One of the difficulties in discussing the topic of God is that different theists define God in different ways. Pantheists may define God as “the entire universe” while Deists may define God as an entity who created the universe but afterword left it alone. Different monotheistic traditions may variously define God as loving, or strict or even “jealous”. I am ignostic (not the same as agnostic) in the sense that I believe before any rational discussion of the existence of “God” can begin, we need to define terms. By God, do you mean “the entire universe”? It would be foolish of me to deny the existence of the entire universe. Do you mean a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Do you mean the deity described in the Torah as “I am that I am”? What characteristics do you ascribe to God? Before I begin this debate I want terms defined.
What pro-abortion crowd? There is no such thing as pro-abortion. There is pro-choice but that’s hardly pro-abortion.
The problem with putting restrictions on abortion, as we have seen, women will get abortions one way or another. This may include oral solutions or make shift surgery. The number of recorded deaths as a result of makeshift abortions is proportionally small, but how many people have to die before it is wrong. This is simply unacceptable.
I am not pro-abortion, as in if I’m in a situation where there is an unborn child involved, I would do everything possible to make sure the child is born. But I am also pro-choice, as in if someone wants an abortion I’m not going to ask questions, it’s their choice. I’m not going to push my moral or ethical beliefs on others. That’s rather the point.
If someone who’s “pro-life” wants to do something, adopt a child. Do something to support their position or STFU. Seriously. If they are unwilling to do so, their opinion on what others to do is worthless. But I would respect someone who has moral convictions who actually will follow through. If the lifers present adoption as a viable alternative to abortion, they’d be doing their community a great service.
Nothing wrong with it, it’s just my personal favorite position. And it’s not discussed as often as it should be IMO.
Indeed; I was just prepared for another “you mean agnostic, lol?”.
As the last two pages show, Max is now officially a troll.
/thread
Not entirely relevant, but too tempting to resist [:P]
Why does this even matter?
Into how many pieces can you split that hair?
None; there are definite distinctions between the two terms.
OP craved attention, methinks?
No, you were utterly defeated.
The only evidence that can be shown points to a design, and intelligent “ancestry” to nature, not a god.
You cant just assume it to be wrong. You need to prove it, which is entirely the point a skeptic would make.
And what you say athiests dont say, most do. Have you listened or discussed things with many atheists?
While there are a few who would like to purge religious beliefs from the freedom movement (which is completely contradictory to their stance), you’re encompassing a broad philosophy comprised of individual ideas into a general term representing a general philosophy observed by an arbitrary population of people. It’s a straw man.
Please try harder at not being an imbicile.
I know that many of you having your pet failed theories dismantled with logic and reason is frustrating. I won’t rehash the arguements in the abortion and agorists threads here.
Several of you have asked for evidence of God’s existence. So first we should clarify what constitutes evidence. Generally, there is witness evidence and physical evidence. Witness evidence is human observations and experiences. Physical evidence would include all what most people would consider evidence related to scientific avtivity or investigation. There is lots of witness evidence to God and to God’s activities. There is very little if any physical evidence that is scientifically verifiable that would conclusively prove the existence of God solely on a scientific basis.
Some of you will now think, aha, since there is no scientific evidence then you can’t prove God exists. Nonsense, we use witness evidence all the time to prove the existence of or to explain events. Sometimes we believe the witnesses and sometimes we don’t. A good example is the sinking of the Titantic. There is no scientific evidence that shows the Titantic struck an iceberg. There is a lot of witness evidence that the Titiantic struck an iceberg. I sincerely doubt most of you think the Titantic being struck by an iceberg is a myth because it is based on eyewitness testimony.
It is reasonable to say you don’t find the witnesses to God’s activities credible. It is not reasonable to say that something of which you confess have no knowledge is impossible to exist. That is why the atheist ideology is not logical. It is not surprising that many of the atheists also support the inconsistent abortion arguement and on this forum the illogical agorist strategy.
I await the hysterical repsonses. Let’s try just this once for those of you (pro-abortion/pro-agorist crowd) who oppose my arguements to actually present some of your own, or at least articulate what exactly you think is incorrect with the arguement I am presenting.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
And several of us have asked you to first define what god is.
No there isn’t; there are only stories. Look: I can say that I witness the little green elf on my shoulder making it rain, and the rain is evidence for the elf. But you wouldn’t buy that. So why should I buy your “witness” evidence, especially when there are so many conflicting witnesses and different gods that they believe in? Surely you’re not going to special plead…oh wait. You are, aren’t you?
How about this: how about you actually define god and show that it exists. If you can’t, then I suggest shutting the heck up.
What I asked for, before I debate this, is a definition of God. What is God? What properties does God have? Without a definition of God no rational debate can even begin.
Edit: 
Knight_of_BAAWA got here first 
Yes, and it is not reasonable to believe in hearsay. Especially absurd hearsay. So, where’s the evidence ?
Argumentum ad populum
Fallacy of composition and proof by example
False attribution and fallacy of the undistributed middle
Hasty generalization and a red herring
Ad hominem
Well, as soon as you start presenting some logically valid arguments I’ll get right on that…
@ maxliberty: you fail.
JUST MAKE A FRICKIN ARGUEMENT ALREADY!!!
How about the giant hole in the Titanic, and the general acceptance that icebergs exsist?
Also, your witnesses are contradictory. Religion is faith. That doesn’t make it a bad thing, it just makes it not based on reason.
I predict that Max will claim “victory” no matter what occurs. Perhaps after another victory, he’ll let us lesser forum dwellers in on What Is To Be Done?
Even if you find the so-called witnessess credible, that doesn’t help your argument. There are no purported witnesses to “God”, are there? There are people who claim to have witnessed various events which they (and you) interpret as acts of God; but of course there are “witnesses” to that in just about every religion, and at most one of them can be right in their interpretation!