Danneskjold

Very interesting. Actually quite convincing as well. My only real question is what makes the claim that God doesn't exist not arbitrary?

Again and again and again I say the same thing because I have yet to be shown evidence that God does not exist. I could be sold on the probability argument, but you would have to tell me what goes into the probability. If it is something that can be used to say God doesn't exist then I will rethink my current position. However, precedent is invalid because I can't think of another situation like this one, and evidence is invalid because there can be no evidence for or against God. That evidence being zero. Both sides have zero evidence in their favor, and zero evidence against them. You say I keep saying that again and again and again, however what I'm saying doesn't seem to have sunk in. Well, the question I'm asking is whether or not abscence of evidence qualifies as evidence of abscence. So I'm still trying to figure that out but no one has answered my question. As for a definition of God, how's this: Quit expecting me to define God. People have been trying for forever. Ayn Rand is the only one that is even remotely close to being right. Sorry for the overall lack of real content to this post, my brain is fried.

I think this is the case because heart and brain activity are what decides if you're dead or alive. Therefore it would make sense to have it decide whether a baby is a living thing, human, or a non-human. As to why I don't know which is the critical event...Well, the obvious reason would be because I'm a 16 year old. Also, I have not given much thought to which one. I am leaning towards brain activity. (week 8 or 9) The three quotes were from: 1)(I believe) One of Fran's earlier posts 2)Your quote talking about how 3) Wikipedia (unreliable, but I verified this one with my science book) definition of life. I couldn't agree with this more. But does its feasibility as law change whether it is or is not ethical? We are debating its ethics, not the possibility of it becoming a law. I realize I have created the assumption that it is and should be illegal and considered murder. I realize now that that is not fully realizable as of any strategy I have seen at this point in time. I believe you're wrong on this one. This is a forum, a place for open debate. We are not deciding the future of people's lives, we are putting our views on the table in hopes of at the most winning supporters and at the least coming out with the benefit of more knowledge. We aren't Congress. We're Objectivist Living. Sorry for the generally inadequacy of response. My brain is fried after my football game.

In the stated case you're probably right. However, the metaphor isn't accurate to the situation. Precedent can be used as evidence. Also, there are numerous other things that could be in the box besides a raisin. So based on the fact that it could be anything in the black box, and that there have been very few raisins found in black boxes in the middle of the desert, you can provide evidence that it is unlikely that there is a raisin in the black box. So let's try another metaphor. Let's say we are talking about death and you say "There are no such things as ghosts" and I say "There are such things as ghosts" and neither one of us have any reliable evidence on which to base our claims. Neither of us has a better chance of being right. Another situation would be if I said "There are aliens living in the universe" and you said "There are no aliens anywhere in the universe" and neither of us had evidence or knowledge of the surrounding universe (inhabitability of planets). Either way it is stupid to take a formalized position because we have a 50% chance of being right having no evidence whatsoever. Note: Both of my scenarios are dependent upon their being no precedent, and no evidence either way. That is the only way in which you can approach the question of God.

I've got my friend reading Atlas Shrugged. With any luck we'll have another person in here soon.

I'm with Judith, but from the opposite angle. People will be convinced this way or that, and I don't believe a truly clear majority with a position based on logic will ever rise. I believe there is one answer but that humanity will never come to a conclusion on it anyways. That's really part of what's fun in topic-creating. A match where both sides have equal points, on the same foundation, and are trying to achieve the same goal.

Well, I'd say that if there is zero evidence for something to exist, I would estimate its probability of existing at zero, not at 50%. Except there is also no evidence saying that there is no God. So you would have to say the probability of there being no God is 0% as well. Seeing as one of them has to be true I would say 50% works quite nicely for both of them. I would rather leave probability out of it completely, however if you insist.

I think my sister has used a few/most of these on me.

The argument for me doesn't lie in reproductive rights, it lies in right to life. I'd post more but I have to go to my next class. Study hall is wonderful.

If something is probable or improbable would be based on evidence for or against something would it not? Regardless of whether or not it was provable, when you figure out probabilities you are weighing evidence that something can happen vs. evidence that something can't. I could be wrong there though. So if you can not provide evidence for either then you can't figure out a probability can you?

We are not talking about "important events". We are talking about which event defines a fetus as human. The logical ones would be brain and heart activity. Well, let's start with eliminating the social worker from your scenario. Let's assume that we, instead of cracking down on pregnant women, crack down on the abortionists. Now, the enforcement of any law against abortion is a problem when it comes to a person aborting their own baby. To that I would say that it's better to let those few go than to create a nanny state. However my brain is slightly fried from Spanish 2 class right now so I'm having a bit of trouble thinking of a solution to many of these problems. I will, however, agree that enforcement would be a problem.

First off I'm sorry for the obscurity of my last post. I was attempting to type it in the fifteen minutes I had between getting home and going to bed. I was typing more than I was thinking which is my mistake. I cannot actually say that "The tree is God, therefore God exists" because I would then have to prove that the tree is God. The existence of the tree is undisputed, the position in nature in which the tree stands is under dispute. I would also have to be the one to prove that the tree was God because I am the one making the claim. I could not agree more with that statement right there. I will remind you once again that I do not believe in God. I am simply stating that there is an equal amount of evidence that there is no God as there is that there is a God. That amount be zero. Apparently we have formulated a new question here. Is abscence of evidence, evidence of abscence? If there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a God evidence that there is no God? Because if it is then Atheism is far and away the most logical choice. If not than they are equally illogical. You can not provide evidence of God using any portion of the above method, however, you cannot provide evidence against God by them either. Therefore the only way that you can say that there is no God is if abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence. That, I suppose, is where Atheism becomes more feasible than Theism. Because if abscence of evidence of God is evidence of the abscence of God then Atheism has evidence. However, if there is an abscence of evidence of no God, that doesn't give evidence of God.

Visectomy for a guy, tubes tied for a girl. Forgive me for blanketing all of those body parts under hair. I figured that attacking one example of something that is alive but will never turn into a human would be enough. Apparently not. If you would like me to take on each example you gave me of a bodily organ, all of which are missing the same thing the hair is, just tell me and I will do so in a later post. However this seems like a painful waste of time. These are the things required to call something alive. A fetus/human has the capacity to do all these things in given time. A kidney, spleen, heart, and such others do not on their own. Therefore those organs you named are not alive. Although the cells that make up these organs are alive, the organs themselves are not in the same way that humans are alive, but their community is not a living entity. Humans are alive because they do have these abilities. I'll respond further later today. For now this is all I have.

Victor, You have just done exactly what I said was possible. To poke holes in a religion. By ruling out Christianity you have left out many other major religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism. Not to mention scientology, if only more people knew that we were all hydrogen bombed at the beginning of the world and had our souls stuffed in volcanoes. But I regress. Amongst other things, this thread was meant to show that God remains undefined. To define him as you wish gives yourself a slight advantage seeing as you can then knock down the strawman that was set up. One of the major problems with Atheism as a whole is that the followers demand a definition of God from a world which is utterly divided on the issue. Think of it like a group of scientists all fighting over...well it really doesn't matter what as long as there are many theories regarding it, none of which are completely proven. They can fight all they want, poke holes in each other's theories in an attempt for their's to rise as the best. However, just because their's may rise as the most feasible theory doesn't mean that there's something that they missed altogether, nor does it prove that theory. I know exactly what you're saying, however I have to disagree that this is a fair representation of the topic at hand. The problem lies mainly in that this was an event, not an entity. If I started out saying, "I did not break into Victor Pross's apartment" when you had never accused me of anything, I would just look crazy. However, if I was to claim that reality doesn't exist would you have to prove me wrong? Or would I have to prove myself right? I am sure that the metaphor I just gave isn't quite a good one, however I must be going to bed and it serves my purpose for now. I'll be online a good bit tomorrow between 11 and 1 o'clock Pacific Standard Time.

On the contrary, Agnosticism (or Apatheism as I call it) is the only one not making the claim. Therefore the burden of proof is on both Atheists and Theists. Atheists are making the claim that there is no God. Theists make the claim that there is. If you start with absolutely nothing and then make claims the burden of proof is on you. Since both sides are making claims the burden of proof is on both. Are there different rules for a positive claim than a negative claim? The way I see it someone saying that there is absolutely no God needs to provide evidence as much as the one saying that there absolutely is. I also agree that there is no "middle ground" between existene and non-existence. What I'm saying is that you cannot prove either or provide evidence for either side. For that matter neither side can ever break a stalemate as far as the argument goes. There is evidence against acts of God, not God himself. There is no evidence whatsoever of God. I'm not claiming that he is in the "middle ground" I'm claiming he either exists or he doesn't and we don't know either way.

I do put Theism and Atheism on equal footing. Both are equally illogical. You're right, just because we cannot disprove God does not make it reasonable to believe in God. It does, however, make it as illogical to completely rule out the belief of God as it does to believe in God. There can be no evidence disproving him, and no evidence proving him.

If that hair that you compare to a fetus is allowed to stay on the woman's head will it grow a mind of its own with cognitive abilities and remove itself on its own? The fact is that they cannot do this. This is a variable which defines the difference between a human-being-to-be and a hair on the human's head. Sounds like half the kids in my suburb. Yes, and for that reason we should all do heroine, LSD, crack, and meth. It's not like we have a future to worry about. Live in the moment, anyone who's decides of their own free will that they are not going to do these things and hold those who do responsible for their own actions is contaminated by the evil Judeo-Christian morals that say we'll be repayed in heaven. Those who want to tie the responsibility of the well-being and condition of the drug user's own mind around the necks of the drug users is either a Christian, follows Christian morals, or has never done drugs. Let's face it, your attempt at discrediting my opinions failed miserably. Who's responsibility would you suggest we tie the burden of the baby around? Sure, we can abort it, but for you to say that we can't hold people responsible for the result of an action they take? Come on. You have admitted it's alive, once you've done that you have to decide whether or not it is human. If the baby is human then you can't kill it. Edit: This post was edited to make it more polite.

It recently occured to me that the ongoing battle of Theists attempting to provide evidence of a god, and the Atheists trying to provide evidnece to the contrary, is more pointless than I have ever even considered it. Theists provide "evidence" of God's existence by shooting holes in science, while Atheists provide "evidence" against God by using science to shoot holes in religion. The comedy of it all comes when both fail. Utterly and completely. You cannot prove the existence of a God by pointing out that science hasn't yet answered every question ever asked. It's illogical to do so. Scientific advancements are ongoing and we are learning more and more about the universe from a secular perspective daily. To say that since we haven't figured it all out yet is evidence that God exists is saying that it can't, and frankly we don't know what science can do. On the flip side, however, Atheists decide to prove the abscence of a higher power by saying that scientific evidence (such as evolution) refutes God. It may refute a religion, but not that there may be a general God that does not interact with the human race. After all, according to both something has to have been there forever. Offer scientific evidence that there is no possible way that a God could have put the object that started the whole chain of evolution in place. It's impossible. So we have Theism which fills holes in a ever growing knowledge of science with a God which can't be proven to exist. Then we have Atheism, which can shoot holes in religion, but offer no scientific evidence about the abscence of a God for the reason that it is impossible to refute. And that, my dear friends, is why this is my Public Address, or PA. If we take this PA and add it to Atheism then we get my new movement: Apatheism. The complete lack of concern over whether or not there is a God for the reason that it is impossible to come to a logical conclusion either way.

As a person born and raised into a predominantly Christian household (mother and sister are christian, father is agnostic) I figured it was about time this thread be revived, this time without the personal attacks. The way I see it, personal attacks are fun to watch but contribute very little to the discussion at hand. If he calls you a bad objectivist because he thinks that you have not duly noted religion as an option, that contributes very little to whether or not Christianity fiction and whether or not it parallels Objectivism. There is no word besides indoctrination that would describe how I was exposed to christianity as a child. For the first years of my life I was forced into church, although at that point my complaint was that it was boring, I was forced to attend a Christian school four three years before I finally got out of the hell hole after getting in a fight with the vice principle, and my sister is known around my entire school as the most devout Christian of the entire student population, more than one thousand people. Because of all this, I have always found the concept of at least a god hard to shake. Also because of all this, I have a good base in knowledge of the ins and outs of the religion. Religion for me has always been more of a guide on how to live. Because I agree with the objectivist way of life, I have ceased to care about the existence of a supernatural being. For that reason I call myself an Apathiest . On the subject of whether or not Christianity is fiction, you will have as hard of a time convincing any christian that Christianity is fiction as you will have convincing an objectivist that Christianity is non-fiction. It's a matter of belief, not facts. Some people use lack of evidence for something else as evidence for God. We call evidence of something evidence against god. Religion assumes because it hasn't been proven that something happens because of science that it is God's doing. Atheism assumes that if someone says "this proves God exists" that if you debunk said evidence you have proven that non-existence of God. In reality both are bad ways of proving whether or not a supernatural being exists. So, while Religious people try and prove that God does everything Science isn't involved in, and Atheists use science to prove what God isn't involved in I remain an Apatheist. You can prove that God isn't involved but you can't prove he doesn't exist. As for parallels between Objectivism and Christianity, there are always the basic morals. No killing, no stealing, etc. Christianity seems to lean more towards altruism, however according to some, (although this may have been an attempt to quell my arguments about their hatred of greed) helping people can be done in a big-business-like fashion such as employing people and bettering their quality of life.

I'm with Blackhorse. There has to be a defined point when something is alive and when something isn't. There are simply more landmarks (heart starts, brain activity, sensory nerves) within the first two months or so than there are in the late months. After the beginning of brain activity, heart starting, and sensory nerves, things are mainly physical, such as growth of limbs. I don't know about you, but I see a slight problem with defining what is and is not alive by the amount of limbs they have. As to the 100% birth control effectiveness that was once again brought up, if you play with fire, you might get burnt, it's as plane as that. If your burn happens to turn into a human being then it is the owner of its own life and you have no right to kill it. As to Judith's question about if I would go my whole life without sex: No, I wouldn't. But I want a kid. I will, however, go until I think that in the unlikely event that I do impregnate a girl I will be able to find a means to provide for it. That means both monetarily and with a stable household. I'm a virgin and proud. Why? Because I'm responsible enough to know I'm not responsible enough to have a kid at age 16. Also because I continue to have sole ownership of my own body. But that's another topic.

So the idea here is that everyone has troubles and B.S. going on about high school. Also, everyone has fun stuff they like about high school, or any other school for that matter. Either way, this thread is where you can let out whatever it is you want to it to be about. Just let out all the fun, or lack there of, that you had. I'll start. Well, this was yesterday actually, but I got my first college recruiting letter for baseball, albeit from a small DIII college. They are still good at baseball as far as DIII goes and it's a start, also I got invited to a "Top 150 Prospects" camp for baseball, and I'm doing well in football and am hoping to play in the semi-final game at state on Friday. On the flip side, my friends and I are fighting because I'm "insensitive" and "intolerant" and though this is has never stopped me from being a good friend to them, apparently it is completely necessary for all their friends to have a bleeding heart.

Jolie or one of the other girls might make an excellent Dominique though. Just thought of that. Probably not Cuthbert, once again she doesn't have enough...I don't know, the best I can describe it is she's too sexy. The girls Rand wrote about aren't the hottest of the hot. They're girls who're pleasing to the eye, yet they didn't display it. Keira isn't my favorite for the role either, but this is a good picture. Here's pictures of the three to give an idea. Who do you guys think would make the best Dominique? ^Knightley ^Cuthbert ^Jolie

I wouldn't say so much that I am forgetting the danger, discomfort, and disfiguration, so much as I would say the life of, what I am convinced is, a living being outweighs the danger etc. As for the it being more dangerous than abortions...well this is just rhetoric I admit, but last time I checked 100% of successful abortions have at least one fatality. And I did mention that it was a benefit, right here:

Saying that people should be allowed to have abortions until contraception is a 100% guarantee that you won't get pregnant is like saying people should be allowed to sue if they play with fire and get burnt. (The metaphor is fire=sex and getting burnt=pregnant, not burn wound=baby. Since the person hurt by an abortion is a third party then I'm going with suing a third party.) There are quite a few good reasons for being pro-choice, that contraception isn't a 100% guarantee isn't one of them. Getting pregnant is a known risk (or benefit) of having sex. If someone chooses to ignore these risks, along with the knowledge that contraception is not a 100% guarantee, then whatever happens is their fault. Adoption is always an option after the baby is born anyway. No woman who has a baby is forced to keep it, I just wish they wouldn't be allowed to kill it before it's born.

Hundred bucks is a little pricy for me. Too bad too. If I was gonna buy one though, I'd ask for an honest characterization of me. Just to see if I liked it. That might be hard though, you'd have to dig up my posts or talk to me a lot to get a correct impression of what I'm like.