Should atheists be allowed to serve in the US military?

[Archaeopteryx]

I agree that you cannot automatically assume that something is right because the majority agree with it. But when you use other forms of supporting evidence together they can then establish that you are correct or at least more than likely on the right track. So along with the majority position that people are taking on killing for example which is that we shouldn't chop the heads off people to make a point like ISIS. Or hack innocent poor people living in the mountains to death because they dont agree with you. Most people including the majority of Muslims will not agree with this or do it. The representatives of the Muslim communities have come out and stated that they do not agree with this extreme behavior and do not support what ISIS are doing. So along with the majority opinion we have actions and life styles which are also opposing. One side the minority are acting radically and killing innocent people. The other side the majority are not doing this and living a good and peaceful life. So the other supporting evidence is their behavior. Which behavior do you think best says what is the good and right thing to do and what is the wrong and bad thing to do when it comes to life being precious and killing. I think it speaks for itself.

Well they do. Both the Catholics and myself believe that Life is precious and you should not kill. Abortion happens to be one of the things that go towards making life precious and these can only be done under certain justified situations which are rare. We both believe in living a good spiritual life. Helping others, not sleeping with other peoples wives. Not practicing sexual immorality. Not being greedy, selfish, prideful, abusing your body with alcohol or drugs and there are more but you get the drift. If the Catholics happen to have a different meaning or reason for doing something minor which doesn't change those morals then I see nothing wrong with not having to go along with them. Like you said they may happen to believe in not eating meat or wearing a green hat on fridays. This is not a moral but a practice that maybe related to their culture , location or race or even something that they have practiced for many years. But it doesnt change their moral position. These are differences we all have in life as we are diverse people.

Based on your reasoning, you should be a Catholic because the majority is right.

You have twisted what I have said. I said if another religion doesn't happen to mention it in what they say doesn't mean they disagree with them. You are not seeing the three important words here mention and doesn't disagree. They dont disagree with the Catholics and I never said they didn't agree that abortion was wrong. I simple said they may not mention it the way Catholics do. But as I said which you also left out. If you would ask them then they would certainly say that abortion was wrong. They have to if they agree that life is precious.

No, they don't. Many Christians believe that life is precious, but they do not consider abortion a sin. Here is a list of churches that support abortion rights to a much greater degree than the Catholic Church [1]. You don't have to look far to find Christians who are pro-choice - simply search CF.

But sometimes some religions focus on certain things more than others. Like some may be protesting about abortion with signs. But others even though they also agree that abortion is wrong may not wish to do it that way.

And yet others may not view abortion as sinful at all.

Wait a minute your having an each way bet here. You almost stated a justification for allowing abortion in some cases which is still keeping the same moral stand that abortion is wrong but making certain allowances for specail cases. In this sense no one is changing any morals and they both agree that abortion is wrong.

No, you've misread what I've written, yet again.

The word stays the same, in that they both claim to value life as sacred, but the ethical message is different. In one case, the message is against abortion. In the other, the message permits it under specific conditions or has no injunction against it at all.
​

One may see that some situations can allow a women to have an abortion like in a medical situation that may be causing the women's life to be at risk. But to then take it to the point of saying it has no injunctions against it at all is another way of saying they disagree and believe abortion is OK. That is not what is going on. They all agree abortion is wrong in the first place.

No, that is flatly false. Some Christians don't view abortion as morally wrong. Others view as permissible only under specific circumstances. In either case, the ethical message is different.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, it means that they added a third choice of ignoring determinism. It's actually rather dishonest.

They are being dishonest? You claimed that most of them are hardline determinists and yet it is they who are being dishonest?

 

[dogs4thewin]

I say yes Yes to homosexuals ( not that I am here to promote that lifestyle as that breaks CF rule, but rather I believe that such things as religion or sexual preference should keep an otherwise qualifying person to do a job. What does religion have to do with a person's ability to preform a supposedly entirely secular job.

 

[RDKirk]

They are being dishonest? You claimed that most of them are hardline determinists and yet it is they who are being dishonest?

Umm, while we're speaking of honesty, please quote my post where I said most are "hardline determinists."

 

[Chany]

On free will-

Most professional philosophers are compatablists, so they believe in free will and determinism. Hard determinists are the smallest portion, but only a percentage below libertarians, or that free will exists with no determinism in regards to actions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Umm, while we're speaking of honesty, please quote my post where I said most are "hardline determinists."

The post wherein you claim most don't believe in free will. A statement which turned out to be wrong. Rather than acknowledge your error you needlessly accused philosophers of being dishonest.

 

[PsychoSarah]

once upon a time but it is very much turning into a religion now where people must agree with other athiests.

Atheists who agree with one another on other issues beyond the scope of atheism alone forming groups is not a sign of any consensus in philosophy between atheists.

 

[RDKirk]

The post wherein you claim most don't believe in free will. A statement which turned out to be wrong. Rather than acknowledge your error you needlessly accused philosophers of being dishonest.

If you get into some depth of discussion where philosophers are not given the "out" of ignoring determinism, most atheist philosophers do agree that there is not a true state of free will. In fact, it's more often Christians who insist on free will (although I will assert that the Bible as well denies free will).

No, I'm not going to let a single faulty and slanted poll change what I know from serious study.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You try to follow along. That does not make it wrong
When will you actually read what is written. You are clearly ignoring other parts of christian beliefs to keep repeating this. Unless you are going to address them you are just endlessly repeating garbage.

I never said you didn't know anything about christianity. Seriously you need to read better what I said rather than reading what you want to see.


but once again your position requires double standards. You can not talk about reality if you can not discern what is perception and what is not. It is the exact same argument you are using against Steve. It applies to what you have said here too.


well if you did not mean it you shouldn't have said it. There were christians before there was a bible.

You're missing the point entirely, i brought up the possibility of Steve never doing wrong as a means of justifying his claim. I never said that he said he never did wrong, I never said that christians claimed to never do wrong...it was a purely hypothetical possibility. The reason I said it was because Steve thinks god guides his morality and atheists are guided by "worldly" things. Since he can't show that god guides his morality, or that he acts any different from the atheists he claims are guided by worldly things...then there's no reason to believe that he isn't guided by worldly things as well. He can make the claim all he wants but without some means of backing it up, it's worthless.

Once again, you'll need to point out these christian beliefs if you want me to address them, I'm not going to play a guessing game with you or withdraw my claim.

We can perceive reality though. Suppose I shoot you. You've got a bullet in your chest, that's reality. The reasons why I shot you, whether you deserved it or not, whether it was wrong or right of me...that's perception. We can strip away opinion and arrive at reality if we choose to. Some people clearly don't choose to.

Its not a matter of "I shouldn't have said it" you just misunderstood and jumped to conclusions. There may have been christians before the bible was written, after all it was passed along orally before then...but that's hard to say for sure.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I have never said I dont make mistakes. The mistake your making now is that you are doing my thinking. I make mistakes and sin but because I have the spirit of God in my life it makes it harder to sin. You get a God conscience which is always shinning light on the dark areas of your life. Anything from outright sin to character flaws which can cause me to sin or take me away from being a better person and doing Gods will.

The main way we communicate with God is through the holy spirit. It is more than coincidence and is confirmed to us by many things that will happen for good and by it confirming the will of God. Someone could say how do you know. Well it is more than thinking some voice in your head that you have mistaken for God is talking to you. Normally that would be something you hear about like someone thinks this like David Koresh. This is an extreme example but anyone who is deluded would normally have certain characteristics and it will show. It would lead to them getting into situations where they trip up and end up going down a wrong path and getting in some sort of trouble. Because they are deluded and not being in tune with themselves. Just because you have God in your life doesn't mean you lose yourself.

But at the end of the day you are right in a way. Christians should stand out and show that they have a life that is Christ like. The bible says you can tell a tree by the fruits it bears. So a Christian should bear good fruit that is God like. These are the fruits of the spirit which are love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Cross references: Galatians 5:22 : Mt 7:16-20; Eph 5:9.

There is a time and point where a person who is being transformed from a sinner to a person having Christ in their life may go through hard times. They wont let go straight away and may even relapse. But if they continue to let go and let God they will begin to change and people will notice. The changes can be great and completely transform a person inside out and across the board. But a person can be transformed fairly quickly as well and it depends on the situation and their openness to God. They may have tried many other ways and succeeded for a time or just kept failing. But if they hand over to God he will do the impossible where all else failed. In the end this world can look and feel that its the right way but its not. Only God can truly change us and save us from sin and death.

My perception does not require me to know what others think. I believe as a believer I can have greater perception about my world and the things in it. Because I am not just restricting it to this world or putting it into a box to have limited views. I believe there is a spiritual realm and it has an influence on everything. They say that what we verbally say is only 5% of what we are really feeling. So body language makes up a big part of communication. You can get more info about a person from the things they dont say and the way they act and react. But you are now putting words in my mouth and saying that I think this or believe that. I have never said I think I know what people exactly think. As you will recall I said that we can assess a lot of what is going on from how people act and react. That psychology and Psychiatrists use methods to do this all the time. This can be done with the ink blot tests which can give insights into how people think even when they themselves might be out of touch with reality. But for someone who is big on saying that I claim to know what others thing you are doing a lot of my thinking.

Since you and Dag seem to have a hard time comprehending what I'm saying, I'll keep this short and simple...

You do bad as well as good...wonderful. So there's no reason to believe your claim that you get your morals anywhere different from the atheists who get theirs from "worldly" things (as you put it)? If there is, then let me know, if there isn't...then my original point stands. For all practical purposes your morals come from the same place as everyone else's.

You're now claiming you can't read minds...that's a step in the right direction. Now you're saying you can use psychology and body language to tell what people are thinking. I'd say you can guess, but you can't know, is that fair? Especially when we're speaking about a topic that millions and millions of people disagree on the morality of...you certainly can't witness the body language of all of them, nor can you attempt to analyze them psychologically.

So when you say that "we all get our morals from god" (which does contradict your earlier statement about atheists) you're willing to admit that's just your personal belief and in reality it certainly doesn't look that way?

 

[TheDag]

Not so. If governments make decisions that don't reflect the majority opinion, that doesn't mean that that opinion wasn't achieved the way I described. I'm sure there are many such examples. For instance, whenever Britons have been polled in recent decades, a clear majority have expressed that they feel the re-introduction of capital punishment would be morally acceptable - yet successive governments have refused to do so. Remember, we were talking about how moral codes form, not government policies.

Then answer the other question I asked as well which you avoided. You instead keep insisting this is right. In this response here you have acknowledged that it is not always a majority which is what was originally claimed. The majority of society decides on this.

 

[TheDag]

Based on your reasoning, you should be a Catholic because the majority is right.

It is a bit rude to respond like this after a person has said no it is not just because the majority think so. It is very rude after you have had a go at a person for not reading what you wrote and then you choose to ignore what they write.

 

[TheDag]

I say yes Yes to homosexuals ( not that I am here to promote that lifestyle as that breaks CF rule, but rather I believe that such things as religion or sexual preference should keep an otherwise qualifying person to do a job. What does religion have to do with a person's ability to preform a supposedly entirely secular job.

depends on if it really is a entirely secular job. An example is teaching. While one thinks of it as entirely secular if it is a christian school then often part of the job description is to uphold christian beliefs and values as well as teaching. So in a public school then yes it is a purely secular job but in a christian school there is more to it. While many non-christians could keep to a majority of christian beliefs and values can they keep them all if they strongly disagree with one or two?

 

[TheDag]

You're missing the point entirely, i brought up the possibility of Steve never doing wrong as a means of justifying his claim. I never said that he said he never did wrong, I never said that christians claimed to never do wrong...it was a purely hypothetical possibility. The reason I said it was because Steve thinks god guides his morality and atheists are guided by "worldly" things. Since he can't show that god guides his morality, or that he acts any different from the atheists he claims are guided by worldly things...then there's no reason to believe that he isn't guided by worldly things as well. He can make the claim all he wants but without some means of backing it up, it's worthless.

Once again, you'll need to point out these christian beliefs if you want me to address them, I'm not going to play a guessing game with you or withdraw my claim.

No you claimed that because Steve sometimes does the wrong thing then it is proof he is wrong. Simply put you are ignoring part of the story. I'm not asking you to play guessing games but you and others expect me to take your word on certain beliefs yet you won't take my word that there is more to the story. Once again this is double standards. Nobody is asking you to just accept Steve's claims that morals are guided by God. I am just asking you to not talk about things when you don't understand them in the same way Steve has been told that by people in this thread. Consistency in approach and treatment is reasonable is it not?

You have now changed that to there is no reason to believe he gets his morals from God. That is different to what you first said. Perhaps you did not explain yourself well at first. That happens sometimes but it is different to what you actually said.

We can perceive reality though. Suppose I shoot you. You've got a bullet in your chest, that's reality. The reasons why I shot you, whether you deserved it or not, whether it was wrong or right of me...that's perception. We can strip away opinion and arrive at reality if we choose to. Some people clearly don't choose to.

Sure on some things it is easy to strip away perceptions. On others it is not so easy. Just using an example where it is easy is not evidence. People can ignore facts when determining reality. Sure that does not change reality but how does one strip away those perceptions when one refuses to acknowledge the perception is there. You can't.

Its not a matter of "I shouldn't have said it" you just misunderstood and jumped to conclusions. There may have been christians before the bible was written, after all it was passed along orally before then...but that's hard to say for sure.

Garbage. You said it was only because the bible we have knowledge of our faith and that we would not if there was no bible. You have acknowledged that people passed on these stories orally. So that is one way it can be done. You can't really say the bible existed before then as while some of the books in the NT were considered scripture by that point some were only decided upon at the time the bible was formed.

So when you say that "we all get our morals from god" (which does contradict your earlier statement about atheists) you're willing to admit that's just your personal belief and in reality it certainly doesn't look that way?

or is that just your perception of reality?

 

[stevevw]

Based on your reasoning, you should be a Catholic because the majority is right.

[FONT=&quot]Why is that. Catholics are Christians and so are baptists and so is the salvation army, Mormons, protestants, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, seventh day Adventists and so on. They all believe in the same God and that Jesus Christ is Hid Son who was sent to die on the cross for the sins of all and save us. So as far as I understand these are all similar in beliefs and morals. So it doesn't really matter which church you belong to as this is just like the team you follow. They all play the same game by the same rules and believe in the same game but they all have different colors and emblems.

[/FONT]

No, they don't. Many Christians believe that life is precious, but they do not consider abortion a sin. Here is a list of churches that support abortion rights to a much greater degree than the Catholic Church [1]. You don't have to look far to find Christians who are pro-choice - simply search CF.

Your clutching at straws here. In the list of pro choice in which you are saying may support abortion or dont think its a sin the first one that I checked is not saying this at all. Their actual position is they give some leeway to a women making a choice to have an abortion under certain special situations. But the writers have said this amounts to them saying they support pro choice which is misleading. So I would say that you need to go through and check what each one is saying. But this is what the first one says on the list that is suppose to support pro choice.
[FONT=&quot]The[/FONT][FONT=&quot] position of the American Baptist Churches:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The General Board of American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. adopted a statement in 1988-JUN, and modified it in 1994-[/FONT][FONT=&quot]MAR[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. It recognizes that no consensus exists within the denomination concerning abortion access. They did agree that they opposed abortion "as a means of avoiding responsibility for conception, as a primary means of birth control, and without regard for the far-reaching consequences of the act." They condemn violence and harassment directed at abortion clinics. They feel that physicians should be able to opt out of performing abortions without sanctions and discrimination.[/FONT]

So the bold section is another way of saying they only support abortion under certain situations which need to be justified by certain conditions. So they are qualifying their position and hold firm to the view that abortion is not good in the first place but maybe done in some limited situations. This is exactly what I have been saying that the actual moral of abortion is not good and it goes against the value that life is precious. But when some have a different position it isn't changing the basic moral value it is simply making allowances for some to do it under certain situations. So the moral value is not changing at all its just being compromised.

some of the organizations on this list dont seem to be very religious or at least a cross between some sort of religious affiliation and secular association. I would have to look into them in more detail to see what they actually believe. But there are many strange so called religions out there. Even some groups that can believe in free sex can be classed as a religion and this goes completely against the religions I am referring to which believe in God and Jesus His Son.

They also have some misleading statements. Such as there are two groups of organizations. But they have little points referring to them. The points dont specify that they are against abortion but merely state that they support that women's health is maintained, In situations where abortion is acceptable that women's health is maintained. Now they are implying that these groups support abortion but at the same time they are saying in situations where abortion is acceptable. That sounds like they are qualifying when and it can be done and when it cant. So as you can see its all very misleading or hard to qualify.

Even so there are very few organizations on that list who out rightly support abortion as a good moral if any at all. They all state that there needs to be some qualification as to when an abortion should be done, when an embryo is life or not which then takes the issue of killing out of the equation altogether.

And yet others may not view abortion as sinful at all.

Ah so you throwing this in as a MAY not view abortion as a sin at all. NO that is also misleading. I notice that you add this as a little after thought. Non of them say that abortion is not a sin and imply that abortion is good. They all have some qualifications about when and why it can be done which shows they still respect the importance of not being able to have an abortion at the drop of a hat. They all regard life as still highly precious and that is the moral value we are talking about.

No, you've misread what I've written, yet again.

The word stays the same, in that they both claim to value life as sacred, but the ethical message is different. In one case, the message is against abortion. In the other, the message permits it under specific conditions or has no injunction against it at all.

But which one is it. That little bit you've added at the end "OR HAS NO INJUNCTION AGAINST IT AT ALL" makes a big difference. This is just legal speak for saying that a person is able to have an abortion without having any thing stop them fro doing so. So any objections from a moral point of view are taken away and cant be used to stop the action. There is no ethical message its all about legal rights.

The rest of the statement that says that in one case they are against abortion or they will only allow it under specific conditions I agree with. They both maintain the value of the moral and only allow certain situations to justify and compromise that value.
​

No, that is flatly false. Some Christians don't view abortion as morally wrong. Others view as permissible only under specific circumstances. In either case, the ethical message is different.

I dont know what you mean by the ethical message. Is that the same as the moral value. Ethics are to do with standards of conduct so they are specific in what are the standards and what is acceptable and what is not. You can be sacked from your job for unethical behavior. So its a bit different to morals as in someone can be immoral but not be breaking a ethical standard.

But with a moral value such as life being valued as precious and sacred for example then there will be certain things that will go against this. Killing is one of them. Now some people think abortion is killing and some dont. But this comes down to their interpretation of what is life and when it occurs. So if they deem it not life then there is no breach of a moral in the first place because there is no life. But if they do then abortion becomes an act of ending a life which will go against that moral value. But they can justify certain situations that will allow compromises to that value. These will be things like the mothers health or maybe even in cases of rape and where the embryo is damaged. But these are not breaching the moral value because they are considering other matters where maybe more important considerations come into play.

But as far as some Christians dont view abortion as ethically wrong this is something I disagree with. If we have just established that they cant view abortion as good and not wrong with their morals apart from certain conditions. Then a persons ethics should also reflect they morals. Their standards of ethical behavior should be in line with the moral values they have.

 

[Euler]

Then answer the other question I asked as well which you avoided. You instead keep insisting this is right. In this response here you have acknowledged that it is not always a majority which is what was originally claimed. The majority of society decides on this.

I'm not sure which question you think I'm avoiding? I've never run away from a question that I think I could answer, so maybe you'd like to repeat it?

If it's "where do morals come from?", I think I've addressed that. I observe that they have come about as a combination of people empathising with the suffering of others, combined with an ever-increasing realization that the 'good' of the individual is often secured through ensuring what's 'good' for the community.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No you claimed that because Steve sometimes does the wrong thing then it is proof he is wrong. Simply put you are ignoring part of the story. I'm not asking you to play guessing games but you and others expect me to take your word on certain beliefs yet you won't take my word that there is more to the story. Once again this is double standards. Nobody is asking you to just accept Steve's claims that morals are guided by God. I am just asking you to not talk about things when you don't understand them in the same way Steve has been told that by people in this thread. Consistency in approach and treatment is reasonable is it not?

You have now changed that to there is no reason to believe he gets his morals from God. That is different to what you first said. Perhaps you did not explain yourself well at first. That happens sometimes but it is different to what you actually said.


Sure on some things it is easy to strip away perceptions. On others it is not so easy. Just using an example where it is easy is not evidence. People can ignore facts when determining reality. Sure that does not change reality but how does one strip away those perceptions when one refuses to acknowledge the perception is there. You can't.


Garbage. You said it was only because the bible we have knowledge of our faith and that we would not if there was no bible. You have acknowledged that people passed on these stories orally. So that is one way it can be done. You can't really say the bible existed before then as while some of the books in the NT were considered scripture by that point some were only decided upon at the time the bible was formed.


or is that just your perception of reality?

Here's what I first said, since you seem determined to change it. Page 10, post 91.

"So just because you think that through some magical process god tells you right from wrong doesn't make it so. It might be, it might not be....but one thing we can say for certain is that it has no discernable effect on your morality. It's not as if we can say, "I know Steve gets his morality from god since he always chooses the right thing to do.". Even you'll admit that just like everyone else, you do good sometimes and you do bad sometimes....regardless of where you believe your morality originates from.

So again, for all practical purposes, your morality comes from a worldly origin just like every else's."

So....again... I was making the claim (hypothetically) that if Steve always did right, we could have some basis for believing his claim. Since we don't (and that's what I've said from the start) there's no practical reason to believe the origin of his morals is any different from anyone else's. I haven't changed that position at all... all I've done is try to clear up your misunderstandings, no need to thank me though, you're welcome anyway.

If you have an example for when we cannot strip perception from reality, present it. Otherwise it's a rather empty point.

Well technically, it is because of the bible that you have your faith. Do you think christianity would've survived 2000 years being passed along by oral tradition? I certainly don't. Do you think you would believe in a religion that was passed along by word of mouth for 2000 years? I'd hope not. So in that respect...you're a christian because of the bible, directly or indirectly.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you get into some depth of discussion where philosophers are not given the "out" of ignoring determinism, most atheist philosophers do agree that there is not a true state of free will. In fact, it's more often Christians who insist on free will (although I will assert that the Bible as well denies free will).

No, I'm not going to let a single faulty and slanted poll change what I know from serious study.

No, why admit that you were wrong when you were shown to be wrong? Create ad hoc excuses for why you're right instead. Make sure to call the poll "faulty" for no good reason too.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

[FONT=&quot]Why is that. Catholics are Christians and so are baptists and so is the salvation army, Mormons, protestants, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, seventh day Adventists and so on. They all believe in the same God and that Jesus Christ is Hid Son who was sent to die on the cross for the sins of all and save us. So as far as I understand these are all similar in beliefs and morals. So it doesn't really matter which church you belong to as this is just like the team you follow. They all play the same game by the same rules and believe in the same game but they all have different colors and emblems.

[FONT=&quot]And when one examines the details, different doctrines and practices as well. If you [FONT=&quot]think an appeal to majority is a good argument, then one could argue that you should adopt the doctrines and practices of Catholic[FONT=&quot]ism[FONT=&quot]. But I'm assuming you don't consider an appeal to majority a good argument[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot], especially [FONT=&quot]given your prior recognition that the majority [FONT=&quot]aren't always correct by definition?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT]

Your clutching at straws here. In the list of pro choice in which you are saying may support abortion or dont think its a sin the first one that I checked is not saying this at all. Their actual position is they give some leeway to a women making a choice to have an abortion under certain special situations. But the writers have said this amounts to them saying they support pro choice which is misleading. So I would say that you need to go through and check what each one is saying. But this is what the first one says on the list that is suppose to support pro choice.
[FONT="]The[/FONT][FONT="] position of the American Baptist Churches:[/FONT]

[FONT="]The General Board of American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. adopted a statement in 1988-JUN, and modified it in 1994-[/FONT][FONT="]MAR[/FONT][FONT="]. It recognizes that no consensus exists within the denomination concerning abortion access. They did agree that they opposed abortion "as a means of avoiding responsibility for conception, as a primary means of birth control, and without regard for the far-reaching consequences of the act." They condemn violence and harassment directed at abortion clinics. They feel that physicians should be able to opt out of performing abortions without sanctions and discrimination.[/FONT]

So the bold section is another way of saying they only support abortion under certain situations which need to be justified by certain conditions. So they are qualifying their position and hold firm to the view that abortion is not good in the first place but maybe done in some limited situations. This is exactly what I have been saying that the actual moral of abortion is not good and it goes against the value that life is precious. But when some have a different position it isn't changing the basic moral value it is simply making allowances for some to do it under certain situations. So the moral value is not changing at all its just being compromised.

some of the organizations on this list dont seem to be very religious or at least a cross between some sort of religious affiliation and secular association. I would have to look into them in more detail to see what they actually believe. But there are many strange so called religions out there. Even some groups that can believe in free sex can be classed as a religion and this goes completely against the religions I am referring to which believe in God and Jesus His Son.

They also have some misleading statements. Such as there are two groups of organizations. But they have little points referring to them. The points dont specify that they are against abortion but merely state that they support that women's health is maintained, In situations where abortion is acceptable that women's health is maintained. Now they are implying that these groups support abortion but at the same time they are saying in situations where abortion is acceptable. That sounds like they are qualifying when and it can be done and when it cant. So as you can see its all very misleading or hard to qualify.

Even so there are very few organizations on that list who out rightly support abortion as a good moral if any at all. They all state that there needs to be some qualification as to when an abortion should be done, when an embryo is life or not which then takes the issue of killing out of the equation altogether.

You're missing the forest for the trees, steve. The point I was making was simply that they disagree on the ethics of abortion. In fact, by examining their views more closely you've found this yourself!

Ah so you throwing this in as a MAY not view abortion as a sin at all. NO that is also misleading. I notice that you add this as a little after thought. Non of them say that abortion is not a sin and imply that abortion is good. They all have some qualifications about when and why it can be done which shows they still respect the importance of not being able to have an abortion at the drop of a hat. They all regard life as still highly precious and that is the moral value we are talking about.

No, I wasn't referring to those churches specifically, but to pro-choice Christians generally.

But which one is it. That little bit you've added at the end "OR HAS NO INJUNCTION AGAINST IT AT ALL" makes a big difference. This is just legal speak for saying that a person is able to have an abortion without having any thing stop them fro doing so. So any objections from a moral point of view are taken away and cant be used to stop the action. There is no ethical message its all about legal rights.

The rest of the statement that says that in one case they are against abortion or they will only allow it under specific conditions I agree with. They both maintain the value of the moral and only allow certain situations to justify and compromise that value.

Which again means that they still disagree on the ethics of abortion.

I dont know what you mean by the ethical message. Is that the same as the moral value. Ethics are to do with standards of conduct so they are specific in what are the standards and what is acceptable and what is not. You can be sacked from your job for unethical behavior. So its a bit different to morals as in someone can be immoral but not be breaking a ethical standard.

But with a moral value such as life being valued as precious and sacred for example then there will be certain things that will go against this. Killing is one of them. Now some people think abortion is killing and some dont. But this comes down to their interpretation of what is life and when it occurs. So if they deem it not life then there is no breach of a moral in the first place because there is no life. But if they do then abortion becomes an act of ending a life which will go against that moral value. But they can justify certain situations that will allow compromises to that value. These will be things like the mothers health or maybe even in cases of rape and where the embryo is damaged. But these are not breaching the moral value because they are considering other matters where maybe more important considerations come into play.

Which again means that they disagree on the ethics of abortion, even though they endorse the view that life is sacred.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is a bit rude to respond like this after a person has said no it is not just because the majority think so. It is very rude after you have had a go at a person for not reading what you wrote and then you choose to ignore what they write.

Yes, I agree, and I'm sorry for that. That's why I asked steve in my previous post whether he understood why an appeal to the majority was fallacious. I'm awaiting further clarification on that, but you're right - it was a lazy and flippant response from me.