Atheism And Moral Progress

[JimL]

So how does do unto others apply to the unborn Jim? How is it good for a community to abort millions of its own offspring?

Irrelevant argument seer, because we disagree that a fetus is a human member of society. But you already know that, don't you?

[seer]

Irrelevant argument seer, because we disagree that a fetus is a human member of society. But you already know that, don't you?

No it is not immaterial. We are killing our own offspring largely for the sake of convenience, how it that good for a community? And BTW - a human fetus is well, a human. We are killing humans for convenience.

[Sparko]

I'm afraid I just can't get through to you Sparko. Morality is what is good for you, but not good for you alone, it is what is good for the entire community thus the adage: "do unto others....."

JimL you are all over the place. You can't keep a straight narrative from one post to the next. You have no idea what morality is, much less how it even works. Now you are quoting the bible? wow.

Are you posting high again?

[JimL]

JimL you are all over the place. You can't keep a straight narrative from one post to the next. You have no idea what morality is, much less how it even works. Now you are quoting the bible? wow.

Are you posting high again?

Seems to me that you are out of ammunition, Sparko, no more actual argument for your perspective. Oh wait, you never have actually made a sound argument supporting your own perspective, have you?

[JimL]

No it is not immaterial. We are killing our own offspring largely for the sake of convenience, how it that good for a community? And BTW - a human fetus is well, a human. We are killing humans for convenience.

However you want to think about the fetus, the fetus is not a member of society.

[seer]

However you want to think about the fetus, the fetus is not a member of society.

Who gets to decide who is a member of society, if human biology does not define a human being what does? Maybe the just born don't qualify either in your utopia. Or some other minority.

[Sparko]

Seems to me that you are out of ammunition, Sparko, no more actual argument for your perspective. Oh wait, you never have actually made a sound argument supporting your own perspective, have you?

What do I have to argue about? Nothing you said is consistent enough for you to have made any actual point of debate. Even other atheists (Carp) have pointed out to you your inconsistencies. Arguing against you is like arguing against the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland. You can't argue with crazy.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that the only way you can progress is if moral realism is true: any other kind of genuine progress is unintelligible to me.

The definition of "progress" as a noun includes the concept of a destination. As a verb, it simply implies forward or onward movement. We see in evolution that evolution progresses (or shows progress) towards adaptation to an environmental niche. However, if that niche changes, it effectively changes the "destination," so evolution progresses towards the new destination. Generally, it is optimizing adaptation to the niche. But because the niche can change, the direction of evolution can change.

This discussion reminds me of a discussion I had with my spiritual director when I was in the seminary. At one point, she said to me, "the trouble with you, Michel, is that you think every turn in the road means you're starting over. Life is continual progress - it just isn't along a straight line or always towards the same destination."

What are your standards for 'showing' something to be true?

A statement is considered "true" if it aligns with the reality it describes. That seems to me fairly simple and straightforward.

Philosophy doesn't use the same methods as science (and even when they do, the methods relate to the relata differently compared with how scientific methods relate to their relata). I already listed some philosophical heavyweights (atheists, all of them) that subscribe to moral realism. And I wholeheartedly disagree with you: to me, moral realism jives with my observations quite elegantly (more so that what my senses tell me about the world).

I'd be curious to know more about this. Your observations and senses are at odds with mine.

Be careful not to confuse absolute and objective bases (they're different).

How often have I said the same thing to Sparko. I think I'm on safe ground that I understand the difference.

And be careful not to confuse the bases with individual or collective applications of the bases (the latter can be relative and situational and be entirely compossible with moral realism).

I have no clue what "the bases" refers to in that sentence.

I just need to know where you're coming from so I can address your specific concerns.

I don't really have any concerns that I remember expressing.

[Tassman]

So how does do unto others apply to the unborn Jim? How is it good for a community to abort millions of its own offspring?

The Judeo-Christian tradition (including Southern Baptists until recently) has not considered the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings.

[Sparko]

The Judeo-Christian tradition (including Southern Baptists until recently) has not considered the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings.

That must be why abortion was illegal until Roe v Wade.

[One Bad Pig]

The Judeo-Christian tradition (including Southern Baptists until recently) has not considered the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings.

This is a lie which has been abundantly refuted here already, Tassman. Why do you persist in propagating it? Every Christian council of which I'm aware that discusses abortion equates it with murder. You're also taking the word of ONE controversial Southern Baptist editor and pretending his opinion was universal. Even the Jewish position doesn't support your assertion to the extent you imply; abortion is still considered a grave offense which is only acceptable to save the mother's life.

[Tassman]

This is a lie which has been abundantly refuted here already, Tassman. Why do you persist in propagating it? Every Christian council of which I'm aware that discusses abortion equates it with murder. You're also taking the word of ONE controversial Southern Baptist editor and pretending his opinion was universal. Even the Jewish position doesn't support your assertion to the extent you imply; abortion is still considered a grave offense which is only acceptable to save the mother's life.

Abortion is legal in Israel and effectively available to all women. And, until around 50 years ago, Evangelical Christians widely believed the Bible says life begins at birth and supported looser abortion policies.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonat...b_2072716.html

[Cow Poke]

Abortion is legal in Israel and effectively available to all women. And, until around 50 years ago, Evangelical Christians widely believed the Bible says life begins at birth and supported looser abortion policies.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonat...b_2072716.html

You're doing that thing, again, Tassman - where you just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again, hoping it eventually becomes true.

[Cow Poke]

That must be why abortion was illegal until Roe v Wade.

Not only that, but Tassman's BLOG article that he uses as the cornerstone of his dumb argument DISTORTS the truth, in particular, with the Resolution passed by the SBC in 1971.

Here is what that BLOG opinion piece reports as "the Resolution".



Here is the actual resolution.... [bolding mine]

WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and

WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and

WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother

The Resolution was about allowing EXCEPTIONS to the position - under very specific circumstances - that abortion is murder.

This has been shown to Tassman before, but he just doubles down and perpetuates the lie.

[JimL]

No it is not immaterial. We are killing our own offspring largely for the sake of convenience,

Again, whether a fetus is a human person or not is a matter of opinion and as a society the U.S. and most of the civilized world has decided to allow the women and their doctors to make their own choices in this regard.

how it that good for a community?

Have you actually ever asked yourself that question? Obviously not!

And BTW - a human fetus is well, a human. We are killing humans for convenience.

And btw, thats an opinion. Besides that, we know that you anti-abortionists don't really care about human life outside the womb, so what's with the hipocrisy?