Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 rational positions

[Czernobog]

None of which functions independently of the host. Sorry, none of those makes it an independent organism. At best it is a symbiotic organism, relying on its host for survival.

All of it functions independently from the host. It IS an independent organism, else you wouldn't need to kill it.

That is simply not true. Either you are being intentionally dishonest, or you lack a fundamental understanding of how pregnancy works. None of those functions work independent of the host. Separate a non-viable fetus from its host, and all of those functions cease operating. That is because they are all dependent on the host to function.

And it's going to rely on it's "host" for the next 18 years... maybe 26 if Obamacare mandates remain. Children's reliance on parents don't change what they are.

That also is demonstrably not true. Unlike a non-viable fetus, an infant's circulatory system, nervous system, and all other biological function operate with no assistance. You are engaging in a dishonest false analogy between a fetus' necessity for a host to regulate its biological functions, and an infant's need for basic needs to be provided needs.

Well, I am sorry but you're just ******* wrong. All the organism's functions are independent of the host. At that stage of development, the fetus depends on the host because of environment. The newborn infant will also depend on the host, that doesn't make it part of the host and not it's own independent self.

Did you fail biology or something?

No, but apparently you did, if you think that an infant relies on any external process for its heart to beat, or its brain to function.

 

[Boss]

No, but apparently you did, if you think that an infant relies on any external process for its heart to beat, or its brain to function.

That is YOUR argument!

Neither an infant OR a fetus relies on an external process for it's heart to beat or brain to function. And since when do your rights depend on this criteria anyway? How about people with pacemakers? No longer have basic human rights?

 

[Czernobog]

No, but apparently you did, if you think that an infant relies on any external process for its heart to beat, or its brain to function.

That is YOUR argument!

Neither an infant OR a fetus relies on an external process for it's heart to beat or brain to function. And since when do your rights depend on this criteria anyway? How about people with pacemakers? No longer have basic human rights?

A non-viable fetus does require the host for its basic functions to operate! That's the point. A non-viable fetus is not an infant. You cannot possibly be this daft. Please stop pretending to be so ignorant. I know you know these things.

 

[Boss]

A non-viable fetus does require the host for its basic functions to operate! That's the point. A non-viable fetus is not an infant. You cannot possibly be this daft. Please stop pretending to be so ignorant. I know you know these things.

A fetus is not an infant and an infant is not an adolescent and an adolescent is not a geriatric. These are all stages of development for the same living organism. "Viable" is not an issue because it doesn't redefine what something already is and will always be.

Yes, a human in it's fetal or embryonic development stage, is dependent on a womb which provides the incubation and nutrition expected and normal at that stage of development. That doesn't change or alter what that organism already is and always will be.

You are the one jumping through hoops so you can pretend to be ignorant.

 

[Czernobog]

A non-viable fetus does require the host for its basic functions to operate! That's the point. A non-viable fetus is not an infant. You cannot possibly be this daft. Please stop pretending to be so ignorant. I know you know these things.

A fetus is not an infant and an infant is not an adolescent and an adolescent is not a geriatric. These are all stages of development for the same living organism. "Viable" is not an issue because it doesn't redefine what something already is and will always be.

Yes, a human in it's fetal or embryonic development stage, is dependent on a womb which provides the incubation and nutrition expected and normal at that stage of development. That doesn't change or alter what that organism already is and always will be.

You are the one jumping through hoops so you can pretend to be ignorant.

 

[Boss]

A non-viable fetus does require the host for its basic functions to operate! That's the point. A non-viable fetus is not an infant. You cannot possibly be this daft. Please stop pretending to be so ignorant. I know you know these things.

A fetus is not an infant and an infant is not an adolescent and an adolescent is not a geriatric. These are all stages of development for the same living organism. "Viable" is not an issue because it doesn't redefine what something already is and will always be.

Yes, a human in it's fetal or embryonic development stage, is dependent on a womb which provides the incubation and nutrition expected and normal at that stage of development. That doesn't change or alter what that organism already is and always will be.

You are the one jumping through hoops so you can pretend to be ignorant.

Well no... because a chicken egg is not a living organism. We'e already established a fetus has met the criteria of a living organism. Now you're trying to revert back to an argument that has already been defeated. This is why it's so difficult to debate abortionists. You simply cannot remain honest.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Well no... because a chicken egg is not a living organism.

how stupid can a person get -

typical religionist, hearkening for the good old days - are you also claiming a woman is not an organism ....

 

[Boss]

typical religionist, hearkening for the good old days - are you also claiming a woman is not an organism ....

No, a woman is an organism.

 

[BreezeWood]

typical religionist, hearkening for the good old days - are you also claiming a woman is not an organism ....

No, a woman is an organism.

.

No, a woman is an organism.

but in your case without self determination, rather one directed by you not having the physical capability to exercise her will requiring auxiliary means to accomplish the result you deem otherwise.

Well no... because a chicken egg is not a living organism.

your digression is notable for its lack of candor in regards to your fellow beings. your embryo being the same.

 

[Boss]

typical religionist, hearkening for the good old days - are you also claiming a woman is not an organism ....

No, a woman is an organism.

.

No, a woman is an organism.

but in your case without self determination, rather one directed by you not having the physical capability to exercise her will requiring auxiliary means to accomplish the result you deem otherwise.

Well no... because a chicken egg is not a living organism.

your digression is notable for its lack of candor in regards to your fellow beings. your embryo being the same.

Learn to communicate in English. I have NO idea what you just said. None!

 

[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?

Not one of your definitions contradicts what I said.

Guess what? I believe there is no God. I believe this, because I have seen no objective, quantifiable, verifiable evidence to the contrary. Present me with that evidence, and I will alter my position. I have yet to be presented with that evidence, so you'll forgive me if I feel fairly confident in my position: There is not God.

Yes, this is the point. If you BELIEVE there is no God, you're atheist. If you don't bother believing and KEEP AN OPEN MIND, then you're agnostic. Seriously, you can't be opened minded and BELIEVE things.

 

[BreezeWood]

typical religionist, hearkening for the good old days - are you also claiming a woman is not an organism ....

No, a woman is an organism.

.

No, a woman is an organism.

but in your case without self determination, rather one directed by you not having the physical capability to exercise her will requiring auxiliary means to accomplish the result you deem otherwise.

Well no... because a chicken egg is not a living organism.

your digression is notable for its lack of candor in regards to your fellow beings. your embryo being the same.

Learn to communicate in English. I have NO idea what you just said. None!

.

Learn to communicate in English. I have NO idea what you just said. None!

its there in black and white - self determination is not for you to decide for someone else, being a sociopathic inquisitor is no excuse for then claiming ignorance. your acquiescence to history belies your claim of innocents.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Not one of your definitions contradicts what I said.

Guess what? I believe there is no God. I believe this, because I have seen no objective, quantifiable, verifiable evidence to the contrary. Present me with that evidence, and I will alter my position. I have yet to be presented with that evidence, so you'll forgive me if I feel fairly confident in my position: There is not God.

Yes, this is the point. If you BELIEVE there is no God, you're atheist. If you don't bother believing and KEEP AN OPEN MIND, then you're agnostic. Seriously, you can't be opened minded and BELIEVE things.

Acknowledging the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists is not a ‘belief’ – it’s acknowledging the fact that there is not ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Not one of your definitions contradicts what I said.

Guess what? I believe there is no God. I believe this, because I have seen no objective, quantifiable, verifiable evidence to the contrary. Present me with that evidence, and I will alter my position. I have yet to be presented with that evidence, so you'll forgive me if I feel fairly confident in my position: There is not God.

Yes, this is the point. If you BELIEVE there is no God, you're atheist. If you don't bother believing and KEEP AN OPEN MIND, then you're agnostic. Seriously, you can't be opened minded and BELIEVE things.

Acknowledging the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists is not a ‘belief’ – it’s acknowledging the fact that there is not ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

A fact huh? Sounds like belief to me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Some of those experiences you describe as spiritual, Id call sentimental.

So would I...but that's "spiritual" to me. This life is what we have, nothing more.

 

[Czernobog]

:
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?

Not one of your definitions contradicts what I said.

Guess what? I believe there is no God. I believe this, because I have seen no objective, quantifiable, verifiable evidence to the contrary. Present me with that evidence, and I will alter my position. I have yet to be presented with that evidence, so you'll forgive me if I feel fairly confident in my position: There is not God.

Yes, this is the point. If you BELIEVE there is no God, you're atheist. If you don't bother believing and KEEP AN OPEN MIND, then you're agnostic. Seriously, you can't be opened minded and BELIEVE things.

Acknowledging the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists is not a ‘belief’ – it’s acknowledging the fact that there is not ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

A fact huh? Sounds like belief to me.

The problem is your very narrow understanding of the word "belief".

• There are rational beliefs - those beliefs that are reasonable, based on objective, verifiable evidence, or lack thereof, and/or historical precedence: "I believe the sun will rise in the morning,"
• Then, there are irrational beliefs - those beliefs held, by "faith", with no objective, observable evidence, nor historical precedence - "I believe in fairies, and unicorns,"

I have a rational belief that there Is no God, as there has been no objective, observable evidence to support the existence such. This belief is subject to change, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. This is not agnosticism, as I am not saying "I don't know," I am expressing my proposed position. Now, you want me to change that position, present me with evidence.

Theists have an irrational belief that God exists, in spite of absolutely no objective, verifiable evidence to support the belief. Evidence is not necessary for their irrational conclusion, as they have already decided, on faith, that they are correct.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Seriously, you can't be opened minded and BELIEVE things.

Huh? Why not?

 

[Boss]

This life is what we have, nothing more.

Where is your proof of that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This life is what we have, nothing more.

Where is your proof of that?

It's an evidence-based determination, the evidence being that we are in totality made up of the atoms in our bodies and their actions. There is no empirical reason to believe that anything about our personalities persists after this body ceases to function. That's convincing enough for me. You are welcome to your magical nonsense.

 

[Boss]

It's an evidence-based determination, the evidence being that we are in totality made up of the atoms in our bodies and their actions. There is no empirical reason to believe that anything about our personalities persists after this body ceases to function. That's convincing enough for me. You are welcome to your magical nonsense.

Again, where is your proof that all there is to what makes you is atoms? I understand you have a belief (or faith) but that's not evidence.

That's convincing enough for me.

And if your statement had been: "I am convinced this life is what we have, nothing more." Then I would be alright with that because it is your opinion. But you made a definitive statement as if it were fact. That's where I have a fundamental problem unless you can support your argument with evidence.... you can't.