Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
No. All I have proven is that in real life Christianity cannot be reduced to the absurd one-dimensional simplistic caricature that this woman (and, apparently, you) thinks it is.All you have proven is that Christians are even more confused in their thinking than we had already supposed. If heaven is so wonderful then they should be delighted to be going there. If they are not delighted, and are indeed demonstrably reluctant for both themselves and others then clearly they do not really believe this nonsense. At least suicide bombers are consistent in their madness.
If you're going to attack the positions Christians hold, you have to attack the positions Christians actually hold, and not some absurd caricature of your own devising. Attacking the caricature may be easier and is arguably more fun, but it's also pretty pointless. And it has the downside of giving the disinterested observer the impression that you may be attacking the caricature because engaging with the reality is beyond you.
If your understanding of the positions that Christians actually hold seem mad or incoherent to you, you should consider the possibility that you have failed to grasp them correctly. In that situation, if it's not too threatening to your self-esteem what you need to do is to ask Christians to explain what you are not understanding. Which is exactly what this woman should have done before she made a public exhibition of herself and of the movement she represents.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »No. All I have proven is that in real life Christianity cannot be reduced to the absurd one-dimensional simplistic caricature that this woman (and, apparently, you) thinks it is.
If you're going to attack the positions Christians hold, you have to attack the positions Christians actually hold, and not some absurd caricature of your own devising. Attacking the caricature may be easier and is arguably more fun, but it's also pretty pointless. And it has the downside of giving the disinterested observer the impression that you may be attacking the caricature because engaging with the reality is beyond you.
If your understanding of the positions that Christians actually hold seem mad or incoherent to you, you should consider the possibility that you have failed to grasp them correctly. In that situation, if it's not too threatening to your self-esteem what you need to do is to ask Christians to explain what you are not understanding. Which is exactly what this woman should have done before she made a public exhibition of herself and of the movement she represents.
Ok, let's be clear here. I don't care what positions Christians imagine or fantasise they hold. I care about what they say about their positions that makes any clear logical sense and describes what they believe.
They believe there is an afterlife.
They believe that it is much, much better than our current existence.
It clearly follows that they should want an end to this existence as soon as possible so they can go on to their heaven.
It also follows that aborting a foetus and sending it straight to heaven, without an interlude in this vale of tears, is doing it a favour, as the lady says.
If you cannot grasp this basic logic then I cannot help you, any more than I can help the Christians who have had centuries to explain their logic and failed utterly.
Let me add, I was raised in a Christian household, educated in Christian schools and live in a society which is swamped by Christian dogma. I have spent my entire life in a cultural environment where Christians "explain" their views at me all the time. How much more explanation do I need? How about they take a turn?0 -
If you're going to be a rationalist, obplayer, it helps to be rational, and to think logically.Ok, let's be clear here. I don't care what positions Christians imagine or fantasise they hold. I care about what they say about their positions that makes any clear logical sense and describes what they believe.
They believe there is an afterlife.
They believe that it is much, much better than our current existence.
It clearly follows that they should want an end to this existence as soon as possible so they can go on to their heaven.
It also follows that aborting a foetus and sending it straight to heaven, without an interlude in this vale of tears, is doing it a favour, as the lady says.
If you cannot grasp this basic logic then I cannot help you, any more than I can help the Christians who have had centuries to explain their logic and failed utterly.
You set out two typical Christian beliefs, and then claim that certain conclusions follow.
However, a little thought will show that those conclusions would only be logically inevitable if the two beliefs you set out were the only two things that Christians believe. But, of course, they're not. And - be honest - you know they're not.
Getting to heaven may, in the Christian view, be a Good Thing, but it's not the only or even the paramount good. Christians assign significant moral value to things other than getting to heaven ASAP. It's those other values which make abortion, murder, etc morally problematic. You know this, if you'll just admit it to yourself.
A common trope in atheist polemics is the notion that Christianity (and indeed all theism) is nothing more than an imagined cosmic system for giving sweeties to good children, and coal to bad children. This is of course a caricature; the honours students in the atheist community know that it is a caricature, useful perhaps for entertainment, for amusement, for group reinforcement or as a polemical device, but not a reflection of reality. The pass students, however - among whom we must include this lady - seem not to know this; they think the trope truly reflects reality. And faced with incontrovertible evidence that it doesn't - like, say, the fact that Christians disapprove of killing when the logic of the trope says they should approve of it - their reaction is not to revise their beliefs in the light of the evidence, as their own professed convictions would suggest they should do, but to accuse Christians of madness and inconsistency for not conforming to the caricature. (We might speculate about why they are so profoundly invested in the reality of the caricature, in the teeth of the evidence, but let's not.)
Criticising Christians for not conforming to a trope that says they should favour abortion is like criticising atheists for not conforming to a trope that says they should be wholly amoral. The criticism tells us rather more about the critic than it does about the people criticised.0 -
I think our current constitution reflects a strongly (but not extremely) conservative position on abortion in the context of worldwide views, and a very strongly conservative position in the context of European views. I think it is sufficiently close to a majority view that proposed alternatives haven't been able to gain enough traction with the electorate to make a government feel a referendum would be in their best interests.
That's the debatable bit. Polling tells us that the general public are broadly in favour of limited abortion, for FFA, Rape, etc. I can't see how the current constitution can be described as "close to a majority view" given how restrictive it is.
Where Ireland may well have a conservative majority view is for abortion on demand, there seems to be a lot of people who are clearly in favour of the "hard cases" being allowed, but who are still very uncomfortable with abortion being normalised in society as it is in other countries.
And the real conservatives worry that allowing even very limited abortion will ease the way to on demand abortion, which I guess is true to an extent, but it's still not a valid reason to prevent limited abortion being introduced, when it seems to have such widespread support.0 -
I agree with this. On the other hand, I don't think it follows, as others have suggested, that the reason we don't have a referendum to align the law more closely with the broad middle ground is because of the influence of extreme religious fundamentalists. We've already had three referendums on abortion. The electorate generally does not like referendums. Even if the middle ground would favour abortion being permitted in cases of FFA and rape, it doesn't follow that they want a referendum on the matter, or that they wouldn't punish a government which rolled out yet another abortion referendum.That's the debatable bit. Polling tells us that the general public are broadly in favour of limited abortion, for FFA, Rape, etc. I can't see how the current constitution can be described as "close to a majority view" given how restrictive it is.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »If you're going to be a rationalist, obplayer, it helps to be rational, and to think logically.
You set out two typical Christian beliefs, and then claim that certain conclusions follow.
However, a little thought will show that those conclusions would only be logically inevitable if the two beliefs you set out were the only two things that Christians believe. But, of course, they're not. And - be honest - you know they're not.
Getting to heaven may, in the Christian view, be a Good Thing, but it's not the only or even the paramount good. Christians assign significant moral value to things other than getting to heaven ASAP. It's those other values which make abortion, murder, etc morally problematic. You know this, if you'll just admit it to yourself.
A common trope in atheist polemics is the notion that Christianity (and indeed all theism) is nothing more than an imagined cosmic system for giving sweeties to good children, and coal to bad children. This is of course a caricature; the honours students in the atheist community know that it is a caricature, useful perhaps for entertainment, for amusement, for group reinforcement or as a polemical device, but not a reflection of reality. The pass students, however - among whom we must include this lady - seem not to know this; they think the trope truly reflects reality. And faced with incontrovertible evidence that it doesn't - like, say, the fact that Christians disapprove of killing when the logic of the trope says they should approve of it - their reaction is not to revise their beliefs in the light of the evidence, as their own professed convictions would suggest they should do, but to accuse Christians of madness and inconsistency for not conforming to the caricature. (We might speculate about why they are so profoundly invested in the reality of the caricature, in the teeth of the evidence, but let's not.)
Criticising Christians for not conforming to a trope that says they should favour abortion is like criticising atheists for not conforming to a trope that says they should be wholly amoral. The criticism tells us rather more about the critic than it does about the people criticised.
If they do not believe these things then they are not Christians. They can call themselves Christians, as katydid does, and then believe whatever they wish, as katydid does, but what I am talking about are people who believe in the tenets of Christianity as expounded in the Bible. We appear to be talking about two different groups, you are talking about humanists who happen to like bits of Christianity and label themselves as Christians. I am talking about people who believe what the Bible and Christ expounded. Please don't lecture me about logic until you show some.0 -
You're not reading what I wrote, obplayer. At no point did I talk about "cafeteria Christians", or about Christians holding non-mainstream beliefs. I didn't say that Christians didn't hold the two beliefs you mentioned; I said that they did hold those beliefs, but that they hold other (mainstream Christian) beliefs as well, and it's those other beliefs which make abortion, murder, etc morally problematic.If they do not believe these things then they are not Christians. They can call themselves Christians, as katydid does, and then believe whatever they wish, as katydid does, but what I am talking about are people who believe in the tenets of Christianity as expounded in the Bible. We appear to be talking about two different groups, you are talking about humanists who happen to like bits of Christianity and label themselves as Christians. I am talking about people who believe what the Bible and Christ expounded. Please don't lecture me about logic until you show some.
The logic of your argument requires not simply that Christians should believe the two things you mention, but that they should believe only those two things. If you genuinely think that authentic Christianity consists only of the two beliefs you mentioned, you are . . . mistaken. If you accept that Christianity includes other beliefs, then you should be able to see the fallacy in your argument.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »You're not reading what I wrote, obplayer. I didn't say that that didn't hold the two beliefs you mentioned; I said that they did hold those beliefs, but that they hold other (mainstream Christian) beliefs as well, and it's those other beliefs which make abortion, murder, etc morally problematic.
The logic of your argument requires not simply that Christians should believe the two things you mention, but that they should believe only those two things. If you genuinely think that authentic Christianity consists only of the two beliefs you mentioned, you are . . . mistaken. If you accept that Christianity includes other beliefs, then you should be able to see the fallacy in your argument.
The two things I mention are sufficient for them to want this life to end so they can go to heaven. They may believe that the abortionist is going to hell but they also believe the foetus is going to heaven. The abortionist has done it a favour at the cost of their own soul. Surely if you carry out 5000 abortions at the cost of your own soul this is a net benefit? They may believe murder is wrong but if someone in a state of grace is murdered then you have done a favour to the victim. So serial murderers are a bonus. If they refuse treatment for cancer then they are committing the sin of suicide but if they are told that the cancer is terminal then this is obviously a cause for joy and celebration.0 -
Again, ob, you're either not reading what I wrote, or not understanding it. Going to heaven may be a Good Thing, but it doesn't follow that killing someone to send them to heaven immediately is "doing them a favour". It would be doing them a favour if going to heaven immediately was the only Good Thing, but it isn't. Mainstream Christianity has always held that there are other Good Things like, you know, growth, human flourishing, achieving potential, becoming the person you are called to be, loving people, expressing that love by serving people or otherwise doing good for them, building the kingdom, making real the presence of Christ in the world, growing in wisdom and understanding, exercising freedom, living fully.
This isn't some spacey new-age crap bolted on to Authentic Traditional Muscular Christianity. It's Christian Anthropology 101. "The glory of God is a human being, fully alive" - Irenaeus of Lyons, 2nd century.
Obviously, killing people is something of an obstacle to their attaining all these Good Things as fully as they might. There is nothing irrational, illogical, mad or inconsistent with Christians noticing that killing has this effect, and taking a Dim View of it for that reason. And, right enough, a distaste for abortion, exposing unwanted infants, etc has been a noted characteristic of Christianity pretty much from the get-go for precisely this reason. But there is something fundamentally flawed about an argument that has to ignore basic Christian belief about the reasons we live, and long-established Christian attitudes and values, in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion chosen because it will confirm an absurd caricature as true.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Again, ob, you're either not reading what I wrote, or not understanding it. Going to heaven may be a Good Thing, but it doesn't follow that killing someone to send them to heaven immediately is "doing them a favour". It would be doing them a favour if going to heaven immediately was the only Good Thing, but it isn't. Mainstream Christianity has always held that there are other Good Things like, you know, growth, human flourishing, achieving potential, becoming the person you are called to be, loving people, expressing that love by serving people or otherwise doing good for them, building the kingdom, making real the presence of Christ in the world, growing in wisdom and understanding, exercising freedom, living fully.
This isn't some spacey new-age crap bolted on to Authentic Traditional Muscular Christianity. It's Christian Anthropology 101. "The glory of God is a human being, fully alive" - Irenaeus of Lyons, 2nd century.
Obviously, killing people is something of an obstacle to their attaining all these Good Things as fully as they might. There is nothing irrational, illogical, mad or inconsistent with Christians noticing that killing has this effect, and taking a Dim View of it for that reason. And, right enough, a distaste for abortion, exposing unwanted infants, etc has been a noted characteristic of Christianity pretty much from the get-go. But there is something fundamentally flawed about an argument that has to ignore basic Christian belief about the reasons we live, and long-established Christian attitudes and values, in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion chosen because it will confirm an absurd caricature as true.
My last comment on this. All your are doing is showing that various Christian beliefs have irreconcilable conflicts between them. Just like the Bible in fact. And frankly I couldn't give a toss about what was said in the 2nd century, when lightning was God's anger and old women with cats were witches to be burnt alive.0 -
Advertisement
-
Careful, ob. Remember you started out here trying to fly the flag for reason and logic. That's an aspiration you now seem to have compromised a bit. It's late. You may wish to revisit this tomorrow.
Believing that more than one thing can be good is an "irreconcilable conflict", is it? I'm not seeing it. Most people believe in more than one good. While that may create tensions when two goods compete or one has to be prioritised over the other, they don't experience that as "irreconcilable conflict".All your are doing is showing that various Christian beliefs have irreconcilable conflicts between them. Just like the Bible in fact.
I think what you mean to say is "I don't give a toss about what was said in the second century if it requires me to acknowledge that Christians might assign value to more than just getting to heaven, so I'll just make up some guff about old women with cats being burned alive as witches in the second century. Nothing of the kind happened, but I really don't care. It'll serve as a distraction."And frankly I couldn't give a toss about what was said in the 2nd century, when lightning was God's anger and old women with cats were witches to be burnt alive.
What you are essentially saying here is that you will acknowledge certain Christian beliefs about heaven but you will ignore all other Christian beliefs and values because lightning and witches. And then if Christians adopt positions which are motivated by beliefs and values that you are ignoring because lightning and witches, you will accuse them of being confused.
It's not gonna wash, ob.
Perhaps come back to it when you are less tired?My last comment on this.0 -
Well, given that the current Constitution allows limited abortion, which as you say polls show the general public are in favour of, that would seem to put it pretty close to the majority view? However, the basis of my observation was that if the current constitutional position was very far from the majority view, there would be sufficient impetus from the electorate to encourage politicians to feel there was political capital in bringing forward a referendum. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.That's the debatable bit. Polling tells us that the general public are broadly in favour of limited abortion, for FFA, Rape, etc. I can't see how the current constitution can be described as "close to a majority view" given how restrictive it is.
I think a majority would favour a broadening of the circumstances in which abortion could be available, if not availability of abortion on demand. I suspect the majority of people in most countries consider their own country's stance on the subject to be 'normal', and would look askance at the idea of being 'normalised' to any other country's point of view.Where Ireland may well have a conservative majority view is for abortion on demand, there seems to be a lot of people who are clearly in favour of the "hard cases" being allowed, but who are still very uncomfortable with abortion being normalised in society as it is in other countries.
Well, there are plenty of examples to learn from. Like for instance the UK, where a provision to permit abortion in the case of a risk to the health of a prospective mother, by virtue of the fact that pregnancy itself is a risk to the health of a prospective mother, resulted in effective abortion on demand.And the real conservatives worry that allowing even very limited abortion will ease the way to on demand abortion, which I guess is true to an extent, but it's still not a valid reason to prevent limited abortion being introduced, when it seems to have such widespread support.
As for when any sort of abortion might be introduced, whether there is a valid reason or not, it can currently only be when it does have widespread (being a majority of the electorate) support rather than when it seems to have widespread support. A distinction which is probably not lost on our politicians.0 -
You're wrong because you're wrong. Useful.Peregrinus wrote: »Careful, ob. Remember you started out here trying to fly the flag for reason and logic. That's an aspiration you now seem to have compromised a bit. It's late. You may wish to revisit this tomorrow.
Nope, he said nothing like that. Yet again a theist is confusing acknowledgement of a belief with acknowledgement that that belief is true.Peregrinus wrote: »What you are essentially saying here is that you will acknowledge certain Christian beliefs about heaven but you will ignore all other Christian beliefs and values because lightning and witches. And then if Christians adopt positions which are motivated by beliefs and values that you are ignoring because lightning and witches, you will accuse them of being confused.
It's not gonna wash, ob.
Perhaps come back to it when you are less tired?
It's all lightning and witches. All of it.
And another ad hominem for good measure at the end. Classy.0 -
Well, given that the current Constitution allows limited abortion, which as you say polls show the general public are in favour of, that would seem to put it pretty close to the majority view?
I think you'll find that the "limited" version of abortion that a majority would accept is far broader than the practically non-existent version of "limited" abortion allowed by the constitution.
So, no I really think you're reaching if you're suggesting that the two definitions of "limited" are all that close.However, the basis of my observation was that if the current constitutional position was very far from the majority view, there would be sufficient impetus from the electorate to encourage politicians to feel there was political capital in bringing forward a referendum. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.
It's hard to measure though, isn't it? I think you'd accept that given the history of abortion in Ireland to date, only the most committed are likely to put their heads above the parapet and actively campaign for it.
The true position of the majority cannot easily be divined from what you might have observed. Polls give a better picture, perhaps?I think a majority would favour a broadening of the circumstances in which abortion could be available, if not availability of abortion on demand. I suspect the majority of people in most countries consider their own country's stance on the subject to be 'normal', and would look askance at the idea of being 'normalised' to any other country's point of view.
Well, there are plenty of examples to learn from. Like for instance the UK, where a provision to permit abortion in the case of a risk to the health of a prospective mother, by virtue of the fact that pregnancy itself is a risk to the health of a prospective mother, resulted in effective abortion on demand.
As for when any sort of abortion might be introduced, whether there is a valid reason or not, it can currently only be when it does have widespread (being a majority of the electorate) support rather than when it seems to have widespread support. A distinction which is probably not lost on our politicians.
And yet I'm not aware of any particular strength of feeling in the UK to restrict abortion, are you? If the people get used to abortion, and it becomes normalised, is that necessarily a problem?
After all, you could say that contraception and divorce have become normalised in Ireland, is that necessarily a bad thing? Surely it's simply a matter of fact?0 -
Dear heavens, what kiind of Alice in Wonderland forum have I wandered into there?You're wrong because you're wrong. Useful.
Nope, he said nothing like that. Yet again a theist is confusing acknowledgement of a belief with acknowledgement that that belief is true.
It's all lightning and witches. All of it.
And another ad hominem for good measure at the end. Classy.
I never suggested that obplayer was wrong because she was wrong. I suggested that she was wrong because her reasoning was flawed in ways that I have set out in some detail.
As for a "theist is confusing acknowledgement of a belief with acknowledgement that that belief is true", you probably should read the exchange more carefully before commenting on it. At no point in this conversation have I asserted that Christian beliefs are true; still less have I asked obplayer to accept that they are true. My quotation from Irenaeus was not offered to show that these beliefs are true; it was offered to show that they are indeed long-standing Chrisitian beliefs, Irenaeus being an influential father of the church and all. Ob had previously suggested that these beliefs were not authentic Christian beliefs, but recent synchretic additions.
Obplayer declined to acknowledge that Christians might hold and be influenced by these beliefs, because lightning and witches, which makes no sense at all. So if anybody this thread has been guilty of confusing the existence of the belief with the truth of the belief, it's not the theist. It's the atheist.
(Actually now, Dan, thanks to your contribution, two of the atheists. Keep up the good work!)0 -
Lies. You said she was tired. That isn't addressing the argument at at all, it's an insulting preamble to try and gain the logical high ground. Oh look, she's tired, therefore her argument has less weight. Transparent stuff.Peregrinus wrote: »Dear heavens, what kiind of Alice in Wonderland forum have I wandered into there?
I never suggested that obplayer was wrong because she was wrong. I suggested that she was wrong because her reasoning was flawed in ways that I have set out in some detail.
I could as easily propose you are a theist therefore you're automatically wrong?
It doesn't matter if they are long standing, they are still lightning and witches BS, as they are derived from a fantasy. No philosopher can interpret lies to make truth.Peregrinus wrote: »As for a "theist is confusing acknowledgement of a belief with acknowledgement that that belief is true", you probably should read the exchange more carefully before commenting on it. At no point in this conversation have I asserted that Christian beliefs are true; still less have I asked obplayer to accept that they are true. My quotation from Irenaeus was not offered to show that these beliefs are true; it was offered to show that they are indeed long-standing Chrisitian beliefs, Irenaeus being an influential father of the church and all. Ob had previously suggested that these beliefs were not authentic Christian beliefs, but recent synchretic additions.
Obplayer declined to acknowledge that Christians might hold and be influenced by these beliefs, because lightning and witches, which makes no sense at all. So if anybody this thread has been guilty of confusing the existence of the belief with the truth of the belief, it's not the theist. It's the atheist.
(Actually now, Dan, thanks to your contribution, two of the atheists. Keep up the good work!)0 -
I think you'll be surprised how cautious most people are when it comes to relaxing the legislation. So I suppose we'll just have to wait until there's a referendum to see who's right.I think you'll find that the "limited" version of abortion that a majority would accept is far broader than the practically non-existent version of "limited" abortion allowed by the constitution.
Perhaps what I think is close seems miles apart to you... it seems fairly subjective.So, no I really think you're reaching if you're suggesting that the two definitions of "limited" are all that close.
Well, no; currently there are no political parties, and very few (if any?) politicians proposing a referendum. A referendum is the only measure that will matter.It's hard to measure though, isn't it?
Insomuch as I'd accept that the converse is also true, and only the most committed are likely to put their heads above the parapet and actively campaign against it. It tends to be the most committed who actively campaign on any subject. And students.I think you'd accept that given the history of abortion in Ireland to date, only the most committed are likely to put their heads above the parapet and actively campaign for it.
That's certainly an opinion with currency amongst politicians; knowing which way the wind is really blowing tends to be important for them.The true position of the majority cannot easily be divined from what you might have observed. Polls give a better picture, perhaps?
Quite the opposite in fact; any suggestion that abortion might be curtailed is met with instant opprobrium. But all you're saying is when people are used to something they prefer to keep it that way.And yet I'm not aware of any particular strength of feeling in the UK to restrict abortion, are you? If the people get used to abortion, and it becomes normalised, is that necessarily a problem?
If you did say that I think you'd be misusing the word normalised; more apt to say they became normal. Something becoming normal isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's not neccarily a good thing either, it all depends on what it is that's becoming normal. Stoning adulterers, fmg, crucifying pagans, are all things that could become normal (or even normalised in places where they are currently infrequently practiced) but they wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. Whereas educating children, providing pensions for the elderly, caring for the sick, these are all things that have become normal and aren't necessarily bad things. I think it's more the thing itself than the becoming normal, or normalising it, that's likely to necessarily be a good or bad thing.After all, you could say that contraception and divorce have become normalised in Ireland, is that necessarily a bad thing? Surely it's simply a matter of fact?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Dear heavens, what kiind of Alice in Wonderland forum have I wandered into there?
I never suggested that obplayer was wrong because she was wrong. I suggested that she was wrong because her reasoning was flawed in ways that I have set out in some detail.
As for a "theist is confusing acknowledgement of a belief with acknowledgement that that belief is true", you probably should read the exchange more carefully before commenting on it. At no point in this conversation have I asserted that Christian beliefs are true; still less have I asked obplayer to accept that they are true. My quotation from Irenaeus was not offered to show that these beliefs are true; it was offered to show that they are indeed long-standing Chrisitian beliefs, Irenaeus being an influential father of the church and all. Ob had previously suggested that these beliefs were not authentic Christian beliefs, but recent synchretic additions.
Obplayer declined to acknowledge that Christians might hold and be influenced by these beliefs, because lightning and witches, which makes no sense at all. So if anybody this thread has been guilty of confusing the existence of the belief with the truth of the belief, it's not the theist. It's the atheist.
(Actually now, Dan, thanks to your contribution, two of the atheists. Keep up the good work!)
My only comment. She is a he.0 -
Here, have some more rope, Dan.Lies. You said she was tired. That isn't addressing the argument at at all, it's an insulting preamble to try and gain the logical high ground. Oh look, she's tired, therefore her argument has less weight. Transparent stuff.
I could as easily propose you are a theist therefore you're automatically wrong?
It doesn't matter if they are long standing, they are still lightning and witches BS, as they are derived from a fantasy. No philosopher can interpret lies to make truth.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Here, have some more rope, Dan.
Sad. I did have some respect for you but as you have demonstrated so wonderfully that your beliefs in magic take precedence over all of your other thoughts I just give up. Just another sad brainwashed religious person. Why don't you go say your rosary? It won't change anything but you'll feel better I'm sure..0 -
Advertisement
-
Here, have some more rope, ob.Sad. I did have some respect for you but as you have demonstrated so wonderfully that your beliefs in magic take precedence over all of your other thoughts I just give up. Just another sad brainwashed religious person. Why don't you go say your rosary? It won't change anything but you'll feel better I'm sure..0 -
-
Vacuous non-comment. Usual vague "you're wrong but I won't say why" that people come out with when they've no logical argument.Peregrinus wrote: »Here, have some more rope, Dan.0 -
I suppose if you believe your little heart out that you're making a clever comment then you can type any old ****e and pretend you're part of a debate.Peregrinus wrote: »Here, have some more rope, ob.
You just gotta have faith faith faith.0 -
I have already explained (in post #7786) where you're wrong, pointing out that I never said or suggested that Christian beliefs were true; just that they were, in fact, beliefs held by Christians, which explain why Christians take the attitudes they do to abortion. I suggested it there was not me, but you, who was confusing the assertion that "Christians believe X" with the assertion that "X is true".Vacuous non-comment. Usual vague "you're wrong but I won't say why" that people come out with when they've no logical argument.
And your response (in post #7787) was to ignore what I had said, and simply repeat that Christian beliefs are wrong.
So what? This is irrelevant. Christian beliefs don't have to be true in order for them to explain why Christians take the position they do on abortion. They just have to beliefs that Christians hold.
To be honest, if you didn't grasp this the first time round, I had no great confidence that you would grasp it on later repetition. (In fact - no offence - I have no great confidence that you will grasp it even now.) So when you replied to my patient explanation with the equivalent of "na! na! na! lightning and witches!", apparently thinking that this was in any sense a refutation of anything I had said, I didn't see much value in pointing out a second time why it wasn't.
Hence my "more rope" comment. The more you deny the truth of what Christians believe, the more you demonstrate that I was right in post #7786; you are confusing my assertion that Christians believe something with an assertion that that something is true. So, by all means, keep it up!0 -
Christian beliefs are beliefs held by Christians... that is an astounding insight. Even if I continue to assume you're a theist (which I will continue to do), this doesn't alter the fact that whatever ****e Christians come out with is still witches and goblins, because that is the basis of all religion: fantasy nonsense.Peregrinus wrote: »I have already explained (in post #7786) where you're wrong, pointing out that I never said or suggested that Christian beliefs were true; just that they were, in fact, beliefs held by Christians, which explain why Christians take the attitudes they do to abortion. I suggested it there was not me, but you, who was confusing the assertion that "Christians believe X" with the assertion that "X is true".0 -
Well, given that the current Constitution allows limited abortion, which as you say polls show the general public are in favour of, that would seem to put it pretty close to the majority view? However, the basis of my observation was that if the current constitutional position was very far from the majority view, there would be sufficient impetus from the electorate to encourage politicians to feel there was political capital in bringing forward a referendum. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.
I think you might have to revise your opinion on this point fairly soon:
http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-debate-horse****-1923833-Feb2015/
Varadkar "said that he would be advocating that Fine Gael campaign for a referendum in the next election"
Only one Labour TD spoke on the bill. Joanna Tuffy said she believed it was unconstitutional and said that a referendum after the next election was the best way of pursuing the issue.0 -
And that doesn't alter the fact that your point is completely irrelevant to the question ob asked, the answer I offered and the argument I am making.When ob asserted that Christians believe going to heaven is a good think, you didn't jump in with both feet to say repeatedly that the belief was false, na na na, lightning and witches. Could you not exercise a similar restraint when I assert that Christians have other beliefs beyond that? The only reason you have offered for doing this to me and not to ob is that you assume I am a theist, which looks like a very frank confession that you position is completely ad hominen.Christian beliefs are beliefs held by Christians... that is an astounding insight. Even if I continue to assume you're a theist (which I will continue to do), this doesn't alter the fact that whatever ****e Christians come out with is still witches and goblins, because that is the basis of all religion: fantasy nonsense.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »And that doesn't alter the fact that your point is completely irrelevant to the question ob asked, the answer I offered and the argument I am making.When ob asserted that Christians believe going to heaven is a good think, you didn't jump in with both feet to say repeatedly that the belief was false, na na na, lightning and witches. Could you not exercise a similar restraint when I assert that Christians have other beliefs beyond that? The only reason you have offered for doing this to me and not to ob is that you assume I am a theist, which looks like a very frank confession that you position is completely ad hominen.
He did not jump in because he can see that in your defence of Christianity you are simply showing how it utterly contradicts itself in it's various tenets. First of all, Christians do clearly believe that going to heaven is good. If they don't then what is the point of the whole cult? If a foetus being sent straight to heaven before being tested on Earth is somehow inferior to "living and growing" then are there two levels of heaven? So the foetus which is sent straight there is missing out through no fault of it's own? If there are not two levels of heaven then what are you talking about? I will leave the question of why a believer should regret being diagnosed with a terminal illness which God could easily prevent/cure and which the person had no part in acquiring for another day.
As for Dan's 'assertion' that you are a theist.....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94035955&postcount=4385I am a Christian
Can you not at least avoid being economical with the truth?0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think Mick Wallace is terribly representative of what way the government is likely to jump in fairness :-)Loafing Oaf wrote: »I think you might have to revise your opinion on this point fairly soon:
Varadkar "said that he would be advocating that Fine Gael campaign for a referendum in the next election"
Only one Labour TD spoke on the bill. Joanna Tuffy said she believed it was unconstitutional and said that a referendum after the next election was the best way of pursuing the issue.
On the other hand, if Leo Varadkar thinks it'll give him a shot at Taoiseach, he'll be the first one to call for it. Personally though I think he'll push for a broadening of the circumstances in which abortion can be utilised (ffa, maybe rape) but stop short of calling for a repeal of the 8th, and thereby be seen to be doing a little bit for everyone.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement