At what point are we "beings?" (Page 9): Once again, you avoid answering directly... because you can't. That is unfortunate but expected. Belief is a wonderful panacea but not much of...

JW

Blade_Runner wrote:

This argument is lame in all its aspects.

You must have missed the creation of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and God's warning. (Genesis 2:8-9, 16-17)

There is an extraordinary 12 week Bible study program complete with manual, workbook and videos. This program is simply titled FREEDOM.

Once again, you avoid answering directly... because you can't. That is unfortunate but expected.

Belief is a wonderful panacea but not much of a platform to argue from...

JW

maximus wrote:

Here's a reverse engineering experiment you can ve... (show quote)

My responses are being necessarily abbreviated in the following:

Life would appear to be different things to different living things. To a tree it is an unending conversion of CO2 into sugars with the O2 being expelled as waste during its functional period.

To an earthworm, life is an unending cycling of granular materials to extract what it requires for sustenance during its functional period.

To a fox, life is an unending search for prey during its functional period.

To a human being, life is an unending search for certainty during its functional period.

The only thing all life shares as a commonality is the ability of the organism to function, consequently, life is the ability of the organism to function within its inbuilt parameters.

The distinction between your two bodies is that the one continues to function while the other does not. Again, we arrive at functionality.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

JW wrote:

Once again, you avoid answering directly... because you can't. That is unfortunate but expected.

Belief is a wonderful panacea but not much of a platform to argue from...

What platform do you argue from?

To believe in anything, one must have good reasons. The same is true of faith in something, one must have good reasons to have faith in it. Atheists accuse Christians of "blind faith", a faith in something without reason. As if someone hands you a Bible and says, "Here, this is the Word of God. Believe it." It doesn't work that way. To establish reasons to believe in something, one must approach it objectively, just as a scientist would approach a hypothesis. This is especially important in gaining knowledge of something as great and mysterious as an infinite perfect God.

There are many methods for Bible study and they all have firm foundations in reason--deductive and inductive reasoning, Exegetical analysis, Hermeneutics, linguistics (the Bible is written in three distinct languages), historical, textual analysis, Eisegesis or Isogesis, to name a few.

If you are going to argue for or against something, you must have a firm belief in your position on it.

JW

Blade_Runner wrote:

What platform do you argue from?

...

If you are going to argue for or against something, you must have a firm belief in your position on it.

Nope! I can argue both sides of any argument I engage in. What is required is a adequate understanding of the position you take but even more so, you need to have a good understanding of the other side.

An emotional commitment to your argument is not an advantage but is actually a serious handicap.

I argue to learn and learning is blocked effectively by belief.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

JW wrote:

Nope! I can argue both sides of any argument I engage in. What is required is a adequate understanding of the position you take but even more so, you need to have a good understanding of the other side.

An emotional commitment to your argument is not an advantage but is actually a serious handicap.

I argue to learn and learning is blocked effectively by belief.

Well said

And it has made you an excellent contributer to the discussions on the OPP... (If a bit prickly at times

)

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

JW wrote:

Nope! I can argue both sides of any argument I engage in. What is required is a adequate understanding of the position you take but even more so, you need to have a good understanding of the other side.

An emotional commitment to your argument is not an advantage but is actually a serious handicap.

I argue to learn and learning is blocked effectively by belief.

Do you believe your understanding of both sides of the argument so far is correct?

JW

Blade_Runner wrote:

Do you believe your understanding of both sides of the argument so far is correct?

No. I don't hamper my ability to assess new information by anchoring myself to an opinion. I know what each side represents itself to be but that is quite separate from my point of view which is necessarily temporary in nature.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

JW wrote:

No. I don't hamper my ability to assess new information by anchoring myself to an opinion. I know what each side represents itself to be but that is quite separate from my point of view which is necessarily temporary in nature.

You say you are an agnostic, what exactly is your objective in this discussion? Which side of the argument are you on?

JW

Blade_Runner wrote:

You say you are an agnostic, what exactly is your objective in this discussion? Which side of the argument are you on?

Agnosticism is an admission of ignorance. It is not an opinion. My objective is to learn about how a person goes about learning, how he hurts his ability, or helps, to make his point and how much of his argument is really rational.

Put another way, the argument is a vehicle, not a goal. The goal is to know the arguer, not the argument.

PeterS

nwtk2007 wrote:

The unborn ARE viable after a certain point, with the aid of modern medicine. Viability is one way of looking at it but I think those little brains are actually beings before being born. The question I am asking is at what point is the brain sufficiently developed to be a being.

Also, Roe vs Wade is not actually about abortion, it is about states rights versus what the Feds can use the constitution to decide what is legal and what is not.

States can't legislate our constitutional rights. Women don't give up the right to control their own bodies simply because they become pregnant nor can the states take away their rights to protect a life that isn't viable.

As for a brain--it is always developing some type of awareness. Whether that is a 'Being' is open for debate...

Ricktloml

nwtk2007 wrote:

The question is not when life begins, but when that liife becomes a being. The sprems and eggs are life, which came from life. I'm talking about becoming a being. The "being" resides in the brain, not a zygote.

We simply can not prove when life , or being begins. We don't have the technology or wisdom. Until then is arrogance beyond measure to take a life. And abortion takes a life.

PeterS

JW wrote:

Once again, you avoid answering directly... because you can't. That is unfortunate but expected.

Belief is a wonderful panacea but not much of a platform to argue from...

Define what you mean by Being then?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

JW wrote:

Agnosticism is an admission of ignorance. It is not an opinion. My objective is to learn about how a person goes about learning, how he hurts his ability, or helps, to make his point and how much of his argument is really rational.

Put another way, the argument is a vehicle, not a goal. The goal is to know the arguer, not the argument.

PeterS

maximus wrote:

God gives us freedom to choose what path we want t... (show quote)

Women have had miscarriages long before STD's and drugs came into play and you are aware that healthy women have miscarriages to don't you? Why is it women are always scapegoats for you? Does your god need a female scapegoat to absolve him of any blame?

As for a choice--aren't we taught that god is omnipotent and omniscience with the ability for prophecy? That would mean he would know the fate of a fetus before he even created it. How can he be absolved when he knew the life he created would never be born?

PeterS

Blade_Runner wrote:

When did you convert to Islam?

If one person is convinced of something, or bears witness to it, his version of it can certainly be questioned. When over 2 billion people now living and many millions before them are convinced of something, or bear witness to it, it is a good bet that their perspectives are reliable.

Over 500 people saw Lord Jesus in the flesh AFTER His resurrection.

A good bet based on what? Again, you are playing with a fallacy called bandwagoning or "argumentum ad populum." Since you are someone who has a Masters Degree in English accomplished with a 3.57 GPA you should understand logical fallacies and what they do to our arguments. There is certainly enough historical documentation to believe that Christ existed but there is nothing to document his divinity, rising from the dead, or being the son of god. What we have are 2 billion people who have faith the aforementioned is true but nothing else. Faith does not constitute the truth but hope and nothing more.