Well, at least you took all religious groups into account when you wrote that painstaking analysis.Kubanator said:
A bit of a philosophical type of question....(2 cents welcome)
- Thread starter shadowstriker86
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Person to person, opinions will change. I don't think my life has any more or less meaning than my religious friends, though. (I'm atheist).
Atheists have never gone on crusades for their 'belief'. And we also tend to be more rational, at least when it comes to making ethical decisions, rather than relying on someone from centuries ago to do that for us.
Sorry about the short rant. I'll try and keep it to myself next time. OT: I'd say that religion doesn't matter on this matter, it would be how the individual interprets life. If people interpret it as I do (bearing in mind this is only the average human, not brilliant genii or people who actually do some good) then humanity is a bunch of hypocritical nobodies who are just trying to invent their own importance. We do more harm than good, and for the most part, we're stupid and irrational. I don't really like the way that our species is turning out. You might have noticed. Of course if the individual is interpreting life as an innocent, then they'd probably think that we're all nice people, and we'd never try to hurt anyone in a million years...
Well it seems I lied about keeping rants to myself.
Sorry about the short rant. I'll try and keep it to myself next time. OT: I'd say that religion doesn't matter on this matter, it would be how the individual interprets life. If people interpret it as I do (bearing in mind this is only the average human, not brilliant genii or people who actually do some good) then humanity is a bunch of hypocritical nobodies who are just trying to invent their own importance. We do more harm than good, and for the most part, we're stupid and irrational. I don't really like the way that our species is turning out. You might have noticed. Of course if the individual is interpreting life as an innocent, then they'd probably think that we're all nice people, and we'd never try to hurt anyone in a million years...
Well it seems I lied about keeping rants to myself.
About nine months if you prevent the woman from getting an abortion.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Besides, there's protection that's effective something like 99% of the time, for people who really don't want to have kids. There are ways to not have kids that don't involve the destruction of fertilized eggs. And let's not forget adoption. Or even the abstinence that you mentioned.
This basically. Someone who believes that all living things are merely specks of dust on a rock suspended in a void, and therefore are ultimately irrelevant, may identify themselves as an atheist, but so may someone who considers every life precious solely because this is the only life we can ever have. Just as a religious person may consider this life irrelevant because everyone will get what they deserve when they eventually die, but another religious person may consider every life precious solely because God lovingly crafted ever life and gave every life a purpose. So the answer is neither. OP your statement on abortion is off topic and the issue it concerns has started many pointless flame wars on this site.Inverse Skies said:
Suffice it to say I was thinking of a religion which promises resurrection to Earth and eternal life thereafter. Yet another reason why the question is too broad.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
I maintain however, that you can't compare one type of love to another.
I disagree, you can't compared it like that, because the parents don't seize to exist if they lose that one child. And you can't love life, the same way you can love a child, a child is another person, someone you can talk to, and help grow, you grow attached to that person, you don't grow attached to life, you ARE attached to life, and not by love or affection, but by existence. If you lose you're child you feel sorrow, and pain, but you'll still be there.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Lose your life, and you feel sorrow, and pain, and possible everything else as well. You'll feel everything up until you die, and then you wont feel anything, ever again, you seize to exist, it's over, Done.
Life is like a lamp, that if broken, kills you. You're gonna value that lamp pretty much, unlike a person who thinks that the lamp cannot really break, or thinks he's gonna get a new better lamp if it breaks.
Yea I will have to go with athiests. To an athiest this is it so make the best of it, to a religious person its just like 'yea its ok but soon I go to paradice'.
Because they become people?Cheeze_Pavilion said:
I guess this ultimately just comes down to whether or not a person believes that potential life has rights or not. Obviously they don't from a legal perspective...
Because the genetic information in a 'fertilized egg is unique. When the sperm and egg unite, you are essentially fusing half a clone with another half a clone and creating a new entity. killing sperm or eggs isn't bad because they are (essentially) clones of the person in question. Its only in the fusing that they become something new.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
However, i don't attribute complete human rights to a fetus until the fetus begins synaptic activity, i would give it half rights or maybe some kind of 'now seriously think this through now because in a little while it's going to have full rights...
wow one of the only threads were a poll would actually be relevant and there is none.shadowstriker86 said:
can i ask you what memories are? are they images? sounds? if so these memories must be collected. then by your logic what would happen if someone was born without any of there senses? they would not be able to collect new experinces but at the same time may display a personalty all to there own. Its not just your memories...its your imagination as well.Valate said:
two of my favourite quotes:
It is often said that men are ruled by their imaginations; but it would be truer to say they are governed by the weakness of their imaginations.
Walter Bagehot (1826-77), English economist, critic. The English Constitution, ch. 2 (1867).
Obviously the facts are never just coming at you but are incorporated by an imagination that is formed by your previous experience. internal Memories of the past are not memories of facts but memories of your imaginings of the facts.
Philip Roth (b. 1933), U.S. novelist. The Facts, opening letter to Zuckerman (1988).