Majority of Americans Identify as "Pro-Choice" Instead of "Pro-Life"

Page 11 of The correlation between religion, political party and views on abortion. circa 2006. Religion, Politics Inform Americans' Views on Abortion Advertiseme... 166 comments | 5260 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #151

    Join Date
    Apr 13
    Location
    Hunkered Down in the Arena Awaiting Corbin-Knox Central: WWIII
    Posts
    8,978

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoozYoDaddy View Post
    And a follow up. What do you require as proof of the existence of God? Is scientific evidence the only thing you believe in?
    While I don't have the time just now to go in to what all I believe science suggests about how we got to where we are, I would suggest that, yes, scientific evidence is the only evidence there is. If it isn't science, it isn't evidence .It's wishful thinking. Sorry.
    Advertisement

  2. #152

    Join Date
    Oct 06
    Posts
    1,812

    Quote Originally Posted by MayfieldFan View Post
    Pretty bad dodge there. You challenged SF to disprove God. I think it can be done, but you have to define the parameters of God. God not the same thing to all people. If you really want to do this, tell me what you believe God is. The questions I asked are above. We can go from there. If you don't want to answer them, that's cool too.

    What do I believe in? Lots of things. God is not one of them though.
    Ok, To me God is the Creator and all powerful, my Savior. In order, yes, yes, yes, no and I believe it is an interpretation of his word. Go ahead, disprove it.

  3. #153

    Join Date
    Oct 06
    Posts
    1,812

    Quote Originally Posted by Science Friction View Post
    While I don't have the time just now to go in to what all I believe science suggests about how we got to where we are, I would suggest that, yes, scientific evidence is the only evidence there is. If it isn't science, it isn't evidence .It's wishful thinking. Sorry.
    What theory do you beleive has irrefutable scientific evidence to explain our existence on earth?

  4. #154

    Join Date
    Apr 13
    Location
    Hunkered Down in the Arena Awaiting Corbin-Knox Central: WWIII
    Posts
    8,978

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoozYoDaddy View Post
    What theory do you beleive has irrefutable scientific evidence to explain our existence on earth?
    I don't believe anyone would say any theory has irrefutable proof but there are piles of evidence that strongly suggest a scientific explanation and not one born of superstition , fable, and wishful thinking. We go where science leads us. If there is evidence tomorrow that improves upon what we have today(which often happens in science), then we go in that direction. If science finds evidence of your space nanny, then I'll be the first to chat him up.

  5. #155
    MayfieldFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 14
    Posts
    1,105

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoozYoDaddy View Post
    Ok, To me God is the Creator and all powerful, my Savior. In order, yes, yes, yes, no and I believe it is an interpretation of his word. Go ahead, disprove it.
    So "yes" on God intervenes in our affairs, God does miracles, and God is just. "No" on the question that God does not hide his presence and the Bible is an interpretation of his word. (Just to recap)

    So a God like that should be very easy to detect. He does intervene and he does do miracles and he does not hide his presence. I will steal from popular website at this point, but will link to it below. So why doesn't God heal amputees? I am not saying he has to heal every amputee, but just on the percentages alone, every once in a while God, if he exists, would be miracle-growing an amputee a new arm or leg. It is explained much better here:

    Additionally a just God would not let so many children die of starvation/poor nutrition each year. The numbers vary, but the best estimate is that about 3.1 million children die each year from starvation or poor nutrition. That is inconsistent with a just God that intervenes in our affairs.

    Now I know you will say "that doesn't disprove it" And then the rationalizations will come. The idea of an intervening just God can't be reconciled with reality. Reality disproves that type of God. The only way one can continue to believe is to either ignore reality or engage in a series of ever-increasingly-ridiculous explanations that conflict with reality, each other, and the bible to try to somehow reconcile God with reality.

    Our whole world lends itself to the same type of questions. Take marriage. When Christians marry, there are tons of prayers at the ceremony, usually in a church before God. When the marriage starts to go off the rails, they usually pray, sometimes they talk to their clergy, and more prayers go up. And yeah, sometimes the answer is no, but if God only helped a tiny fraction of Christian marriages, then there would be a discernible difference in the divorce rates for Christians. But there isn't. Does the intervening miracle working just God not care about marriages? Makes zero sense.

    God doesn't help Christian marriages out because there is no God. God doesn't feed starving children because there is no God. God doesn't heal amputees because there is no God.

    God is disproved every day. But there is a difference between disproving God and someone holding on to rationalizations.

  6. #156

    Join Date
    Oct 06
    Posts
    1,812

    Quote Originally Posted by MayfieldFan View Post
    So "yes" on God intervenes in our affairs, God does miracles, and God is just. "No" on the question that God does not hide his presence and the Bible is an interpretation of his word. (Just to recap)

    So a God like that should be very easy to detect. He does intervene and he does do miracles and he does not hide his presence. I will steal from popular website at this point, but will link to it below. So why doesn't God heal amputees? I am not saying he has to heal every amputee, but just on the percentages alone, every once in a while God, if he exists, would be miracle-growing an amputee a new arm or leg. It is explained much better here:

    Additionally a just God would not let so many children die of starvation/poor nutrition each year. The numbers vary, but the best estimate is that about 3.1 million children die each year from starvation or poor nutrition. That is inconsistent with a just God that intervenes in our affairs.

    Now I know you will say "that doesn't disprove it" And then the rationalizations will come. The idea of an intervening just God can't be reconciled with reality. Reality disproves that type of God. The only way one can continue to believe is to either ignore reality or engage in a series of ever-increasingly-ridiculous explanations that conflict with reality, each other, and the bible to try to somehow reconcile God with reality.

    Our whole world lends itself to the same type of questions. Take marriage. When Christians marry, there are tons of prayers at the ceremony, usually in a church before God. When the marriage starts to go off the rails, they usually pray, sometimes they talk to their clergy, and more prayers go up. And yeah, sometimes the answer is no, but if God only helped a tiny fraction of Christian marriages, then there would be a discernible difference in the divorce rates for Christians. But there isn't. Does the intervening miracle working just God not care about marriages? Makes zero sense.

    God doesn't help Christian marriages out because there is no God. God doesn't feed starving children because there is no God. God doesn't heal amputees because there is no God.

    God is disproved every day. But there is a difference between disproving God and someone holding on to rationalizations.
    You are correct. You have disproved nothing. But I respect your right to disbelieve. Ours is an imperfect world and a lack of perfection is not proof that there is no God.

  7. #157

    Join Date
    Oct 06
    Posts
    1,812

    Quote Originally Posted by Science Friction View Post
    I don't believe anyone would say any theory has irrefutable proof but there are piles of evidence that strongly suggest a scientific explanation and not one born of superstition , fable, and wishful thinking. We go where science leads us. If there is evidence tomorrow that improves upon what we have today(which often happens in science), then we go in that direction. If science finds evidence of your space nanny, then I'll be the first to chat him up.
    So what refutable theory do you hang your hat on?

  8. #158

    Join Date
    Oct 06
    Posts
    1,812

    Quote Originally Posted by Science Friction View Post
    I don't believe anyone would say any theory has irrefutable proof but there are piles of evidence that strongly suggest a scientific explanation and not one born of superstition , fable, and wishful thinking. We go where science leads us. If there is evidence tomorrow that improves upon what we have today(which often happens in science), then we go in that direction. If science finds evidence of your space nanny, then I'll be the first to chat him up.
    I would bet that if you were in true, mortal fear for your life, maybe being eaten alive with cancer, you would be chatting him up on a regular basis.

  9. #159
    capt278's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 08
    Posts
    4,320

    Quote Originally Posted by MayfieldFan View Post
    So "yes" on God intervenes in our affairs, God does miracles, and God is just. "No" on the question that God does not hide his presence and the Bible is an interpretation of his word. (Just to recap)

    So a God like that should be very easy to detect. He does intervene and he does do miracles and he does not hide his presence. I will steal from popular website at this point, but will link to it below. So why doesn't God heal amputees? I am not saying he has to heal every amputee, but just on the percentages alone, every once in a while God, if he exists, would be miracle-growing an amputee a new arm or leg. It is explained much better here:

    Additionally a just God would not let so many children die of starvation/poor nutrition each year. The numbers vary, but the best estimate is that about 3.1 million children die each year from starvation or poor nutrition. That is inconsistent with a just God that intervenes in our affairs.

    Now I know you will say "that doesn't disprove it" And then the rationalizations will come. The idea of an intervening just God can't be reconciled with reality. Reality disproves that type of God. The only way one can continue to believe is to either ignore reality or engage in a series of ever-increasingly-ridiculous explanations that conflict with reality, each other, and the bible to try to somehow reconcile God with reality.

    Our whole world lends itself to the same type of questions. Take marriage. When Christians marry, there are tons of prayers at the ceremony, usually in a church before God. When the marriage starts to go off the rails, they usually pray, sometimes they talk to their clergy, and more prayers go up. And yeah, sometimes the answer is no, but if God only helped a tiny fraction of Christian marriages, then there would be a discernible difference in the divorce rates for Christians. But there isn't. Does the intervening miracle working just God not care about marriages? Makes zero sense.

    God doesn't help Christian marriages out because there is no God. God doesn't feed starving children because there is no God. God doesn't heal amputees because there is no God.

    God is disproved every day. But there is a difference between disproving God and someone holding on to rationalizations.
    It's so easy to see the "tolerant" posters really aren't tolerant of anyone that believes different than them.

  10. #160

    Join Date
    Aug 03
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    14,545

    Want to get under his skin? Just tell a certain non-believer that his stance is just a big matter of faith as my belief is. Neither one of us can prove our stance. Therefore it's a matter of faith rather then proof.

  11. #161

    Join Date
    Oct 06
    Posts
    1,812

    Faith in science or faith in God. God wins every time.

  12. #162

    Join Date
    Jan 03
    Location
    Have love in your heart and an ax in your hand. Hug and swing discriminately- Jim Wendler
    Posts
    15,356

    You know why logical discussions of abortion gets nowhere? B/c they become religious debates. Make it an Equal Protection argument, you will get further. Cruel and unusual punishment, if ever there was a violation of the eighth amendment, it is here. If it has a heart beat, it is alive, and should be protected.

  13. #163
    FarBeyondDriven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 06
    Location
    Slide a piece o' da' porter. Drink side, run da' java. Hey lookie here. I can dig grease 'n chompin' on some butter and draggin' through the garden.
    Posts
    4,829

    Our resident atheists seem to put a WHOLE lot of time worrying about something they claim does not exist.

  14. #164
    oldgrappler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 14
    Location
    NKY
    Posts
    3,782

    Quote Originally Posted by Science Friction View Post
    Oh they both can have a choice in the matter. But what if they disagree? I say in case of a tie, mother's choice wins . I'll side with the mother every time, whatever her choice may be.
    Okay, we agree. When it is truly a tie then the mother's choice wins. A tie is when the pregnancy will cause the mother to die. It's either or--when the choice is between the life of the mother or the life of the child--nothing less.

    That is a tie. A tie is not when the baby has to die so the mother won't have stretch marks (purposely insignificant example to make the point because this is what the current law allows).

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    Time for my age-old BGP question for those who say that an abortion is taking an innocent life like murder does.

    We put murderers to death or in prison for a long time. Are you ready to put a mother in prison?
    Quote Originally Posted by Science Friction View Post
    Really good question, Clyde. I posed the same question before on this very board years ago. For those who believe that abortion should be illegal and believe it to be just as much murder as any other, what punishment would you set for a woman committing this "crime" ? Hypothetically, if Roe v. Wade was overturned and abortion became illegal, what sentence should be given for a woman who had an abortion and was convicted? Twenty Five to life, no parole? Death?
    On one occasion when this was previously discussed I pointed out that we already have a history of law regarding this scenario. Abortion was illegal before 1973. What were the laws covering this then? I got a lot of argument then about "We don't need to look at the past, etc." Okay, if that's how you feel... but it seems logical that if we are wondering what we should do in the event the abortion laws are overturned, it would be informative to see what was done previously.

    The best info I could find about that before was that the abortionist was held accountable for the abortion not the mother, who was also viewed as a victim. The sentence was not similar to that of a murderer but I do believe they lost their medical licence for life if it was performed by a doctor.

    The idea that we would criminalize and imprison thousands or millions of young women is not based on reality. But, again, this is only a suggestion. If you wish to know what to do with those who have an abortion in a circumstance where abortion is outlawed, there is precedence already for that in our nation. Why not at least look at it and inform yourself and the rest of us BGP-ers?

    BTW, regarding whether a prolife stance requires religion: one of the prominent leaders in the early prolife movement was an atheist doctor who had performed many abortions. He changed his mind about abortion but remained an atheist. Can't recall his name right now.

    Finally, the atheism vs theism debate is off topic. But the statement that there is no rational reason or scientific evidence to believe in God ignores the volumes that have been written for and against this topic for along time. The rational arguments for the existence of God are very well developed and any debate between a knowledgeable theist and a knowledgeable atheist on this topic that I have seen has not gone well for the atheist. Scientific evidence is harder to come by because I am not sure science is able to measure a Being without a material body. That is due to a limitation in the kinds of questions that science can answer more than a limitation in the Supreme Being . The "either or proposals" made to what constitutes evidence in this thread fall short of being conclusive examples. Perhaps there is scientific evidence already presented that is being ignored. Atheist philosopher Antony Flew thought so and became a theist, though not of the Biblical variety.

    For anyone who has honest questions, tons of material has been written and defended on these topics.

  15. #165
    mcpapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 05
    Location
    Home of a proud papa
    Posts
    61,803

    Quote Originally Posted by MayfieldFan View Post
    So "yes" on God intervenes in our affairs, God does miracles, and God is just. "No" on the question that God does not hide his presence and the Bible is an interpretation of his word. (Just to recap)

    So a God like that should be very easy to detect. He does intervene and he does do miracles and he does not hide his presence. I will steal from popular website at this point, but will link to it below. So why doesn't God heal amputees? I am not saying he has to heal every amputee, but just on the percentages alone, every once in a while God, if he exists, would be miracle-growing an amputee a new arm or leg. It is explained much better here:

    Additionally a just God would not let so many children die of starvation/poor nutrition each year. The numbers vary, but the best estimate is that about 3.1 million children die each year from starvation or poor nutrition. That is inconsistent with a just God that intervenes in our affairs.

    Now I know you will say "that doesn't disprove it" And then the rationalizations will come. The idea of an intervening just God can't be reconciled with reality. Reality disproves that type of God. The only way one can continue to believe is to either ignore reality or engage in a series of ever-increasingly-ridiculous explanations that conflict with reality, each other, and the bible to try to somehow reconcile God with reality.

    Our whole world lends itself to the same type of questions. Take marriage. When Christians marry, there are tons of prayers at the ceremony, usually in a church before God. When the marriage starts to go off the rails, they usually pray, sometimes they talk to their clergy, and more prayers go up. And yeah, sometimes the answer is no, but if God only helped a tiny fraction of Christian marriages, then there would be a discernible difference in the divorce rates for Christians. But there isn't. Does the intervening miracle working just God not care about marriages? Makes zero sense.

    God doesn't help Christian marriages out because there is no God. God doesn't feed starving children because there is no God. God doesn't heal amputees because there is no God.

    God is disproved every day. But there is a difference between disproving God and someone holding on to rationalizations.
    I have read (maybe on here) that all of us have rejected many gods. Some have simply rejected one more than others have.

Top