Is This Only A Blob Of Cells?...

[Anomaly]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343625624' post='2460158']
Let's think about human behaviour.

So, in your argument against abortion (wanting to make it illegal), you really haven't addressed what would make me want this law. Why would I want to support a law in order to force others how to behave?
I am interested in me, and how society impacts me.
I don't believe in morality (so morality is not an argument that impacts my decision making)
I don't believe all human life is sacred (so the argument of murder or the unborn baby being a human does not impact my decision making)
[/quote]This is the consistent fundamental difference of opinion you hold that puts you in a sub-category of 'atheism'. In fact, you are attempting to jam all atheism into your personal philosophy. That is as mistaken as a theist jamming all theistic religions into the single philosophy.

Your viewpoints expressed here are based on shallow opinions that cannot (and you are failing if you are attempting) to be defined with consistent fundamental principles of why? In essence, you are espousing Pragmatism, which isn't really a full philosophy, but more of a philosophical technique to examine specific questions.

In the instance of you defending a Society's protecting Buhdism, you are defending only for a weak argument that it would protect the status quo. However, the same practicality viewed with a longer goal, it would behoove the stability of society to eliminate all varient thoughts or ideas so that what remains in power and existence are only those who think and act the same. "Right-Thought".

You acknowledged the reality of human nature. You cannot deny aspects of human nature that people do care for each other and want to be cared for when they aren't as able. You are espousing a principle that those who are physically and mentally strong and able enough as individuals or groups to demand protection are the only ones that should be afforded protection in society.
The problem with that is that gays, buhdists, pagans, Wiccans, vegans, and other minority opinions can be justified to be eliminated in societies ans not being needed, desireable, or too much trouble to accomodate.

For your info, that flies in the face of many 'Atheist' philosophies, such as Secular Humanists.
Please provide a single consistent reason 'Why is it okay (or not okay) to kill a homeless person so that you can experiment with your new machete?'
"Why is it okay to kill (or not okay) a terminally ill indigent person."
"Why is it okay (or not okay) to kill a person espousing views disruptive to the status quo of current society?"

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343588525' post='2459984']
The baby isn't inside of me.
I won't force my wife, against her will, into an abortion clinic.
I won't force my wife, against her will, away from an abortion clinic.
[/quote] So you would be ok with your wife having your child chopped or pieces or having its brains sucked out because its her right???? What about your rights as a father? She didn't get pregnant without help.

[stevil]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343657895' post='2460202']
This is the consistent fundamental difference of opinion you hold that puts you in a sub-category of 'atheism'.
[/quote]
Yes, I am an amoralist. Most atheists proclaim to have subjective morality. They label their personal opinions, their personal values as morality. I too have opinions, I too have personal values. Other than me recognising that personal opinions and values are different to morality and not using the words moral, imorral, right and wrong, I am not too different from the "normal" atheist. The vast majority of us are pro-choice with regards to abortion and euthanasia, the vast majority of us are for gay marriage and equality. At least with regards to the atheists I have met and discussed with. It is possible that the Chinese, African and Indian populations don't visit the Atheist forums that I frequent, thus, yes it is entirely possible that my perception of the "normal" atheist is incorrect.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343657895' post='2460202']
Your viewpoints expressed here are based on shallow opinions
[/quote]
Unlike the confused atheist whom stops at the thought of being a moral agent of knowing right from wrong without bothering to define where their sense of right and wrong come from. I go that step further, I attempt to explain it, my thought is with regards to a selfish need to survive. I then use this philosophy to explain the world as I see it, thus far I feel that my explanations have been consistent.

For the atheist whom believes in morality they have many, many problems which most don't even attempt to resolve.
An atheist whom believes in objective morality must either believe that the cosmos comes with a set of moral rules that apply to everything in the cosmos. I don't believe the cosmos is conscious, I don't believe it would care if I was a mass murderer slaughtering people for fun.
For the atheist whom believes in subjective morality, they either believe that the moral ruleset is built into their human DNA, but struggle to explain why us humans can't agree on morality, possibly because all of us have different DNA?
Some atheists might think that morality is a social construct that gets formed by a cohabitating society, but then they struggle to explain why the individuals within society have different understanding of morality.
Some subscribe to emotive morality, I am much more of a thinker than an emotional person.
Anyway, I feel that if you think you have a magical handle of right and wrong and are moral because you want to be good and thus you act morally rather than immorally, I'd have to strongly question your atheism, where does this magical definition of right and wrong come from, who, other than yourself cares if you act right or wrong, whom is it that judges you as a moral agent.
As far as I understand it the cosmos doesn't care, there is no cosmic justice, there is no magic.



[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343657895' post='2460202']
that cannot (and you are failing if you are attempting) to be defined with consistent fundamental principles of why? In essence, you are espousing Pragmatism, which isn't really a full philosophy, but more of a philosophical technique to examine specific questions.
[/quote]
I am a moral nihilist. Call it a philosophical position or pragmatism, call it what you like, But consistent will all living creatures on the earth (except for most of the imaginative humans) I do not claim to believe in or know morality, just as I do not claim to believe in or know any gods.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343657895' post='2460202']
In the instance of you defending a Society's protecting Buhdism, you are defending only for a weak argument that it would protect the status quo.
[/quote]
This is a strawman, never have I made an argument for status quo. There are many things I want to change.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343657895' post='2460202']
However, the same practicality viewed with a longer goal, it would behoove the stability of society to eliminate all varient thoughts or ideas so that what remains in power and existence are only those who think and act the same. "Right-Thought".
[/quote]
I am more concerned with my life right now. I don't want to try to survive that period where everyone wars in an attempt to unify human thought. I am also not the government, not the most powerful, not the most influencial. I don't feel it will be me driving this unified thought, thus I want government to be for an inclusive society, one where people are free to make their own choices, have their own thoughts. I do recognise that government are necessary though and do need to restrict certain choices in order to make society safe, e.g. laws against murder, laws supporting property ownership. Thus I will support those laws.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343657895' post='2460202']
You acknowledged the reality of human nature. You cannot deny aspects of human nature that people do care for each other and want to be cared for when they aren't as able.
[/quote]
I don't deny that humans are social animals that like to interact with each other, we have freindships, allies, lovers, offspring, we have adversaries, enemies and heros.
There is nothing magical about this.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343657895' post='2460202']
You are espousing a principle that those who are physically and mentally strong and able enough as individuals or groups to demand protection are the only ones that should be afforded protection in society.
[/quote]
This is a strawman, I have already pointed this out to a previous poster.


[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343657895' post='2460202']
The problem with that is that gays, buhdists, pagans, Wiccans, vegans, and other minority opinions can be justified to be eliminated in societies ans not being needed, desireable, or too much trouble to accomodate.
[/quote]
I have already addressed this.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343657895' post='2460202']
For your info, that flies in the face of many 'Atheist' philosophies, such as Secular Humanists.
Please provide a single consistent reason 'Why is it okay (or not okay) to kill a homeless person so that you can experiment with your new machete?'
[/quote]
Because impartial bystanders will attempt to stop me, because society will see me as a threat, because government will punish me. I know I have already addressed this. Please read my previous posts.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343657895' post='2460202']
"Why is it okay to kill (or not okay) a terminally ill indigent person."
[/quote]
I am in total support of euthanasia, the individual is better to make the choice rather than a government of politicians.
If you are considering killing a person against their will then my answer to the homeless person applies.
If you are considering killing an unborn baby, then impartial bystanders don't care, society doesn't see the mother as a threat, and the government will not punish the mother. Am I being consistent enough for you?

[stevil]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1343676111' post='2460317']
So you would be ok with your wife having your child chopped or pieces or having its brains sucked out because its her right???? What about your rights as a father? She didn't get pregnant without help.
[/quote]
As a father whom wants to keep the unborn baby but with the mother that wants to abort it, I can strongly feel for the father. It is tough on him. But how often are we finding that the father violently harms the mother in order to save the baby? Thus far this point would not make me support the decision to make abortion illegal.

[stevil]

double post

Edited July 30, 2012 by stevil

[Anomaly]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343678693' post='2460347']
As a father whom wants to keep the unborn baby but with the mother that wants to abort it, I can strongly feel for the father. It is tough on him. But how often are we finding that the father violently harms the mother in order to save the baby? Thus far this point would not make me support the decision to make abortion illegal.
[/quote]
[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343678545' post='2460345']
Yes, I am an amoralist. Most atheists proclaim to have subjective morality. They label their personal opinions, their personal values as morality. I too have opinions, I too have personal values. Other than me recognising that personal opinions and values are different to morality and not using the words moral, imorral, right and wrong, I am not too different from the "normal" atheist. The vast majority of us are pro-choice with regards to abortion and euthanasia, the vast majority of us are for gay marriage and equality. At least with regards to the atheists I have met and discussed with. It is possible that the Chinese, African and Indian populations don't visit the Atheist forums that I frequent, thus, yes it is entirely possible that my perception of the "normal" atheist is incorrect.


Unlike the confused atheist whom stops at the thought of being a moral agent of knowing right from wrong without bothering to define where their sense of right and wrong come from. I go that step further, I attempt to explain it, my thought is with regards to a selfish need to survive. I then use this philosophy to explain the world as I see it, thus far I feel that my explanations have been consistent.

For the atheist whom believes in morality they have many, many problems which most don't even attempt to resolve.
An atheist whom believes in objective morality must either believe that the cosmos comes with a set of moral rules that apply to everything in the cosmos. I don't believe the cosmos is conscious, I don't believe it would care if I was a mass murderer slaughtering people for fun.
For the atheist whom believes in subjective morality, they either believe that the moral ruleset is built into their human DNA, but struggle to explain why us humans can't agree on morality, possibly because all of us have different DNA?
Some atheists might think that morality is a social construct that gets formed by a cohabitating society, but then they struggle to explain why the individuals within society have different understanding of morality.
Some subscribe to emotive morality, I am much more of a thinker than an emotional person.
Anyway, I feel that if you think you have a magical handle of right and wrong and are moral because you want to be good and thus you act morally rather than immorally, I'd have to strongly question your atheism, where does this magical definition of right and wrong come from, who, other than yourself cares if you act right or wrong, whom is it that judges you as a moral agent.
As far as I understand it the cosmos doesn't care, there is no cosmic justice, there is no magic.




I am a moral nihilist. Call it a philosophical position or pragmatism, call it what you like, But consistent will all living creatures on the earth (except for most of the imaginative humans) I do not claim to believe in or know morality, just as I do not claim to believe in or know any gods.


This is a strawman, never have I made an argument for status quo. There are many things I want to change.


I am more concerned with my life right now. I don't want to try to survive that period where everyone wars in an attempt to unify human thought. I am also not the government, not the most powerful, not the most influencial. I don't feel it will be me driving this unified thought, thus I want government to be for an inclusive society, one where people are free to make their own choices, have their own thoughts. I do recognise that government are necessary though and do need to restrict certain choices in order to make society safe, e.g. laws against murder, laws supporting property ownership. Thus I will support those laws.


I don't deny that humans are social animals that like to interact with each other, we have freindships, allies, lovers, offspring, we have adversaries, enemies and heros.
There is nothing magical about this.


This is a strawman, I have already pointed this out to a previous poster.



I have already addressed this.


Because impartial bystanders will attempt to stop me, because society will see me as a threat, because government will punish me. I know I have already addressed this. Please read my previous posts.


I am in total support of euthanasia, the individual is better to make the choice rather than a government of politicians.
If you are considering killing a person against their will then my answer to the homeless person applies.
If you are considering killing an unborn baby, then impartial bystanders don't care, society doesn't see the mother as a threat, and the government will not punish the mother. Am I being consistent enough for you?
[/quote]Thanks for the explanations. You had me concerned, giving us atheists a bad rap by making us all seem amoral.

I guess we differ in how we feel we need to (or can't) defend a moral or ethical position. Not everything people value can be objectively measured and defined. Especially when it comes to human interaction and society. Amoralist or Objective Atheists ignore and/or dismiss the realities of human behavior and interaction.

If you claim to be strictly an Objective Atheist, then there are objective reasons why not allow abortion that have been pointed out.

I don't disagree that there is NOT a cosmic morality that is embeded in our DNA or carried in a quark. But just because we can't read moral writings with an electron microscope, we still can rationally conclude standards of behavior, right vs wrong, and develop a set of guidelines for morals.
Hence: Human life is to be protected and is not defined by usefullness to society. That is the foundation that equal protection is given to all people, independent of their opinion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or developmental stage in life. It also protects human life from being defined as worthwile depending upon religion or theist beliefs. Such as a Jew determining that Hindu's are worthless and can be killed because Jewish God doesn't love them like he loves Jews.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Anomaly

[Anomaly]

Cosmically caused Double Post .....

Edited July 30, 2012 by Anomaly

[stevil]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1343681374' post='2460373']
But just because we can't read moral writings with an electron microscope, we still can rationally conclude standards of behavior, right vs wrong, and develop a set of guidelines for morals.
Hence: Human life is to be protected and is not defined by usefullness to society.
[/quote]
I’ve had a discussion with a person (atheist) whom claimed belief in objective morality before. Based on logic and reason, or as you put it “rationally”

I don’t think that position holds water.
Logic is meaningless without factual premise with which to extrapolate conclusions from.
Reason or rationality are just descriptive words pertaining to logic.

With regards to defining “morality” from logic you need to define some factual premise and goal.
In order for the derived “morality” to be objective, everyone has to agree with your premise and goal. Problem is that people don’t.

You have stated “(presumably ALL) Human life is to be protected” as your goal.
This is not my goal. So I therefore reject your “objective” morality.
You either then take the stance that your objective morality isn’t objective because Stevil disagrees with it, or most likely you take the stance that Stevil is wrong, that there is something wrong with me, an abnormality such that I can’t fathom the truth in your stated objective morality.

The previous person (atheist) I debated this with was of the view that Kant’s philosophy was what defined objective morality. You and him are in disagreement, I am in disagreement with both of you.

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343625624' post='2460158']

So what happens if we remove laws protecting unborn babies from their mothers?
Some unborn babies die. People don't fight each other, people continue going to work, life goes on, society survives.

[/quote]

You failed to address the last half of my post.
Your definition of a stable society is one where "normal people" don't have to get violent. Your idea of law is one that prevents violence. But you are being faced with a society where the normal people [i]are[/i] violent. The law is[i] not [/i]preventing violence. By your own definition, our society is unstable and the law has failed.

No, abortion is not violence that concretely affects you in the here and now...any more than taking away laws regulating mandatory education would concretely affect you in the here and now. There are various degrees of decay in society. Just because 50%+ of the population aren't getting shot in the street this very second, doesn't mean a society is stable. The idea that one person or group of people is worth only what another thinks they are--the idea that feuls abortion on demand--is an idea that leads to the death of society. We have adopted that mentality. We have adopted instability. You can keep going on about the obviousness of it; we aren't stupid. It doesn't have to be obvious. It is still violent. It is still unstable. It still harms society.

By your own definitions, the law has failed.

[Tally Marx]

double post

Edited July 30, 2012 by Tally Marx

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343678693' post='2460347']
As a father whom wants to keep the unborn baby but with the mother that wants to abort it, I can strongly feel for the father. It is tough on him. But how often are we finding that the father violently harms the mother in order to save the baby? Thus far this point would not make me support the decision to make abortion illegal.
[/quote]

Maybe because doing violence to the mother would kill the baby, anyway?
That also may be why you aren't seeing that Pro-"Life" violence you keep saying you need to see.

I know fathers who felt so bad over their girlfriends' abortions that they killed themselves. Is that violent enough for you?

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343685791' post='2460404']
I know fathers who felt so bad over their girlfriends' abortions that they killed themselves. Is that violent enough for you?
[/quote]
No, sorry it is not.
Because it doesn't impact me, I am not going to enforce my will over others.

I am not a god, I am not an enforcer of morality. I am not a judge to judge people's lives against a belief in morality and their adherence to that.
If there is a god, I will leave that responsibility to it.
Instead I will live my own life, rather than control others', if their actions impact me, I will speak up, otherwise I will mind my own business.

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343687465' post='2460412']

No, sorry it is not.
Because it doesn't impact me, I am not going to enforce my will over others.

I am not a god, I am not an enforcer of morality. I am not a judge to judge people's lives against a belief in morality and their adherence to that.
If there is a god, I will leave that responsibility to it.
Instead I will live my own life, rather than control others', if their actions impact me, I will speak up, otherwise I will mind my own business.
[/quote]


I can respect that.
Just don't argue that abortion on demand is justifiable by the purposes of the law.
You think abortion should be legal because you don't care if it is or isn't. That doesn't have anything to do with the purpose of the law, and everything to do with your own apathy.

[stevil]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1343688636' post='2460423']
I can respect that.
Just don't argue that abortion on demand is justifiable by the purposes of the law.
You think abortion should be legal because you don't care if it is or isn't. That doesn't have anything to do with the purpose of the law, and everything to do with your own apathy.
[/quote]
I am against government overstepping their bounds and taking choice away from the independently capable adults of society. I will not support law to control people on matters that do no impact my survival or freedoms. I do not desire a Nanny state, why would I give the government that kind of power?
In my view, law is the cohesive glue that keeps society functioning, it allows us to cohabitate together despite our differences, it is not for the purpose of ensuring we live a righteous life. I like diversity, I like being able to exercise my own "free will". Why do so many desire so fervently to remove "free will" from society, from humanity? Especially the religious, is not "free will" believed to be a special gift from your god?

[Annie12]

it would not be a nanny state for it to determine that a human being in the womb should be protected. That is called...wait for it... wait for it...EQUALITY!!!!!

No matter what laws are in place everyone will still have free will. if a person decides to steal a cookie after they were told not to, they still have that capability to do so. Free will can not be taken away.