This debate is assuming God exists, as well as the following paragraph:
I've frequently heard many christians argue that the reason that evil exists is because of free will. God must give us the choice to do evil, for this is what preserves free will. The ability to choose good or evil.
The earth's rotation isn't directly what causes us to age. Our clocks are based off of one earth rotation (24 hours roughly). But our age would still be measured by the amount of time that has passed as measured by our clocks. Time still moves forward even if the earth's rotation has slowed down, and even if our clocks malfunction.
Wont the child question it in school anyway? I mean most parent dont teach Genesis.
I don't know if most parents teach Genesis per se, but most christian parents definitely do teach their child to believe in god along with x number of characteristics about god that they should believe. I remember questioning it as a child the whole concept of god existing forever. "but what was there before god?" Mom: "God just was always there, forever", I repeated the question several times, same answer.
So what exactly would the question that may hinder him?
Hinder who? And hinder what exactly?
I guess you could say that.
I try my best to keep my beliefs rooted in evidence and fact. Anything that is seriously lacking in evidence, I'll remain skeptical.
It wasn't one specific critique of religions exactly, but mostly the adoption of a more scientific mind set. I became far more evidence based in my thought processes.
Indoctrinate - Teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically
The way I used it, I meant that parents will teach their children their religion and their child will believe it without question.
Absence of evidence can in some cases be evidence of absence. It's not all one way or the other though, it depends on the situation.
But even if it did "validate" christianity along with all the other religions, every religion can't be true. Some of them do contain conflicting beliefs, or numerous gods, etc.
And some people aren't even swayed by evidence. If for example some scenario were to occur where "X" evidence were uncovered proving some major tenet of christianity false, most christians would not believe it or consider it the work of the devil or a hoax etc.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
In some cases it can be. I'll use the spare change example. If you check your pockets for change and find none, this is evidence for the absence of change in your pockets.
There is so far no evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny for any deity so far. If there is no evidence for such a phenomena (deity), and no coherent hypothesis for how one would exist, why believe that such a thing exists? It's not rational or logical.
I don't even feel like discussing this anymore. You just restate your points over and over, and cower behind your legal definitions as if they dictate reality.
I don't even feel like retyping all of the stuff I've written before. I've already refuted all of this.
Keep fighting for fertilized eggs to be recognized as people then. Hopefully one day, when a woman uses the morning after pill and prevents the egg from implanting in the uterus, maybe someone will call the police on her and she'll be locked up in jail for the murder of the fertilized egg/person.
I was formerly catholic until age 18 or 19, when I began researching the critiques of god's existence. I became completely agnostic, and sometime later became an agnostic atheist.
I'm an agnostic atheist due to the complete absence of evidence that supports god's existence.
Well I am a Christian. I was just raised up like that. I think that most athiests have not truly read and attempted to read the bible.
Ironically, reading the bible tends to turn people into atheists a lot of the time. Lot's of atrocious acts in there.
I think most athiests base their reasoning on biblical contradictions.
I'm pretty certain that most atheists base their reasoning on a lack of evidence for a deity, myself included.
i have a problem when Athiests say that that their beleif is the most logical.
From what I've seen, agnostic atheism is the position with the most credible evidence.
I would argue that if somone whated to choose the most logical beleif if would be agnostic (by which i mean science can never confirm or deny a deities existance since there is no clear scientific depiction of God and thus we might not reckonize Him when we found proof)
This type of "pure" agnosticism is impractical. It is special pleading, since this agnosticism only extends towards deities.
I would say that agnostic atheism is the most evidence supported and logical position. While an agnostic atheist will lack belief in any deities, they will know that they don't know for 100% certain. This doesn't mean they're uncertain about their "non belief". Just as a ballpark figure, I would estimate that most agnostic atheists are upwards of 95%+ certain of a god's non existence.
Atheists don't need to prove their side. They're in the default position already. We're all born lacking belief in any deities. Assuming religious parents, they'll typically indoctrinate their child with their religious beliefs.
Saying that atheists need to "prove their side" is like telling people who don't believe in fairies to prove their side as well.
Based off of our current evidence, that is the earliest that some form of fetal sentience can arise, enough to give it the title of "person" at least.
It's not killing as in it's not the murder of a person.
It is killing in the sense that it does die, but it's not a person dying.
I meant killing in the sense of killing human beings. You're still extinguishing that life if you abort the fetus
I don't see it as a separate person though until later in the pregnancy. Not until some form of fetal sentience arrives somewhere around the 20th week of pregnancy.
What could have been, you know?
Individual sperm and egg have the potential to become people too. "What could have been"
How is it not blackmail though?
It's "have a relationship with me. Oh you don't want to? You've got to go to hell then".
My views are backed by science and the laws.
No, your view is certainly not backed by any credible evidence. You claim that they become a person at the moment of fertilization. What science demonstrates this?
I have claimed that you need a brain in order to be a person. The scientific evidence supports this.
what evidence supports this idea that something like you or I can exist without a brain? A legal definition is not evidence, it does not dictate reality.
but is it really blackmail if it was yours in the first place?
My what? My choice?
Nonbelievers come from the standpoint God doesn't exist so the assume God just damns them to hell cause he doesn't care.
I don't think most non believers believe that. I was of the impression that most non believers perceived it as god blackmailing them. "worship me. Oh, you don't want to worship me? That's evil, you have no place in my kingdom", and since the only alternative is hell....it's basically blackmail.
Jesus's entire ministry was about healing the brokenhearted and restoring a relationship with God. Hell is merely a continuation if this.
My question is, why is a relationship with God required? If you do not have a relationship with God, your alternative is hell. Seems pretty harsh.
Lawmakers would completely disagree with that and at the end of the day, legalized abortion is an issue for lawmakers.
Clearly they would, they are lawmakers after all. What I meant by my statement was that a legal definition does not dictate reality. The science behind the issue will help reveal to us the true nature of that reality though. A simple legal definition will not reveal it to us.
The main reason being that a child in the womb (brain activity or not) is the young of the parents who created them. This is especially significant in laws regarding IVF, patent laws (which BAN patents on human beings), paternity laws, etc.
But then we have issues where if a girl gets the morning after pill, which can prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and therefore killing it, she can be tried for premeditated murder. This is ridiculous, when all shes done is killed a single cell. This single fertilized cell has barely more "awareness" or whatever you would call it, than any other single cell in our body.
You are entitled to your opinions and you can even try to change the legal definitions...
Mine are all backed by evidence. Yours just has a legal definition....
It is not a scientific fact.... and as a matter of fact, the legal definitions do not support your belifs / opinions on this.
Whether the legal definitions support my beliefs/opinions is irrelevant to the truth of the matter. My beliefs aren't simply beliefs due to my own wishful thinking. They have evidence to back them up, which is something that not a lot of people can claim, including yourself. A legal definition is not evidence in this case.
As an example of what you sound like:
Person A argues that marriage should be between two consenting adults.
Person B argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman, not to mention the legal definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Please provide evidence that the definition of marriage is between two consenting adults.
The legal definition of marriage should be between two consenting adults.
The legal definition of a person should at least require a brain. Why? Because without our brain, we do not exist.
Do you mind if I change the direction of this discussion?
The entire Judeo-Christian religion is based off the idea you have free will.God can set up rules for you to follow and set limitations but all of these are to try to get you to follow him.
I'm curious what your take is on this exactly. I don't know which religion you subscribe to. What do you think of the idea that we are basically "blackmailed" into "seeking a relationship" with God? Basically, believe in god and worship him, or else.
