Here is Francis J. Beckwith's pro-life syllogism:
- The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community*.
- It is prima facie morally wrong to [murder] any member of that community.
- Every successful abortion [murders] an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.
- Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.¹
*Support for Premise 1.
¹ Found in: Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009) p. 29. Originally from: Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Stan adds, "To deny that every human - every human - went through the prenatal stages of human life including the division of cells and all embryo stages can be seen as nothing short of dishonest. To claim the moral authority to determine which stage of human life they think is acceptable to [murder] is an onerous claim. The idea that Atheism is more empathetic is absurd, unless the value of human life is discounted in advance, and the Atheist is elevated beyond his actual position as just another human, not a moral judge or determiner of life and death for other innocent humans.
No excuse can defeat the fact that human life always starts with cell division and that killing those cells kills a human life at that particular stage. This is not defeated by any appeal to the condition of the mother, the ability of the embryo to feel pain, or any other rationalized permission to [murder] the human at that stage, and only in a triage situation can such decisions be made which would kill the embryo or mother with moral impunity.
The much vaunted Atheist "empathy" has not been extended to the more than 50,000,000 humans [murdered] by abortion in the United States. "
I am sure you will notice that I changed the 'kills' to "murder" as to be more accurate and truthful.
I found it completely telling that Stan was able to articulate the exact arguments I hear daily, on this blog or in my group, from the Atheists. How can a worldview, a position that stands on an argument from incredulity, possibly be so sure?
This post was almost a Déjà vu as a few days ago I asked in the group: Are you absolutely certain that is NOT a person inside of the woman deserving rights and freedoms as any other person? If so, how are you absolutely certain?
UPDATE: this post is on the heals of a new video released just today revealing Planned Parenthood encouraging Sex-Selective Abortions like China, from Live Action.
It is prima facie morally wrong to [murder] any member of that community.
ReplyDeleteSo, from that, we can see that the Bible shows that God is morally wrong to [murder] members of the human community.
Cue Dan redefining concepts such as genocide and murder or, even worse, suggesting that there's actually a "morally sufficient reason" for committing them (only if you're God of course - can you say "moral relativist"?) in a pathetic attempt to justify the atrocities reported to have been carried out by his God in the Bible he claims is infallible.
Thanks for demonstrating the moral reprehensibility of the worldview you profess to hold Dan.
Further, as you actively profess to believing that there's a "morally sufficient reason" allowing for the morally acceptable murder of members of the human community, why on earth are you objecting to abortion?
freddies_dead
Delete>>So, from that, we can see that the Bible shows that God is morally wrong to [murder] members of the human community.
Wrong! That is why I changed the word, btw. No, it is not wrong to kill someone who murdered. It is called punishment. That is just. If a man murders another man unprovoked then he shall be put to death. That is the definition of justice. Disagree? If so, why?
>>Thanks for demonstrating the moral reprehensibility of the worldview you profess to hold Dan.
Thanks for demonstrating and confirming my positions when I state:
"Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God."
Wrong! That is why I changed the word, btw. No, it is not wrong to kill someone who murdered. It is called punishment. That is just. If a man murders another man unprovoked then he shall be put to death. That is the definition of justice. Disagree? If so, why?
DeleteAh, so all those babies that biblegod had killed were murderers then?
"Pro-life" my ass!
Thanks for demonstrating and confirming my positions when I state:
"Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God."
And of course, that last statement of yours is bullshit Dan...just because we find the actions of a mythical character contemptible does not mean that we secretly believe in that characters' existence.
Not many of us are Sauron fans either you know. Doesn't mean that we are suppressing the "truth" of his existence!
To help drive the point home
DeleteD.A.N. said...
Deletefreddies_dead
>>So, from that, we can see that the Bible shows that God is morally wrong to [murder] members of the human community.
Wrong!
Not at all, as we'll see.
That is why I changed the word, btw.
You changed the word because you thought you could then abitrarily redefine the atrocities committed by your God as "not murder" and therefore grant your God free licence to commit them. You failed.
No, it is not wrong to kill someone who murdered.
So, according to you, it's OK to murder someone who murders someone - as that's exactly what "capital punishment" is, the deliberate, premeditated taking of a human life - when murder is supposedly immoral. The contradiction is plain to see but then you're only being true to your professed worldview which cannnot account for why such contradictions are wrong.
It is called punishment.
It's revenge, pure and simple.
That is just.
Only if you hold to a subjective worldview, as the Christian surely does, so you can make up your own definitions when the ones that already exist don't suit your argument.
If a man murders another man unprovoked then he shall be put to death. That is the definition of justice. Disagree? If so, why?
jus·tice
n.
1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2.
a. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3.
a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
b. Law The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
5. Abbr. J. Law
a. A judge.
b. A justice of the peace.
It would seem that conforming to moral rightness is an integral part of justice. Murder is morally wrong, hence why we don't see any definition there that suggest that "murder is the correct response to murder". However, you're telling us that it's actually OK to murder in certain circumstances. So which is it Dan? Is murder absolutely wrong? Or is it OK to murder depending on the circumstances? Is it OK to murder when God tells you you can? I see why you express such a subjective view of morality - it's the only sort that fits with your inherently subjective Christian worldview after all.
>>Thanks for demonstrating the moral reprehensibility of the worldview you profess to hold Dan.
Thanks for demonstrating and confirming my positions when I state:
"Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God.
There is no "truth" to supress. You've singularly failed to demonstrate the existence of the God you claim we're all accountable to. Until such time as you can provide objectively valid evidence of His existence I'll continue to correctly dismiss your barely asserted claim.
It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God."
There is no rebellion. I cannot hold contempt for that which doesn't exist. I do, however, have contempt for those who claim that actions that are truly morally repugnant, like murder, are actually good and proper because some assumed and undemonstrated moral authority says it's OK to do them in certain circumstances - so much for your claim of absolute morality.
I am anti-abortion myself. And I make my arguments using the word "kill." I do this primarily because those who seek to justify evil actions will deny that it is murder. This is true for abortion, for "capital punishment" and for the (thankfully fictional) genocides found in the bible.
ReplyDelete"The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community."
ReplyDeleteThis is merely an opinion.
"It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community."
Another opinion. Most people believe it can be morally acceptable to kill in self-defence, in just wars. Some even believe capital punishment is morally acceptable.
Replacing the word "kill" with "murder" is problematic. Murder is morally wrong by definition so that reduces the argument to "Murder is morally wrong because it's murder".
I would disagree that a zygote is a full-fledged member of the human community. I think most people recognise this intuitively. If there was zygotes in a test-tube and a one-year old child in a burning building, most people would save the one-year old if only one could be saved. Conception as the beginning of human personhood is a mostly recent invention. The Jewish people placed personhood at the first breath. Some cultures placed personhood months after birth.
>>"It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community."
Delete>>Most people believe it can be morally acceptable to kill in self-defence, in just wars. Some even believe capital punishment is morally acceptable.
You do understand, because of knowing my audience, THAT is the reason why I changed it to
"It is prima facie morally wrong to [murder] any member of that community."
You know, to avoid that flag waving right thar. So basically you argued against a conversation that is not here. In other words, a strawman.
>>I would disagree that a zygote is a full-fledged member of the human community.
Great (not really), now answer the question: Are you absolutely certain that is NOT a person inside of the woman deserving rights and freedoms as any other person? If so, how are you absolutely certain?
>>Some cultures placed personhood months after birth.
So you're saying that it's just arbitrary and relative, like all moral positions, right?
This post was almost a Déjà vu as a few days ago I asked in the group: Are you absolutely certain that is NOT a person inside of the woman deserving rights and freedoms as any other person?
ReplyDeleteIs absolute certainty possible without omniscience?
>>Is absolute certainty possible without omniscience?
DeleteI would say no. You?
This is why, BTW, we say that the only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything.
I asked: Is absolute certainty possible without omniscience?
DeleteDan responded: I would say no. You?
I would also say no. Given this, why did you ask "the group" whether they were omniscient or not?
---
This is why, BTW, we say that the only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything.
Ok, but there's no reason to demand God-like knowledge in order for any human being to use reason, or to know anything with certainty.
You toss out the word "absolute" as if it were a requirement for certainty. By your own admission, this would appear to be dishonest.
>> You toss out the word "absolute" as if it were a requirement for certainty.
DeleteThat is like saying I toss out "absolute" as if it were a requirement for truth. It is! How can one be not so certain and be certain? It's absurd. Is truth kind of true? Let me guess, you will assert that "nothing is absolute"? I will prepare my facepalm.
I forgot one:
Delete>> Ok, but there's no reason to demand God-like knowledge in order for any human being to use reason, or to know anything with certainty.
Oh I see the problem, you're confusing epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (foundation existence). Sure, you can argue for reasoning and the ability to know things but what you fail to do is give the account to said knowledge. Here I will show you, how do you know your reasoning is valid?
Now you will either stumble through trying to answer the question or you will follow that M.O. and deflect and redirect that attention elsewhere. We shall see.
Oh I see the problem, you're confusing epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (foundation existence).
DeleteUntil you understand the correct definitions of those terms, I see no reason to take you seriously. Epistemology is the method by which knowledge is obtained. It is not "knowledge" by itself.
Ontology: what exists
Epistemology: how we access ontology
You make yourself look like a dumb-ass every time you pretend to understand things you don't. Stop pretending, and be more honest.
D.A.N. said...
DeleteWhateverman asked:
>>Is absolute certainty possible without omniscience?
I would say no. You?
And yet you claim to be absolutely certain about things - such as God's existence and the atheists suppression of truth in unrightousness - are you claiming omniscience?
This is why, BTW, we say that the only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything.
Except, of course, that you never explain how this works. Logically, the only way you could be absolutely certain of the source and veracity of a revelation would be if God granted you omniscience - feel free to give us an alternative method if you think this is wrong.
Anything less than that leaves gaps in your knowledge. Such gaps could contain the actual truth and/or the actual identity of the entity you claim has told you He is God.
Dan
DeleteThis is why, BTW, we say that the only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything.
Except for of course, things like simple science and basic mathematics...
Whateverman, before addressing Dan's question about certainty, you should make sure you understand which definitions he is using. In the last thread he provided the following definitions of certain, and I will keep the original numbering they have in the dictionary.
ReplyDelete1. free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure
4. established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable
5. fixed; agreed upon; settled
7. that may be depended on; trustworthy
So if Dan asks if you are certain he could mean any of the following:
1. Are you free of doubt and confident?
4. Are you established as true?
5. Are you fixed, agreed upon, settled?
7. Are you trustworthy, dependable?
Dan may attempt to throw out the rules of grammar, and pretend that if he uses the word certain to describe someone it actually means the word certain applies to SOMETHING ELSE. He will try to get the word certain to mean that some information is true, but he never said the information was certain, he only ever described people as certain, and those are the only things the word can describe.
In any case, if Dan mentions the word certain, just stick to his own provided definitions.
if Dan mentions the word certain, just stick to his own provided definitions.
DeleteI appreciate those, Max. I didn't have the stomach to follow the entire previous thread, and obviously missed the good bits.
However, Dan used the "absolute" in conjunction with "certainty" above. I have no doubt that he'll equivocate as soon as it becomes advantageous to do so, but I think my question is still important for the purposes of this thread.
Dan? Is absolute certainty possible without omniscience?
If yes, then why include the word "absolute(ly)" above?
Max,
Delete>>Dan may attempt to throw out the rules of grammar, and pretend that if he uses the word certain to describe someone it actually means the word certain applies to SOMETHING ELSE.
We have been through this already. IT IS YOU, who wish to link a $100 bill to a piece of fruit as your excuse that the "fruit of your labor" and an apple is the SAME THING, or same definition. There is a huge difference there.
You're doing something claiming others are doing it. What you're doing here now is either called projecting in the field, or delusional. Either way I merely call it, you, hypocritical.
One of the definitions of certain says, "something established as true." You claimed that means some information is established as true. You did not say the information was certain you said "I am certain" meaning "I am established as true." under that definition. You did in fact throw out the rules of grammar to attempt to apply the word certain to something else.
DeleteSo Dan feels that abortion is murder and morally wrong, but happily supports the notion that heresy is a capital crime and that non-christians should be executed by the state as a danger to society.
ReplyDeleteSo not only does he put the rights of a fetus above that of the mother, he judges the fetus to be of greater worth than me - if, by killing me, he could prevent someone from having an abortion Dan would consider that a reasonable trade-off.
So, Dan, what punishment would you support for a women having an abortion?
And how do you account for pro-choice christians? There are likely more pro-choice christians than pro-choice atheists. These are *your* people.
Also, if abortion is murder and a rational society works to minimize murder, presumably you'd support things like:
a) making contraception freely available to every woman
b) effective mandatory sex education for all children (including yours) that emphasizes using contraception properly
c) punishment for men who refuse to be involved
d) government health care and financial support for the fetus until age 18
Dan, what punishment would you support for a women having an abortion?
DeleteI've never seen a fundamentalist answer this question. While Dan's not your garden-variety fundamentalist, his inability (or unwillingness) to answer questions directly is predictable.
Dan? Care to distinguish yourself?
Not holding out much hope here. It's far easier to simply parrot "Are you certain about that? If so, how?" rather than engage in a real discussion that might force him to do some self-examination.
DeleteHe doesn't do well off-script.
Mike,
Delete>>So Dan feels that abortion is murder and morally wrong, but happily supports the notion that heresy is a capital crime and that non-christians should be executed by the state as a danger to society.
Did you spend a lot of time on that strawman? No, Atheists will have justice all on their own. No need for us to enact God's Will. He can certainly handle it himself.
Remember, I always say "and don't die before figuring all this out" I want you alive so you have the chance to salvation. Because after that, it is too late.
>>So not only does he put the rights of a fetus above that of the mother,
No, it is moral to protect the innocent and and the weak. It is my duty, as a Dad, to protect those kids of mine, and yes even with my life. If the mother would rather save herself then her helpless child, she should not be a mother at all, and be responsible enough to keep her legs closed, or at the very least should adopt the child out.
>>So, Dan, what punishment would you support for a women having an abortion?
In a perfect world (this is not), I would push for legislation that IF a women were pursuing that illegal route of abortion, that they should give the child up for adoption and then she should have an agreed hysterectomy as part of the adoption agreement. We would not allow baby factories of fornicating, and immoral, woman.
If they are responsible, they can have a family, if not then that privilege is removed. Scary as that hypothetical sounds, this is off the top of my head though, I utterly cringe of the thought of the government involved in that manner in any way.
Maybe I will start an adoption agency that has that as its provisions and then it becomes a trend, and then the norm. You know, after abortion is ruled illegal.
So, my vote goes instead to Christ's return to "fix" all of this evil. Which will indeed repair this very fractured society, because of all these murders.
Oh and...
Delete>>c) punishment for men who refuse to be involved
Refuse? You mean forced not to be involved as it is now. Would there be provisions for those men who refuse to allow abortion, or is it still going to be one sided? As it is now, the man has no say in it. If the woman decides to murder a baby, the man is forced to live with that, if she decided to keep the baby then he is financially obligated, but is denied custody mostly.
Dan:
DeleteDid you spend a lot of time on that strawman?
Dan - you quote Bahnsen and in previous threads have stated you are a Reconstructionist. My claim is what Bahnsen and other Reconstructionists state is core to their thinking - have you actually read much of Bahnsen's work or thought much about the group you claim membership in?
If the mother would rather save herself then her helpless child, she should not be a mother at all, and be responsible enough to keep her legs closed, or at the very least should adopt the child out.
Note that the official position of the Catholic church is that in cases where continuing a pregnancy will kill both mother and fetus, abortion is still not an option. In other words, the rights of the fetus trumps those of the mother. Not to mention the well-being of other children in the family who've now lost their mother because you think all women who get abortions are sluts.
In a perfect world (this is not), I would push for legislation that IF a women were pursuing that illegal route of abortion, that they should give the child up for adoption and then she should have an agreed hysterectomy as part of the adoption agreement. We would not allow baby factories of fornicating, and immoral, woman.
If they are responsible, they can have a family, if not then that privilege is removed. Scary as that hypothetical sounds, this is off the top of my head though, I utterly cringe of the thought of the government involved in that manner in any way.
You should cringe. So if a woman is caught having an abortion the penalty is that the government takes her uterus? You actually think this is a good idea? Let's go one better - the man who provided the sperm loses his testicles. Somehow I don't think you'll go for that one.
And once again, women are immoral sluts. Got it.
Don't hear much about the fornicating men, however.
Hi Dan,
ReplyDeleteAccording to you, if my heart remains closed, if I continue to suppress the knowledge which you say I have of the Lord -- never repenting -- so that I never receive salvation from the Lord, and I end up in hell, would you say that it would have been better for me if I would've been aborted? Or is it better to end up in hell than be aborted? Or would I have gone to hell anyway, even if I was aborted?
Also, all those souls that your worldview claims are suffering eternal torment in hell -- do you feel joy or sorrow for them? And how about me, do you feel joy or sorrow about me?
Would you say you are absolved as it pertains to my salvation? Would it be fair to say that your non-responses to questions posed to you on a previous thread are a clear indication that you carry no responsibility whatsoever as it pertains softening the hearts of sinners, so that they are more open to receiving the free gift of salvation?
If you find joy in those suffering eternal torment in hell, would you be willing to express this joy at a funeral of one who is damned? Or would you suppress this joy? If so, why would you suppress it?
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
Delete>>According to you, if my heart remains closed, if I continue to suppress the knowledge which you say I have of the Lord -- never repenting -- so that I never receive salvation from the Lord, and I end up in hell, would you say that it would have been better for me if I would've been aborted?
Not at all. You mean you'd rather your potential mother to spend eternity in hell for the possibility of your atheism, rather then you being responsible enough to lock Hell's gates from the inside? You're a coward to allow your mother to take the fall for your rebellion.
>>Or is it better to end up in hell than be aborted?
YES!!! I guess I love your mother FAR more then you ever will. Sad silly Atheists.
>>Also, all those souls that your worldview claims are suffering eternal torment in hell -- do you feel joy or sorrow for them?
False dilemma fallacy. The word that comes to mind is frustration, but it certainly is not pity.
>>And how about me, do you feel joy or sorrow about me?
Again, it is frustration. You're disrespectful to our Law Maker and even though your civil disobedience is something I can completely relate to, this not a government we are speaking of. This is the Creator of all. Howard huge difference. Our Creator is trustworthy, fallible man is not. You're rebelling against the wrong thing here. You see evil around you, we both do, but you blame God and I blame man.
>>Would you say you are absolved as it pertains to my salvation? Would it be fair to say that your non-responses to questions posed to you on a previous thread are a clear indication that you carry no responsibility whatsoever as it pertains softening the hearts of sinners, so that they are more open to receiving the free gift of salvation?
Yes, it is my position that I play no role in your Salvation at all. If I were to have such a "power" there would be no such a thing as an Atheist. My Mom, and soon my Dad, would be in Heaven if I had any pull in the matter. But I don't.
>>If you find joy in those suffering eternal torment in hell, would you be willing to express this joy at a funeral of one who is damned?
My joy is with God who is glorified and who in spite of you living a life denying His will be done that He, being so Good, honors you to have your will be done to be away from Him. My joy is God giving us freedoms, my frustration is with you using those freedoms to do evil.
Hi Dan,
DeleteThanks for your lengthy reply -- especially in light of how busy you've said you are with your kids. I plan on responding soon.
In the meantime, let me ask you a short question I think remains unanswered. It's essentially the same question(s) I posed to you on a previous thread:
Does scripture consider all atheists to be "divisive"? Yes? No? Other explanation? Whatever your answer, is your position in alignment with scripture? Yes? No? Other explanation?
Thanks.
Ydemoc
>>Does scripture consider all atheists to be "divisive"?
DeleteI am not sure, it would take some lengthy study to conclude that. I will say this though, Scripture calls Atheists, AntiChrists. Are the antichrists "divisive"? I would think so.
Hi Dan,
DeleteThanks again for your answer. I haven't had a chance to dig into your previous response, but I did find time to jump in here and address this one.
I asked: "Does scripture consider all atheists to be "divisive"? Yes? No? Other explanation? Whatever your answer, is your position in alignment with scripture? Yes? No? Other explanation?"
You responded: "I am not sure, it would take some lengthy study to conclude that. I will say this though, Scripture calls Atheists, AntiChrists. Are the antichrists "divisive"? I would think so."
That seems like a fair answer. If I could sum it up in my own words, you're basically saying that you're not completely sure, but until further study, your tentative answer is: "I would think so" -- that atheists are "divisive." Do I have that about right?
As you may have already concluded, the reason I was asking you this was to see -- if you *did* consider atheists to be divisive -- how you might square this stance with the verse you cited in our previous exchange on a different thread. The verse you cited was from Titus 3:10: 'Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.' And atheists being divisive seems to find further support in Matthew 12:30, "He that is not with me is against me." However, one verse I found that seems to be contra to atheists being divisive is from Mark 9:40: "“Whoever therefore is not against you is for you.” (Many atheists would claim they cannot be against that which doesn't exist.)
Given these passages, I can certainly understand how you might need to do more studying-up in order to come to a firm conclusion on the matter. However, it does seem to me that if you were to eventually affirm that atheists are, according to how you read scripture, "divisive," then this position would have implications with regard to how you deal with all the non-believers who visit your blog, right? -- unless, of course, you chose to look past scripture's authoritarian directive; or you justify the ignoring such a directive by appealing to scripture's lack of clarity on the issue. Do you like how I avoided the term "inconsistency"?
In any event, I suppose it is a moot point at this stage, since your view on this matter seems to still be evolving.
(Just to be clear to Dan and anyone reading along, "evolving" is my chosen (mis?)characterization of his position on this matter, and not a term that Dan has used to describe his position.)
Since it's the case that your view is still in flux, would it be fair to say that this could help explain to all of us non-believers who visit your blog why it is that you are still having something to do with us?
Thanks.
Ydemoc
>>In any event, I suppose it is a moot point at this stage, since your view on this matter seems to still be evolving.
DeleteIt certainly is not evolving as my views need to reflect Scripture and God's plan. So make no mistake here, my reasoning is what may need adjusting, but if Scripture commands it, I adhere to it. My knowledge needs increasing but not "evolving" as it is laid out in front of me. All we have to do is study and honor it.
Hi Dan,
DeleteYes, I thought you might object to my use of "evolving." This is why I used a preemptive parenthetical to make it absolutely clear that it was my term, not yours. And, I do not care (and perhaps you don't either) to get bogged down over my use of my term "evolving" to describe your position. Your firm objection is noted.
I don't know if I will tackle your previous response tonight or not. We'll see...
Ydemoc
Dan is more concerned about punishing "immoral" women than preventing abortions. He also has the "Men's Rights" speech memorized too. Let's hope none of the women in Dan's family stray from the path Dan has approved for them.
ReplyDeleteDan:
ReplyDeleteit certainly is not evolving as my views need to reflect Scripture and God's plan. So make no mistake here, my reasoning is what may need adjusting, but if Scripture commands it, I adhere to it. My knowledge needs increasing but not "evolving" as it is laid out in front of me. All we have to do is study and honor it.
You've claimed before to have a direct pipeline to god that the rest of us don't have, and this pipeline provides you with 100% certainty. Now you claim that your view of god's plan is fallible and will change as you study more. So you've just admitted to being NOT absolutely certain about god's plan.
Which is it?
Whichever one he thinks supports his argument best at the time. Also, the contradiction is totally in keeping with his professed worldview which eschews reason such that contradictions are perfectly acceptable to the Christian.
DeleteThat's the fun thing about religion - life is so much simpler when you can just make stuff up as you go.
Delete>> You've claimed before to have a direct pipeline to god that the rest of us don't have,
DeleteGod revealed Himself to everyone silly. No we do not fully understand God's entire plan because it has yet to be revealed. God did not reveal everything, just certain things. His existence for one. God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exists in the world. THAT has been revealed. What that reason actually is, the details, has not.
If God revealed ALL things then we would be omniscient. No need for us to have such omniscience. Although we will also have such knowledge someday. I trust God to fully let us know everything when He wants to reveal all that to us as 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 says which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that. I will trust Him, and Him alone, until that wonderful day.
D.A.N. said ... (in response to mikev6)
Delete>> You've claimed before to have a direct pipeline to god that the rest of us don't have,
God revealed Himself to everyone silly.
Why would God only reveal Himself to those who exhibit a lack of wisdom or good sense? Is it because they're the only ones gullible enough to fall for the trick or is it because they're lacking wisdom and good sense that they can't distinguish between reality and their own imaginations?
No we do not fully understand God's entire plan because it has yet to be revealed.
So you're not omniscient then?
God did not reveal everything, just certain things.
How do you know this? You say knowledge requires omniscience but you admit to being less than omniscient.
His existence for one.
Are you absolutely certain of this? If so, how, given your admission to being less than omniscient?
God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exists in the world.
What is this "morally sufficient reason"?
THAT has been revealed.
How do you know that when you've claimed that you need omniscience to know anything and yet you've admitted you're not omniscient?
What that reason actually is, the details, has not.
So you have no idea what this "morally sufficient reason" might be but you're absolutely certain one exists because you think that someone calling themselves "God" has told you it does? This is beyond brilliant, utterly absurd, but brilliant all the same.
If God revealed ALL things then we would be omniscient.
And absolutely certain of the source/veracity of the claimed revelation.
No need for us to have such omniscience.
So you don't need to be absolutely certain in order to know stuff? Great, then I know you're wrong.
Although we will also have such knowledge someday.
How do you know this? Lack of omniscience on your part, remember?
I trust God to fully let us know everything when He wants to reveal all that to us as 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 says which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God.
So you don't know, you just think that'll happen based on your interpretation of a Bible verse - an interpretation you can't trust because you deny your ability to reason autonomously.
I certainly am very excited about that. I will trust Him, and Him alone, until that wonderful day.
You'll keep wasting your life waiting for something that will never happen, your loss Dan.
I formulated a somewhat different argument against abortion. I'd love to get some feedback. https://tafacoryideas.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/why-abortion-is-wrong/
ReplyDeleteIt might be worth remembering when you review your argument that women don't just say "Hey, I think I'll have an abortion today." Abortions are generally chosen because the alternatives are worse. Your argument tends to ignore that, and also doesn't really justify why we would make abortions illegal.
DeleteTafacory,
DeleteWell done, well thought out and articulated well. I will add this to the fray. Maybe just repost it. I am hopeful God will bless me with these abilities someday. Nice work.
Mike,
Delete>>Abortions are generally chosen because the alternatives are worse.
Is this your definition of morality? Do you need some examples to show how absurd that really is? Murderering your children is justified when you lose a job. Because struggling with homelessness is worse with children. Complete subjectivity as what "worse" is. That was the EXACT rationality used when Andrea Yates murdered her 5 kids, as she believed they would grow up evil and leaving them to grow up was worse then drowning them in a tub. You're sick. Judgment call like you just introduced is utterly frightening to consider. You are so utterly wrong.
Hi Dan,
DeleteI found some time to reply to yesterday’s response from you. Whew! This is a long one! I’ve had to divide it up into sections.
I wrote: “...if I end up in hell, would you say that it would have been better for me if I would've been aborted?
You replied: “Not at all.”
Hmm.
You continued: “You mean you'd rather your potential mother to spend eternity in hell for the possibility of your atheism,”
This sentence makes my mind spin a bit, but let me see if I can answer it:
Under the scenario we’re talking about, I see no reason why my potential mother who aborted me, could not, in Christian terminology, “Repent of her wicked ways, be saved, and thereby gain entry into heaven.” In fact, for the sake of our discussion, why don’t we assume that is the case: That the mother who aborted me (again, according to your terminology) eventually went on to “repent, and through the God’s grace, was saved and went on throughout her life, loving the Lord with all her heart and mind and preaching the gospel.” This isn’t an unusual scenario at all, is it? Perhaps you even know individuals who have done this very thing -- had an abortion, and then later on repented and became Christian?
In fact, according to Wikipedia, Jane Roe aka Norma Leah McCorvey, the plaintiff in the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade: “...[in 1994] converted to Christianity and expressed remorse for her part in the Supreme Court decision. McCorvey has worked as part of the pro-life movement, such as Operation Rescue. At a signing of I Am Roe, McCorvey was befriended by evangelical minister Flip Benham.[12] She was baptized on August 8, 1995, by Benham in a Dallas, Texas, backyard swimming pool, an event that was filmed for national television. Two days later she announced that she had become an advocate of Operation Rescue's campaign to make abortion illegal.”
(continued)
I realize hindsight is 20/20, but given that my scenario is not at all unprecedented, if my potential mother’s circumstances significantly paralleled Jane Roe’s, would you still then say it would be better for me have gone through life as an atheist, with, perhaps my mother also ending up as a non-believer, meaning that we both, potentially, end up burning in hell, rather than both of us ending up in heaven and being reunited?
ReplyDeleteYou continued: “...rather then you being responsible enough to lock Hell's gates from the inside?”
Given my more detailed scenario, I’m not sure this needs to be addressed.
You continued: “You're a coward to allow your mother to take the fall for your rebellion.”
Like I’ve stated above, what if we both end up in heaven?
I asked: “Or is it better to end up in hell than be aborted?”
You wrote: “YES!!! I guess I love your mother FAR more then you ever will. Sad silly Atheists.”
Well, you may say you that you “love [my] mother FAR more then [sic] [I] ever will,” but in the context of my question, you certainly then couldn’t love me, could you? -- given the scenario that I will go through life without salvation and end up in hell rather than heaven? And even your professed “love” for my mother is suspect, since (as I pointed out above) there is no guarantee that she wouldn’t also end up in hell at the end of her life, also.
I asked: “Also, all those souls that your worldview claims are suffering eternal torment in hell -- do you feel joy or sorrow for them?”
You wrote: “False dilemma fallacy.”
Fair enough, but it was not my intention to limit your choice, but I realize my intention does not mitigate the fallacy, does it? -- kind of like intention doesn’t mitigate the fallacy of the “Liar, Lunatic, Lord” cliche’ -- something Christians enjoy trotting out for use on unsuspecting recruits.
(continued)
You wrote: “The word that comes to mind is frustration, but it certainly is not pity.”
ReplyDeleteSo you feel no pity for those who are in hell. Okay. And I think you’ve touched upon this a little before in one of our exchanges. This is from your blog, Dec 16, 2011 08:47 PM:
--------------------------------------------
Ydemoc wrote: “Would you say that hell is a blessing?” Dan wrote: “Hmm, wow Good question. I would say it glorifies God. I guess I can say its a blessing to those that wish not to be with God for all of eternity. They detest God as it is. It would crawl their skin to see God daily. So for an Atheist, it might be a blessing. For me, Hell would be my deserved punishment for my transgressions. That is me though.”
---------------------------------------------------------
I continued: “And how about me, do you feel joy or sorrow about me?”
You wrote: “Again, it is frustration.”
Maybe I’m making an unwarranted leap here, but why would you feel frustration over something that will ultimately lead to, as you put it, the glorification of your god?
You wrote: “You're disrespectful to our Law Maker and even though your civil disobedience is something I can completely relate to, this not a government we are speaking of.”
Again, but if it all, ultimately, glorifies your god, what’s the problem?
You wrote: “This is the Creator of all.”
Off point, I know, but this is a stolen concept fallacy. Moving on...
You wrote: “Howard [however?] huge difference. Our Creator is trustworthy, fallible man is not.”
So why should I or anyone else believe you or anything you write? (And I’m not trying to be snide.)
(continued)
You wrote: “You're rebelling against the wrong thing here. You see evil around you, we both do, but you blame God and I blame man.”
ReplyDeleteIf I respond to this, I fear it will take me too far afield. Suffice it to say that this, too, leaves me wanting for some Christian consistency.
I asked: “Would you say you are absolved as it pertains to my salvation? Would it be fair to say that your non-responses to questions posed to you on a previous thread are a clear indication that you carry no responsibility whatsoever as it pertains softening the hearts of sinners, so that they are more open to receiving the free gift of salvation?”
You responded: “Yes, it is my position that I play no role in your Salvation at all.”
Is your view here in accordance with scripture? If you play no role in my “Salvation,” what role do you play as it pertains to your faith?
You wrote: “If I were to have such a "power" there would be no such a thing as an Atheist.”
If you had such power, how would you carry making sure that there were no such things as Atheists?
You wrote: “My Mom, and soon my Dad, would be in Heaven if I had any pull in the matter. But I don't.”
I’m curious: If you had such power, is there anyone on earth that you wouldn’t exercise this power on? Also, do you think that every single human being has a chance at salvation... that every single, human being, could go to heaven? Not *is* going to heaven, but could or could have, if every, single, human being that ever existed had repented, in accordance with the teachings of Christianity?
I wrote: “If you find joy in those suffering eternal torment in hell, would you be willing to express this joy at a funeral of one who is damned?”
As a show of courtesy, I will not respond to the last comment. You get the last word. Thanks.
You wrote: “My joy is with God who is glorified and who in spite of you living a life denying His will be done that He, being so Good, honors you to have your will be done to be away from Him. My joy is God giving us freedoms, my frustration is with you using those freedoms to do evil.”
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
Delete>>And even your professed “love” for my mother is suspect, since (as I pointed out above) there is no guarantee that she wouldn’t also end up in hell at the end of her life, also.
Well yes, that is a valid point.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." ~Romans 8:1
The mother, God willing, even after having abortions, sinning, can enter into Heaven. Praise the Lord. That does not mean it is better to risk that, THAN to raise a child that will possibly be an Atheist.
>>Maybe I’m making an unwarranted leap here, but why would you feel frustration over something that will ultimately lead to, as you put it, the glorification of your god?
One is negative and one is positive. Much the same as negative reinforcement verses positive reinforcement. Both are reinforcing the desired position but I prefer light over dark, good over bad, positive over negative. But ultimately yes, you will glorify God in Hell. Maybe it is a selfish position, as I do really like you and your demeanor, to wish to enjoy your company over a cold glasses of lemonade for all of eternity. I hope that does not push you further towards your resolve to be in hell, with that image. :7)
>>Off point, I know, but this is a stolen concept fallacy. Moving on...
Actually, “This is the Creator of all.” is a Proof by Contradiction because of the impossibility of the contrary. If God were false, you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your fallacy. Moving on...
>>Howard [however?] huge difference.
No Howard Huge difference. I made it up. I have been using that meme for years, I believe it started in the military, before their was even an internet, or internet memes. "It is not just huge, but Howard Huge" is my use of it.
>>So why should I or anyone else believe you or anything you write?
You shouldn't!!! Proverbs 3:5-6, John 14:26, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, 1 John 2:27 makes that exact point abundantly clear.
I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.
>> If you play no role in my “Salvation,” what role do you play as it pertains to your faith?
Zero.
>>If you had such power, how would you carry making sure that there were no such things as Atheists?
I would hone my skills as a great used car salesmen, and a dynamic Closer as I already am :7), then seek to "close the deals" Deals being the souls of the lost. You would not have a chance with my persuasion skills.
>>I’m curious: If you had such power, is there anyone on earth that you wouldn’t exercise this power on?
Nope. A mark is a mark. If you have the "cash" I have your "car." As my commercial goes: Marvin's Autos, we get you there!
>>Also, do you think that every single human being has a chance at salvation... that every single, human being, could go to heaven?
Sure does. That is explained by the late great Dr. Bahnsen at length in this post if you desire more. The "cut to the chase" explanation is at 4:30 of part 7.
>>You get the last word. Thanks.
That privilege is for God. He will have that honor.
Thank you Ydemoc. Lemonade?
Dan:
ReplyDeleteAnd an abortion is exactly the same as killing a 3 year old?
Even you have a different standard - I doubt you would propose the government remove a women's uterus if she drowned a toddler, yet you think that appropriate punishment for an abortion. Of course, there are some Reconstructionists who advocate execution for rebellious teenagers, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
And after all this, Dan still has no problem worshipping and holding as the standard for the xian's mythical "objective morality" the same biblegod who repeatedly had pregnant women and children killed!
ReplyDeleteAnd he still thinks that he's "pro-life", just as all religionists do. In fact, that same baby-killing god is their BASIS for their claim to be "pro-life"!
That's all one needs to know about how the religious mind works.
His "pro-life" stance is just so much bullshit.
DeleteAt the same time that he's calling out abortionists as murderers he's also advocating state sanctioned murder for those that have murdered.
He doesn't give two shits about "life" he's only interested in attempting to justify his contradictory belief system.
And just another point to throw out there...
ReplyDeleteShould your God actually exist.
And even if we absolve Him of all the embryo deaths that occur via abortion (not that we should as they are supposedly all part of His plan).
He would still be directly responsible for the murder of somewhere between 60% and 75% of ALL fertilised embryos.
Why do you hold these "members of the human community" as sacrosanct when your own God couldn't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about them?
Forgot about that...good point.
DeleteDude kills baby, Atheist blames God. Yea, that fits. (And the beginnings of a Meme somewhere)
DeleteIt's only when it's done by your alleged gods' command, dipshit. As in the OT. That kind of killing you clowns defend.
DeleteI note that Dan has said nothing about all the embryonic deaths caused or allowed by his god...so. Are all those embryos fully human at conception or not.
DeleteYes, as people die of natural causes without being murdered. Your point?
DeleteMy point, which has sailed over your head as usual, is that your god is at least indirectly responsible. At least in cases of spontaneous abortions, if nothing else.
DeleteWhat about the "sanctity of life" then?
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteDude kills baby,
I specifically pointed out that this was all about the fertilised embryos whose lives AREN'T ended by abortion i.e the ones directly attributable to the actions of your God. I gifted your God a free pass on abortions carried out by humans and you still strawman my argument. I guess that's because you have no valid response to the fact of your God being a bigger abortionist than any human could ever be and that He simply doesn't seem to care about embryos in any way which would support your claimed "pro-life" stance.
Atheist blames God.
Nope, the atheist merely points out that, in your own professed worldview, God is responsible for EVERYTHING. Your attempts to make man responsible for the things you don't like are incoherent. Man cannot do anything other than that which has been planned by God. Man is merely effecting God's plan. God is ultimately to "blame" in your worldview.
Yea, that fits. (And the beginnings of a Meme somewhere)
Fits what Dan? Your strawman argument? It certainly doesn't fit the points that I raised.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteDude kills baby
Except that what really bothers you is that, in your view, it's the woman who does this. I doubt it would offend you as much if men had abortions. After all, you have this weird idea that millions of immoral women are getting themselves pregnant and then hoodwinking the moral and responsible men by having abortions behind their backs. (The fact that you think two people can have sex and one comes out squeaky clean and the other is a slut says something about the distant era your ethics is stuck in.)
What you need to ask yourself is whether your goal is to punish people, or reduce the number of abortions. Overturning Roe v. Wade will punish people, but won't reduce the number of abortions by very much. There are things that will reduce the number of abortions, but you have to be willing to update your ethics and recognize that your moral code doesn't apply to other people in every instance, because some of the things that are effective in reducing abortions will be a problem for you personally.
How sadly predictable that Dan got himself into such a mess....
ReplyDeletePoor Dan, he's clearly gone loopy.
ReplyDeleteHey DAN, question, would you be interested in joining DDO? I notice that Hezekiah deleted his account and I was wondering if you'd be willing to defend your faith in a structured arena.
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested, I could challenge you in the same manner that I challenged Hezekiah. I'd even use the same opening statement.
What do you say?
I have nothing to offer other then what Christ has already said. That and you seem too divisive obviously. You know, since you wish to debate Christians and all. If you wish to debate someone and be exposed for what you really are, then you need to debate Sye on Skype. You can see how Jim and Alex feel after their debates so get ready for facing who you really are, believe, and stand for. It can get ugly as you can see. People tend to get quite defensive afterwords. It gets very difficult to hang on to an absurd worldview afterwords. So try to prepare. :7)
DeleteI seem too 'divisive'? I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I took on Hezekiah, as he used Sye's tactics. Hez then went on a string of debates where he attempted to use Sye's tactics and wound up with something like a 0-10 record at DDO. Sye's tactics are rhetorical and generally only work in verbal debates. Didn't you notice that? Haven't you noticed that he doesn't really have any answers? Even the debate you posted, Sye ignored criticism left and right.
DeleteYou also seem to think that Sye's tactics/argument is coherent, so I would like to take you on as well in a neutral area. You could put up a defense against the arguments I used with Hezekiah and who knows, maybe you'll do better than he did.
As for Sye, I've discussed this on his FB and he has no real answers for me. He blocked me and simply deflects. He is only interested in Skype debates, which I have little interest in. I do not wish to participate in a debate that will only garner Sye money. Nor do I wish to have an edited snippet of a debate plastered everywhere in lieu of a response to a legitimate question I might have. Plus I don't really have the time to commit to such an endeavor.
Your fan-wank about Sye, Alex, and Jim is a distraction. You don't want to debate this in a neutral area, that's fine, but surely when typing this up you had to realize the irony, didn't you? You have a blog dedicated to 'debunking atheists' and when challenged to be exposed, you attempt to hand the ball off to someone who isn't even here. Then you attempt to mock/insult people who are upset with Sye making a profit off of them. By their fruits ye shall know them, indeed DAN. You should inspect your own fruit.
But go on and deflect. You don't wish to defend your worldview - fine, but don't pretend that you've got it all figured out then, as the absurdity of your worldview has been exposed.
^^ Divisive^^
Delete^^ Coward ^^
Delete"You can see how Jim and Alex feel after their debates"
ReplyDeleteYeah, we feel find, having stomped the witless cunt into the ground. Go for it Ph!
'find' should be 'fine'.
ReplyDeleteI sure am enjoying Stan "Debunking Atheists", like Reynold, over at his blog a great deal.
ReplyDeleteYou enjoy it because your brand of apologism looks pathetic by comparison. Take a few pointers from the guy, Dan, just like you did with Sye. Study hard enough, and it might improve your ability to not make yourself look like an ass.
DeleteThough I doubt it.
Yeah, he's doing such a good job eh?
ReplyDeleteSnark. I've posted a reply over there as well as on Alex's blog (for some reason)
Dan, not going to comment on your boyfriend's dismal showing on Reddit?
ReplyDeleteEesh. Well, this is the first of my tripartate reply to Stan. Look over what he says to me before that which I reply to. Or even what he says to the other guys there.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone see any NEW arguments?
Does anyone actually believe that he was an atheist for 40 years as he claims?
No, I don't, Reynold. While I frequently disagree with Stan's analysis on many things, his "atheist for 40 years" claim puzzles me - but I have a hard time dismissing it wholesale. He seems fairly intelligent, so I doubt his claim is similar to the claims made by fundagelicals (ie. "Zomg I was an atheist and loved sin until I found Jeeeeeezus!").
ReplyDelete1. The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community*.
ReplyDelete2. It is prima facie morally wrong to [murder] any member of that community.
3. Every successful abortion [murders] an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.
4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.¹
False.
Premise 1 is false; single-celled entities are not part of the human community. If Premise 1 were false, then:
Premise 2 is false. God commands the Israelites to kill. God destroys cities. God kill people. This shows that it is not wrong to kill "any member of the human community"; to kill some members of the human community is acceptable (if those members of the human community are those members whom God commands to be slaughtered).