Nukemarine wrote:

All hail Thor.

Molech > Thor. I jihad/crusade/genocide you.

It's a good thing morals come from religion huh?

"Now, I guess after thinking this issue over, there really is no logical reason to condemn abortion w/o faith in some "God" (I use the term "God" loosely...).  *If* I was an atheist, I would be an avid supporter of abortion (then again, I think we hashed out the supposed "ethics w/o God" issue quite enough earlier in this thread).  However, I have a question (and this really, seriously is an honest question, not a rhetorical one).  Let's say there's a woman pregnant with a baby.  She's not planning on having an abortion and is really looking forward to having baby and the whole family thing.  If I went and killed the unborn baby (somehow), but did not kill her, by your logic you could not call me a murder.  Correct?  "

I fail to see the connection between atheist and avid supporter of whatever. Being atheist doesn't come with a set of characteristics. It doesn't even have to mean anti-religion or out to destroy believers or unborn babies. It is just that religion doesn't play a major role in that person's life. And like others have said some are for and some against abortion.

As for your question. I would say a person who forces a woman to have an abortion is wrong in doing so, but a murderer?
There is however a point when you can't talk about abortion anymore I think, when the pregnancy has evolved into several months. It's hard to make the distinction, that's a technical matter, but it is possible. If someone kicks a woman who thus loses her baby. Yes that man should go to jail. If the baby was going to be born that same month, I too would tend to say that man is a murderer. It's again technical legal matter. There is little difference in a new born baby and a baby 5 minutes before being born.
But this assault story where a woman is forced/kicked and a legal self chosen abortion in the first few days or weeks of pregnancy are completely different things.

I am happy your aunt was strong enough to raise her child. But I am equally understanding of people who are not so strong.

Can I ask you igordesu, since you are for death penalty. If a mother aborts her child, you consider that murder, and murder can mean death penalty. So do you think she deserves that punishment?

God didn't come from anything IMO he has always been there... time did not create God but God created time...
Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Last edited by Hashiriya (2009 January 22, 11:17 pm)

If morals are how people actually act, then isn't anyone who does anything a moral person?

I get the sense that you are digging yourself into a hole.

Ah, well apparently "the pedia" just set me straight.  I was always taught in school (a public one) that a group of people's morality was the way in which they acted, and ethics refers to the code of conduct which should be adhered to...well, I guess that settles that one.  But the principle remains the same.  How people ought to act, and how people do act are very different things.  And I think the first (ought) doesn't really exist in any ultimate form if there is no God.

igordesu wrote:

Nothing is right, nothing is wrong, we just are.  There is just existence.  We can do whatever we want.

This statement is one of the few truths of life that people rarely accept. Ethics exists as a measure to preserve what we call life/society. God is introduced as an enforcer of ethics. God is a protector of life. The existence of ethics does not prove God's existence and yet at the same time it does. This is not to say that God is the character we all have come to know and love, but rather the embodiment of man's desire for self preservation upon witnessing the damage, death, confusion, fear, paranoia, and insanity, that existed in a world without an image as powerful as God. In short, God was designed by man to protect man from himself.

As time passes more and more people are realizing that life can, in fact, be preserved and sanity maintained without the existence of an all powerful, irrational, angry being. Instead they are turning to law and community standards. Ethical standards are now regulated and enforced by these laws and community standards. Instead of lightning bolts being throw from the sky, men in black and blue knock on your door, or, in some cases, kick it down.

On the issue of abortion...

You seems to be arguing from the stand point that a prenatal being should be lawfully and forcefully brought into the world on the grounds that every being deserves a shot at life. The problem is... babies don't just materialize out of thin air. They are carried inside a woman for the better part of a year. They are a part of this woman, quite literally. An individual encroaches on a fetus's chance at life during an abortion. But the fetus also encroaches on the life of the woman while she bears it. This is the fact that is so often forgotten. The life of fetus is given favor over the life of the female holding it in the arguments against abortion. Using an obscure example of people sacrificing children doesn't change this fact.

Who is more selfish and/or ignorant under these circumstances, the people forcing a woman to do something against her will to satisfy their own moral egos or the people involve in the abortion?

Some random info: If a society sacrifices babies as an excepted standard, there is usually a good reason for this. It's called population control. If there are more mouths to feed than food a society dies. Ethics exist to preserve life/society. In a situation where children are being sacrificed the society is well within its personal ethical bounds. Unless one is in a position to provide for such a society, one is not in a position to judge.

I won't go as far as to say there is no such thing as being indulgent. I will say people who get off on abortions and baby sacrifice are in the minority, much like serial killers and pedophilic priests.

Of course these are just my own particular beliefs, I'm sure others will vary.

Last edited by kazelee (2009 January 23, 12:09 am)

igordesu wrote:

And I didn't say that's what I would believe if I was an atheist because "that's what atheists believe."  If I honestly believed in a universe w/o a God, I'm pretty sure I would come to the logical conclusion on my own that I have no problem with abortion, and I would have a problem with the death penalty (ironic how people justify killing unborn babies but not murderers, eh?).  It would be my own logical conclusion in that case.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying atheists come with a certain set of characteristics.

How convenient that you made up an ironic conclusion for what an atheist would believe.

If I honestly were God, I'm pretty sure that I would have better things to do than care what you carbon based critters did on Sunday mornings in your Gregorian Earth calendar of that thing you call time.  That's so beneath me.

Funny how anything can be made up.

How people ought to act, and how people do act are very different things.  And I think the first (ought) doesn't really exist in any ultimate form if there is no God.

True, but that is just terminology.

There exist laws because there is law, written by societies to preserve societies.  Both law and religion are written on paper.  The difference between law and religion is law has records of decisions made by people, whereas religion requires belief in fantastical origins.

However there is no proof that those ethics were not written by people either, only belief.  For all we know they were, just like the flying spaghetti monster.

Last edited by vosmiura (2009 January 23, 3:03 am)

nest0r wrote:

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Cthulhu > Thor! Nukemarine, I pray for your soul's salvation. You must join us or be damned.

On a side note, does anybody know if I could get Lovecraft's stories in Japanese?

Last edited by alyks (2009 January 23, 3:35 am)

I would like to chime in. What igordesu believes is not representative of all Christians. I would like to say for the sake of both him and his opposers in this thread: what he believes is God's will may be completely different from what another Christian believes it is. I am not a Christian, but I felt people needed to be reminded of this. Also, whether you are religious or not, you hold your own beliefs which probably are not empirical truth, so it would be nice to see both sides respect each other.

igordesu wrote:

@ phauna (and this really is my last post):

As far as evidence supporting your theories or "faith", I am very, very interested.  You must know some very smart scientists indeed if you think they are able to prove the existence or non-existence of a creator or being outside of this universe.  And for the record, intelligent design is a viable and at least debatable theory in realm of science.

It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, logically impossible.  You can only prove the existence of things, so the onus is really upon religious people.

Evolution gains more and more evidence each day.  Intelligent design is a non-theory whose proponents don't seem to do any research, only belittle other people's research.

alyks wrote:

nest0r wrote:

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Cthulhu > Thor! Nukemarine, I pray for your soul's salvation. You must join us or be damned.

On a side note, does anybody know if I could get Lovecraft's stories in Japanese?

Back before I started studying Japanese, I bought a couple volumes of this series: http://www.kurodahan.com/mt/e/catalog/j0010cate.html

Shouldn't be too hard to find the originals. Edit: Links to originals at the bottom of that page, actually. I'd prefer to read natively Japanese, Lovecraft-inspired works in the same mythos than translations of the original, myself.

Last edited by nest0r (2009 January 23, 3:46 am)

nest0r wrote:

Nukemarine wrote:

I had hoped the arguments in this thread would not get too serious. Considering the abortion discussion came from a blatant joke shows I thought wrong. Since it's not a threaded discussion, it's easy to get distracted on who's responding to whom on which subject.

Igordesu, I was talking about Thor, who we all agree exist. Not about any other gods (Christian, Jewish or Hindi) who's imaginary existence cannot be disproven. Please make sure when I derail a conversation into a path I want, that you show blind obedience and follow it. The only opinion that should matter is Nukemarine's when the subject is about religion, abortion, car insurance or which wine goes with Captain Crunch.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

I don't agree completely. don't you mean "fhwung" instead of "wgah'nagl"

EDIT: sorry, my bad, it was wgah'nag! I should read more carefully before I post.

Last edited by Jasta (2009 January 23, 3:53 am)

Jasta wrote:

nest0r wrote:

Nukemarine wrote:

I had hoped the arguments in this thread would not get too serious. Considering the abortion discussion came from a blatant joke shows I thought wrong. Since it's not a threaded discussion, it's easy to get distracted on who's responding to whom on which subject.

Igordesu, I was talking about Thor, who we all agree exist. Not about any other gods (Christian, Jewish or Hindi) who's imaginary existence cannot be disproven. Please make sure when I derail a conversation into a path I want, that you show blind obedience and follow it. The only opinion that should matter is Nukemarine's when the subject is about religion, abortion, car insurance or which wine goes with Captain Crunch.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

I don't agree completely. don't you mean "fhwung" instead of "wgah'nagl"

EDIT: sorry, my bad, it was wgah'nag! I should read more carefully before I post.

Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!