Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the exception to actually save the life of the mother, abortion is definitely murder.
5 minutes after conception the 8-celled zygote that exists is not a human life. Where that changes can certainly be debated, but until such time as it is, abortion cannot sanely be called murder.
If I put semen in a petri dish containing an egg, wait 10 minutes and then flush it, I'm a killer???
#1 - Your mother obviously did NOT abort you, so no imposition on you there.
A very convenient way of looking at this. If my mother had aborted me I obviously would be unable to be here in order to lodge an objection to the imposition. Very convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
#2 - You are assigning all atheists to the stance that murder, or even abortion, is OK. Nothing could be further from the truth.
No. My hypothetical alludes to a "group of atheists" seeking to implement laws (imposition) to favor/expand/promote abortion. It was an allusion to a "group" of atheists not "all" atheists. I understand that there are folks who MAKE THE CLAIM to be of the God view but actually make some decisions based on the non-God view, and vice versa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
So, this is still no example of atheism being imposed upon you by our laws.
Why, because you say so? If the roles were reversed and you argued that women were being imposed upon by being forced to give birth I can't help but wonder whether you might choose to posit a different view.
All this discussion is mute. You've already rightly agreed that such laws would be an imposition. As stated, we can debate the degree of the imposition but it's still imposition. Not just because I say so, but simply because it's logical and practical reasoning.
In my hypothetical, I see the atheist group as being well within their rights to forward their view in the public square. The apparent problem here is that you seem to want to deny theists the same right. You want to assign imposition to the theists but not to the atheists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
All the discussions we've had have centered around hypothetical scenarios, not examples of actual happenings, to my knowledge. Again, hypotheticals are not examples or evidence - they are merely "what ifs".
What about Dred Scott? Hypothetical? The 14th Amendment? Hypothetical? The process for SCOTUS appointments? Hypothetical?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Secular does not equal atheist - secular takes no stance on religion/God one way or the other. What if a secular law happens to fall in line with the morality of your chosen religion? Does that make it non-secular, then, by default?
With respect to morality and social issues, is a pro-God view "secular?" Is a pro-God law a "secular" law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I'll say it again, and for the final time: Atheism isn't being imposed on you, unless our laws prevent YOU from practicing your religion or holding to your religious morals in some way. Is that happening? Not that I can see. Abortion ain't it. Not teaching creationism in science classes of public schools ain't it. What else have ya got?
Am I just supposed to keep throwing out examples so you can simply dismiss them out of hand. The only thing we're illustrating here is a difference of opinion. I gave examples of non-God imposition. My view is that they are in fact examples of non-God imposition. You can jump up and down until you're blue in the face, but it still won't change anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I have no idea what that bolded portion even means. The "moral ability to hold (the government) together? How exactly do we do that with morals?
By upholding justice - something that at least some of us still happen to believe in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
It sounds a lot like you are assigning atheists some shared morality. Other than a disbelief in gods, atheists do not necessarily have anything else in common. No moral conformity is required, yet you seem to want to imply there is. Why?
Again, it comes about by practical application. A decision will either include God or it will exclude God. If it includes God it will conform to God's laws and principles. If one who claims to be an atheist determines to support the implementation of a God law, it would, in all practicality, qualify as a pro-God theistic decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Wrong. MY definition of non-secular is that a law must be shown to be *exclusively* religious in nature in order to be deemed non-secular. As such, laws like speed limits could never be shown to be non-secular - regardless of what some people may claim about "their bible".
...and so we have your opinion...so what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I would assume you thought the topic of creationism in schools was relevant when you introduced it to our discussion. Have you since changed your mind?
Ah, yes. It was certainly relevant being that you asked for examples. It's difficult for me to understand why you are apparently wound up over this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
However, we're in agreement that this is not against the law, so.......
No, we never made any such agreement. I stated that "if it were against the law..." I don't know whether or not it would be against the law in actual practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
And not at all illegal or non-secular.
Again, in my example, I stated "if it were considered to be against the law."
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
LOL You are, again, assigning atheists to a pro-murder stance. I'd like to see some evidence to back this assertion up, please. The legal existence of something that YOU don't agree with from a moral perspective IS NOT forcing atheism on you. Right now our laws say that abortion isn't murder, so whether you think one is analogous to the other is really beside the point.
I think that if the millions of individuals murdered in the womb could be here to have a voice, the imposition would be clearly established. Obviously, they don't have a voice. People like me do. It's imposition. It's murder and it's wrong.
Anyway, with respect to the OP it's all mute. All LAW is imposition.
A very convenient way of looking at this. If my mother had aborted me I obviously would be unable to be here in order to lodge an objection to the imposition. Very convenient.
Not at all. We were discussing what laws were an imposition of atheism ON YOU. Your example falls short, that's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
No. My hypothetical alludes to a "group of atheists" seeking to implement laws (imposition) to favor/expand/promote abortion. It was an allusion to a "group" of atheists not "all" atheists. I understand that there are folks who MAKE THE CLAIM to be of the God view but actually make some decisions based on the non-God view, and vice versa.
I see. You keep using the general terms "god view" and "non-god view", so I thought you were speaking in generalities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Why, because you say so? If the roles were reversed and you argued that women were being imposed upon by being forced to give birth I can't help but wonder whether you might choose to posit a different view.
Of course it would be different! The only way your scenario would be analogous is if women were being FORCED to have abortions. I should have thought that was obvious. It's still a poor example of secular vs. non-secular, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
All this discussion is mute. You've already rightly agreed that such laws would be an imposition. As stated, we can debate the degree of the imposition but it's still imposition. Not just because I say so, but simply because it's logical and practical reasoning.
No, we definitely have not. I have stated over and over that this is NOT an imposition of atheism. You haven't given any more argument for why it IS an imposition of atheism other than "I don't like abortion and I don't want it to exist". A poor argument for imposition of atheism ON YOU. This is akin to me saying "I don't like Catholicism, the mere existence of people of Catholic faith is imposing a theistic world view on me". Silliness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
In my hypothetical, I see the atheist group as being well within their rights to forward their view in the public square. The apparent problem here is that you seem to want to deny theists the same right. You want to assign imposition to the theists but not to the atheists.
Huh? Theists are free to "forward their view in the public square", just as atheists are. Where did I assign imposition to theists and about what? You've completely lost me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
With respect to morality and social issues, is a pro-God view "secular?" Is a pro-God law a "secular" law?
That all depends on the law, obviously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Am I just supposed to keep throwing out examples so you can simply dismiss them out of hand. The only thing we're illustrating here is a difference of opinion. I gave examples of non-God imposition. My view is that they are in fact examples of non-God imposition. You can jump up and down until you're blue in the face, but it still won't change anything.
LOL You gave examples all right. Too bad none of those examples actually imposed atheism on anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
By upholding justice - something that at least some of us still happen to believe in.
So, upholding justice is how we "hold the government together with moral ability"? Uh, OK.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Again, it comes about by practical application. A decision will either include God or it will exclude God. If it includes God it will conform to God's laws and principles. If one who claims to be an atheist determines to support the implementation of a God law, it would, in all practicality, qualify as a pro-God theistic decision.
What if the atheist supports the law for a reason other than the religious/God implications? Does that still make it a "pro-God theistic decision"? I would say no. Also, this does nothing to address the shared morality that you appear to assume atheists have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
...and so we have your opinion...so what?
Um, you were directly referencing MY definition of secular. You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
The speed limit could (not would, not must) be interpreted as an imposition of "religion" going by your definition of "secular."
(bolded text mine)
That's so what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Ah, yes. It was certainly relevant being that you asked for examples. It's difficult for me to understand why you are apparently wound up over this.
I'm not wound up over this at all. I'm just confused as to why you broached the subject only to later question its relevance. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
No, we never made any such agreement. I stated that "if it were against the law..." I don't know whether or not it would be against the law in actual practice.
I see. "...if it were..." reads, to me, as if you're agreeing that it isn't or that you don't believe it is.
Again, in my example, I stated "if it were considered to be against the law."
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I think that if the millions of individuals murdered in the womb could be here to have a voice, the imposition would be clearly established. Obviously, they don't have a voice. People like me do. It's imposition. It's murder and it's wrong.
The law disagrees with you. Besides, we've already established that murder is not the sole proprietorship of either theists or atheists. So, this is much ado about nothing. It may be imposition, but it is in no way the imposition of atheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Anyway, with respect to the OP it's all mute. All LAW is imposition.
All law is NOT imposition of atheism, however. In fact, you have yet to show one solid example of a law that even MIGHT be.
Killing and murder are two separate acts, with murder being unjustified killing.
During war, a soldier who, during combat, takes the life of an enemy soldier has committed a killing; but, a soldier who takes the life of an enemy soldier who has surrendered has committed murder.
Killing and murder are two separate acts, with murder being unjustified killing.
During war, a soldier who, during combat, takes the life of an enemy soldier has committed a killing; but, a soldier who takes the life of an enemy soldier who has surrendered has committed murder.
Agreed.
But placing semen in a petri dish containing an egg and subsequently disposing of the contents of the dish being labeled as murder can only happen in the minds of the deranged.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
