


Atheist definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

"An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God. Compare agnostic."

Agnostic definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Agnostic

"An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not."

So, you're telling me that an atheist is an agnostic. Er.... why?

Trump says he believes in God.

Do you believe Trump?

I don't believe, I don't disbelieve.

I can look at the evidence of Trump's life. But even then it wouldn't give me an answer to whether he believes or not. So, I'll just keep going with the "I don't know if Trump believes in God or not".

 

[Boss]

Viability is a matter of the law, where prior to viability an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ as a fact of Constitutional law, and not entitled to Constitutional protections, as the woman’s protected liberty is paramount.

Sorry, this is not correct. Unborn Victims of Violence Act
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services - Wikipedia

The state of Missouri passed a law which in its preamble stated that "the life of each human being begins at conception", and "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being."