Celtic Heroes

The Official Forum for Celtic Heroes, the 3D MMORPG for iOS and Android Devices

Re: A discussion about religion

#1291
Gun control works, dersu proved that quite nicely in a long thread about a year ago i think
Hehe. That was a fun thread. :)

Partially back on topic (?)
I value the choice of the woman over the life of the foetus, that said i do not consider it life until the foetus has self awareness. Before that it may as well be a plant
I think that be setting the bar a bit high. I agree with Solumbum in that babies (who are clearly alive) do not show self awareness (heck, several of my 15 year old students seem to lack it ;) ) so your criterion is a bit unrealistic.

I have no suggestion as to where the bar should be placed... To be honest, I don't know that a bar should even exist...
-------------
Dersu of Herne
lvl 135+ Druid (Double Helix Build)
Clan Infection... of the Britannians family of clans.

Re: A discussion about religion

#1292
Gun control works, dersu proved that quite nicely in a long thread about a year ago i think
Hehe. That was a fun thread. :)

Partially back on topic (?)
I value the choice of the woman over the life of the foetus, that said i do not consider it life until the foetus has self awareness. Before that it may as well be a plant
I think that be setting the bar a bit high. I agree with Solumbum in that babies (who are clearly alive) do not show self awareness (heck, several of my 15 year old students seem to lack it ;) ) so your criterion is a bit unrealistic.

I have no suggestion as to where the bar should be placed... To be honest, I don't know that a bar should even exist...
There needs to be some kind of bar even if semi arbitrary. It's obvious to almost everyone who is intellectually honest a zygote is not a person. By the same argument, 5 minutes before a full term birth is not really different from 5 minutes after.
Member of Aeon - Taranis - 24 boxer
220+ toons
Ravenleaf druid - Silverstring ranger
Stormsong warrior - Nwerb Mage - Eventide Rogue

Toon histogram:
Level_____|200+|150-199|100-149|50-99|20-49|1-19|
# of toons|_5__|___16___|____3___|__11__|__21_|407|

Re: A discussion about religion

#1293
There needs to be some kind of bar even if semi arbitrary. It's obvious to almost everyone who is intellectually honest a zygote is not a person. By the same argument, 5 minutes before a full term birth is not really different from 5 minutes after.
I certainly agree with your examples, but again, I am not sure we can set a bar as a general rule. I probably should have been more clear about that.

ie. I don't think we can say from time x, or development y...

Rather, I think that each situation is so drastically different, that it needs to be a personal decision, ideally with medical consultation.

There is no legal "bar" in Canada, for instance:
The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state.


That being said, there are apparently very few doctors who will perform 3rd trimester abortions unless the health and well being of the mother is at risk.

If a general bar needed to be inserted, I would be inclined to say that it should be with regard to the likeliness of survival outside the mother, with minimal outside interference. A bit vague, perhaps, and I don't know what to suggest as a percentage of "likeliness"... nor for that matter, what constitutes "minimal." :oops:

Of course, as a father I am biased and find the whole debate a bit tough. By that I mean that in planning a family, and wanting to be parents, he was our little guy from that first barely distinguishable blip on the ultrasound. Emotionally irrational, sure. But it happens.

I can't imagine the state of someone who became pregnant by rape.


Back to the concept of bars for a moment, Dawkins wrote an interesting essay this month on essentialism that touched on abortion:
Moral controversies such as those over abortion and euthanasia are riddled with the same infection. At what point is a brain-dead accident-victim defined as "dead"? At what moment during development does an embryo become a "person"? Only a mind infected with essentialism would ask such questions. An embryo develops gradually from single-celled zygote to newborn baby, and there’s no one instant when "personhood" should be deemed to have arrived. The world is divided into those who get this truth and those who wail, "But there has to be some moment when the fetus becomes human." No, there really doesn’t, any more than there has to be a day when a middle aged person becomes old.
-------------
Dersu of Herne
lvl 135+ Druid (Double Helix Build)
Clan Infection... of the Britannians family of clans.

Re: A discussion about religion

#1294
There needs to be some kind of bar even if semi arbitrary. It's obvious to almost everyone who is intellectually honest a zygote is not a person. By the same argument, 5 minutes before a full term birth is not really different from 5 minutes after.
I certainly agree with your examples, but again, I am not sure we can set a bar as a general rule. I probably should have been more clear about that.

ie. I don't think we can say from time x, or development y...

Rather, I think that each situation is so drastically different, that it needs to be a personal decision, ideally with medical consultation.

There is no legal "bar" in Canada, for instance:
The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state.


That being said, there are apparently very few doctors who will perform 3rd trimester abortions unless the health and well being of the mother is at risk.

If a general bar needed to be inserted, I would be inclined to say that it should be with regard to the likeliness of survival outside the mother, with minimal outside interference. A bit vague, perhaps, and I don't know what to suggest as a percentage of "likeliness"... nor for that matter, what constitutes "minimal." :oops:

Of course, as a father I am biased and find the whole debate a bit tough. By that I mean that in planning a family, and wanting to be parents, he was our little guy from that first barely distinguishable blip on the ultrasound. Emotionally irrational, sure. But it happens.

I can't imagine the state of someone who became pregnant by rape.


Back to the concept of bars for a moment, Dawkins wrote an interesting essay this month on essentialism that touched on abortion:
Moral controversies such as those over abortion and euthanasia are riddled with the same infection. At what point is a brain-dead accident-victim defined as "dead"? At what moment during development does an embryo become a "person"? Only a mind infected with essentialism would ask such questions. An embryo develops gradually from single-celled zygote to newborn baby, and there’s no one instant when "personhood" should be deemed to have arrived. The world is divided into those who get this truth and those who wail, "But there has to be some moment when the fetus becomes human." No, there really doesn’t, any more than there has to be a day when a middle aged person becomes old.
I agree with all of that. It's just that performing late 3rd trimester abortions because after 8 months the person changed thier mind is a bit iffy in almost anyone's eyes. It's my personal opinion the more well formed and functional the brain is the more I would feel bad about destroying it because of a change of plans. In pretty much every moral view it goes from not a person at all to a person who should have some basic rights.

As a father I thought it was neat seeing my son and daughter on ultrasound but made my best effort not to become too attached until they were actually much further along - being born was the moment I became really attached. Proverbially I didn't want to count them before I felt nearly sure they would hatch.

I don't have a problem with seeing that the issue is made up of nearly countless details that gradually - almost continuously - flow from one state to the next, but there do have to be some kind of limits to stop ignorant people from running on rampages even if there is no clear defining moment. Ffs some people use abortion as a form of birth control and have literally dozens - many of which would be late term if allowed - that has to hit some kind of irresponsibility bar in nearly anyone's eyes at some point.

There do need to be some laws governing morality otherwise that 1/1000 idiot with a defective brain will take advantage of it and start ruining it for others. Two wrongs often make justice - it's why jails and legal repercussions exist. The vast majority of people can't reason on fine scale terms as the quotes you provided - they are simply not capable - and need something concrete. There could always be an appeals process to look at each case if needed like any other legal matter.
Member of Aeon - Taranis - 24 boxer
220+ toons
Ravenleaf druid - Silverstring ranger
Stormsong warrior - Nwerb Mage - Eventide Rogue

Toon histogram:
Level_____|200+|150-199|100-149|50-99|20-49|1-19|
# of toons|_5__|___16___|____3___|__11__|__21_|407|

Re: A discussion about religion

#1295
I think that, wrong or not, looking forward to an afterlife is far better than looking forward to nothing after death.
One of the great sweetness es in life is looking forward to something, if you have nothing to look forward to your life is dull and purposeless. Once you die, it will not matter if you were wrong about an afterlife, but it did make your life that much sweeter. You lived to do your best to prepare for another life, you lived looking forward to something, and you lived with comfort and assurance. This is what I see in my family.


I think your view of atheism is inaccurate and most likely influenced by what non-atheists have told you, or how you personally perceive atheism from the viewpoint of someone who believes in god. I am sure you didn’t intend to do so (because I do think you are a thoughtful person) but your analysis of an atheist’s life is insulting and rather patronizing.

You talk about a lack of a belief in an afterlife as some dull and pointless existence. I agree that many atheists will go through that phase once or twice, but overall it is only a phase which can lead to various paths.

My personal opinion is that the progression of atheism is exactly the same as the 5 stages of grief experienced by someone whose loved one has died. Not everyone goes through all the stages, and they can be experienced in any order.

Just as when someone dies, the degree of closeness we had with that person will be related to the degree we experience the stages. A cousin that I have met only once in my life may be quite easy to take in stride, while the death of a friend that I grew up with will be more difficult.

I find that atheists have the potential to go through these stages twice. The first time is when they encounter the death of God. Many atheists go through the denial, anger, depression and bargaining phases. Many get stuck on the bargaining phase: they come to the conclusion that there is no God, but are unable to accept that there is no afterlife. These atheists are often attracted to godless afterlife concepts, and though I have not delved into the concept, I think that is one reason for the explosion of Buddhism and “New Age Philosophy” in the West in the 20th century.

Sometimes, unable to come to full acceptance, the person has a backlash and indeed becomes more religious than they ever were before, such as the extreme examples C.S. Lewis and Leo Tolstoy, and many less public figures.

If one accepts that there is no afterlife, in time the person will enter a new round of the 5 stages of grief, as they have to wrestle with the ultimate death – not of a mere loved one or creator – but of the self. Truly realizing your own mortality is massive, and I believe that society as a whole got stuck on the bargaining phase, thus the afterlife was born. But for the person who has accepted a belief of no God, again the phases are encountered; depression could very well be experienced.

But this phase is often just that. To make an assessment of someone’s life based on a phase they may go through is ignoring the entire picture.

Just as an aside to illustrate my point, here is something I wrote back in July. (http://www.celtic-heroes.com/forum/view ... t=#p295848). I dare you or anyone to read that and then come back and tell me that my life is “dull and purposeless” simply because I don’t believe in an afterlife. Rather, I will counter that because I believe that this is it, it is more reason to enjoy each and every day; it is more reason to cherish those around us; it is more reason to love, teach and raise our children, as they are the future of us all.

Living not knowing if there is something after death or even thinking there is nothing is a life of fear, a life with nothing after, a seemingly pointless blip of an existence that will, except in a very very few cases, be forgotten completely. You live a short life, then you have nothing. Even your pathetic existence, while it lasts, is full of the fear that it could end any time. Nor is it very important, there are billions of others like you, or more important than you. Your existence is temporary, it will inevitably end, and it isn't even very important.
Again, you are making a generalization based on your impression of what an atheist’s life must be. You would be hard pressed to find full-blown atheists who feel that way for any extended period of time. And in my theory stated above, that person wouldn’t be a full-blown atheist, as they have yet to experience the acceptance stage.

In other words, part of that acceptance is the understanding that the universe does not revolve around me. It is a great joy that I, as well as everyone here, have won the genetic lottery of sorts. That out of several billion possible outcomes, that egg and that sperm found each other at that point in time. It is quite humbling.

As for a “pathetic existence” filled with fear, well you are entitled to your opinion, though I think it fundamentally derogatory. I quite enjoy my pathetic existence, as it is filled with a plethora of senses and emotions. I realize you are saying that as a form of point driving, but it lacks any evidence, and certainly wouldn’t be what an atheist would tell you their life is like.

Rather, we find that atheists are driven to great accomplishments. I can’t speak of intentions behind those accomplishments, but they have certainly been helpful to humanity as a whole. In that regard, and I use the following jovially, you should thank God for atheists. For without them, humankind could very well still be stuck in the technical and medical “dark ages.”

I write all of the above in earnest. I know that you didn't intend to be insulting. I do hope, however, that this might help you to update your mental schema of what the life of an atheist is like.

I can tell you, without pause for thought, that it can be fully rewarding.



One post script tangent: While I believe the above to be true, I will say that even though I feel your account was exaggerated, there is a certain amount of merit in what you say, though it isn’t necessarily atheist/believer in nature. There is a small amount of evidence from a study that found that those who pray or meditate regularly have higher amounts of Dopamine in the brain than those who do not. Dopamine, is of course, a drug produced by the body which has an “elevating” effect, and one distinct area of importance is related to reward motivated behavior.

Now, that doesn’t necessarily speak to the atheist question, though it is probable that atheists meditate less. Two otherwise identical believers should exhibit similar results. It does, though, speak to your notion of joy related to looking forward to something (though again, nothing to do with religion: I look very forward to spending time with my wife and son every day after work, seeing friends, and continuing my work and education, thus figure my Dopamine levels are fine ;) ) and I think it might also say something to my earlier point that the more intimate your relationship with someone, the harder the path of grief. For someone who was quite religious to realize atheism, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a link to depression and Dopamine withdrawal were found.

One final point which I have said several times, and will say again: I am not by any means trying to show that there is no God, and I encourage anyone who believes in God to continue to do so. This entire post is about countering the notion that atheists lack reason for existence.
Less an impression of what I think an atheist's life must be and more my personal experience. I was not trying to say that atheists have no reason for existence.
As far as your link, you must realize that you are very fortunate to have a functional family and you are as fortunate to have a child that loves as your child is fortunate to have a father who loves him. Many, if not most lives on this planet are not as happy as yours.
But perhaps I am thinking too deeply and I should not dwell on my significance or the meaning of life or how so few are happy since it only depresses me. I am understanding more and more how ignorance is bliss.

Re: A discussion about religion

#1296
Abortion is a difficult topic to talk about.

You do need to consider though that a woman who is pregnant will inevitably have an emotional attachment to her baby even long before it is born. It is true that a woman may not want to have a child after being raped but even if she has the abortion it is very likely that she will be plagued by the "guilt" of having that abortion. There is an emotional response in a woman after she loses her baby, even if science or politics call it a fetus once it is gone it will still be baby to her.

Maybe men have no right to discuss abortion.

Also what about the most common situation? A boy and girl, usually high school age, make a "poor decision" and the girl gets pregnant. Is it fine for her to abort that child because they don't want to deal with it? Is it even ok for her to make that choice when she is obviously at an age where she is making poor choices and may regret not having her child for the rest of her life? What if she wants to have the baby but does not because her boyfriend or parents pressure her to have an abortion to save them from embarrassment or costs of raising the child?

I am not going to say whether or not abortion should be allowed because I don't know, but if you are going to discuss it, take into account what actually happens with it and think about the after effects of abortion on a woman as well. What is actually better for her?

Re: A discussion about religion

#1297
I honestly think that the right and will of the mother should go before that of the foetus, the father, and foolish politicians. We can discuss it but it all comes down these people having the right to control their own lives. An abortion is not going to impact anyone else but the parents so why should others intervene?

Now... How about climate change? Lol. I would like to know who denies it and for what weird reason.
Image

Re: A discussion about religion

#1298
I honestly think that the right and will of the mother should go before that of the foetus, the father, and foolish politicians. We can discuss it but it all comes down these people having the right to control their own lives. An abortion is not going to impact anyone else but the parents so why should others intervene?

Now... How about climate change? Lol. I would like to know who denies it and for what weird reason.
I completely agree with the above but still think there need to be legal limits put in to stop the crazies. There is a difference between supporting the right for a woman to control her own body and having literally 25+ abortions or having 8month+ abortions for no real reason other than cold feet.

As far as climate change my biggest beef is no one takes it seriously. What's the size of the world women's shoe market on an annual basis? I think it's around 40billion usd from the limited frost and Sullivan data I was able to see. I doubt we have spent 40 billion as a human species on climate research since the beginning of science. Don't even broach sports the market is far bigger.

What gets me is that these models, while highly accurate in the effects they DO model, and while they take into account many many effects, often fail to be accurate because the problem is not only extremely complex but also is chaotic with many tipping points that can dramatically change the outcome. For example, in only 2009 ish, an error in the nitrogen sequestration calculations failed to accommodate for a reaction with common types of sand an was way off. Or ocean currents could change at some point which is hard to predict, or hydrates could start seriously releasing a lot of methane and these points are not well understood.

So in short, for an effect that is overwhelmingly obviously going to happen (regardless of who or what you think is the cause) and is going to be so incredibly expensive - it is literally insane that almost zero resources have gone into even understanding the problem much less actually fixing anything. On the plus side chicks will look real good in those shoes as I watch my favorite game on TV trying to ignore the spectral storm flying by the window outside.
Member of Aeon - Taranis - 24 boxer
220+ toons
Ravenleaf druid - Silverstring ranger
Stormsong warrior - Nwerb Mage - Eventide Rogue

Toon histogram:
Level_____|200+|150-199|100-149|50-99|20-49|1-19|
# of toons|_5__|___16___|____3___|__11__|__21_|407|

Re: A discussion about religion

#1299
Yes, I agree, we do not take climate change seriously. It may even come to a point where we were too busy arguing over it to realise it is too late. I am surprised this topic did not spark a larger debate...

Anyhow, I found this uh picture... Which has me wonder again: why is religion so "my way or the high way"? You either believe or you are doomed. That does not seem logical.
Image
Image

Re: A discussion about religion

#1300
Yes, I agree, we do not take climate change seriously. It may even come to a point where we were too busy arguing over it to realise it is too late. I am surprised this topic did not spark a larger debate...

Anyhow, I found this uh picture... Which has me wonder again: why is religion so "my way or the high way"? You either believe or you are doomed. That does not seem logical.
Image
Umm. Hmm. Why is the center of the earth dark in that picture? Is it a lunar eclipse as viewed from space? Because the perimeter of the earth shouldn't be lit while the center is dark.

Maybe it's just the sadness of the quote leaking out and darkening the planet.
Member of Aeon - Taranis - 24 boxer
220+ toons
Ravenleaf druid - Silverstring ranger
Stormsong warrior - Nwerb Mage - Eventide Rogue

Toon histogram:
Level_____|200+|150-199|100-149|50-99|20-49|1-19|
# of toons|_5__|___16___|____3___|__11__|__21_|407|

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests