should we revive the old abortion thread, create a new one, or continue here?
If you would revive it and link it here, I'd gladly continue there
'till then:
[quote]I disagree. Like I've said countless times, I believe sentience can't exist as a manifestation of an immutably-governed universe.
People believe in god but that doesn'ty make it true[/quote]
Oh, I forgot... In a discussion of speculation and personal thoughts, "I believe" should NEVER precede an argument; I should just state everything as fact! Ya...
And I have provided my evidence, which you personally haven't refuted yet. I just figured repeating it for the 5th time would be redundant.
It is the mother's choice as she is the one who has to carry around an unwanted baby for 9 months, possible lose her job and have to go through giving birth all for sa baby whom she doesn't want.
If you're just going to throw the "mother's burden" argument out there, as if it counters our arguments, then it should hold as a reliable argument even if we're correct about everything else... otherwise it'd assume that you're correct and not build on your position against us at all.
So, we (Vesper and I) think that the fetus is a life. Therefore, you're saying that a person's right to not be burdened for 9 months outweighs another person's right to live... that makes no sense, so that argument is kaput.
And a sperm and an egg have the potential to grow into a scientist but god kills billions upon trillions of those all the time.
A sperm has no chance to become a human. Neither does an egg. Not until they combine is the creation, a fertilized egg, a physical being that is (or, according to you, will become) a human.
And she could always go to another country where they have logic and rationality and are pro-choice. As in not a country where stupid superstitious people in funny hats somehow have power for some reason.
Thanks for the random opposite glorifying and slander, really great argument style. It really builds your position to imply we're not logical and rational and to outright state that we're dumb, superstitious, and dogmatic.
Just so you know, I don't associate myself with any church, nor am I superstitious, nor am I stupid. But, by all means, keep resorting to stupid arguments, they tarnish your valid points and kill your credibility.
Final word in this post:
If, as you believe (or, as I assume you believe... I can't remember whether you've posted on this issue, but it seems you're on this side), consciousness is merely the byproduct of a mechanical brain that is learning, then wouldn't a brain-driven moving fetus be learning and be conscious? On average, that's at nine weeks into development. For three months after that, that creature can legally be killed. Think about that.
Now, on to sentience, the main topic of this thread... Oh, wait, "Christianity FTW"... Aw, whatever, sentience is more interesting:
It seems your completely denying the mechanics of how the brain works here.
No, just extrapolating from what I know. Though I am denying YOUR ideas of the mechanics of how the brain works.
[quote] Or so you claim. Any reasoning? Perception is a very different term from, say, sensory electrical impulses, so I'm gonna say no.
What's the difference? I put my finger on a key on my keyboard I can feel the key, that's just an electrical impulse in my nervous system being interpreted in my brain. That touch is among the other senses I use (all of which are just signals from my sensory organs being interpreted in my brain) to show me that key is there, makes up my perception of the key.[/quote]
The difference is philosophical. To you, that electrical signal is a perception. To me, the electrical signal alerts your consciousness which perceives it. All your evidence says for certain is that there is an electrical signal and a perception that correlate with each other; So, your evidence supports both.
There is possibly a difference with which parts of the brain are more active to retrieve information gathered one way verses another, but I don't really see your point here.
My point is that it is conceivable that not all memory is physical.
Despite the fact we have measurable physical effects that could just as easily go towards explaining what is causing these reactions?
Explain, please. Are you saying we have made a drug that makes people truly happy?
[quote] I disagree. Like I've said countless times, I believe sentience can't exist as a manifestation of an immutably-governed universe.
So you've said. I don't think your correct. I find it rather silly to jump to the conclusion that it's because of magic.[/quote]
Some say silly... others say visionary! No, jk, ignore that please. Well, it's silly to you, but I find it the most plausible explanation based off of what I know.
That's my point, just because it seems like it's not following the rules doesn't mean it isn't.
But in a case where a concept can't coexist with "following the rules", then that means it doesn't.
I don't recall denying that at any point. I do recall saying we shouldn't fill our gaps in our knowledge with "God did it" or in your case perhaps "magic land did it".
Well, I'm sorry, but you're believing in something without even providing a hypothesis as to how it works. At least my theory has some posit as to the dynamics and effects that cause it.
Neither can most humans.
BA-ZING!!! LOL that was a great response :P
[quote] Don't bring this up please, it's moot. Your argument can still be valid without it, so don't throw in stuff that doesn't add. This is like saying murder is okay b/c people die of natural causes anyway.
Respect
[/quote]
Thank you
Again, I continue to be impressed by your reasoning ability. I don't agree with everything you believe, but your arguments are articulate and actually make sense
Tho you never, as far as I read, adressed this:
First person is you, second is me:
[quote] So far I have seen that His words are different: "For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Jn 6:40, and more. He did only say Hell about evildoers. If you have objections, I'd like you cite or link a verse that you object. The Gospel is pretty big to do a search on the fly.
It took some searching, but I sort-of found one: Beginning of Matthew 22. It's a metaphor, God's kingdom is like a banquet. He first invited the good, but they didn't come. He then invited everyone, and some still ignored (non-Christians) and others (sinners) did worse and killed the kings [king's] servants who were telling of the inviting. He murdered them (the sinners; ie. sent them to Hell) and then invited everyone else again.
Everyone came "But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes [ie. had not acknowledge God's invitation... again, nonbelievers]. 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless. Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are invited, but few are chosen."
To me, this seems to state that there is a horrible fate awaiting nonbelievers, and that just seems wrong :/[/quote]
