Life...isn't sacred. It's a bunch of chemical reactions and self-replicating molecules. In our case, it's a bunch of chemical reactions that can contemplate the concepts of morals and ethics.
Well, I will compliment you on being consistent in this regard at least. Indeed, if the materialistic, atheistic reductionist view is correct, human life is not sacred. Life itself has no meaning, objective value or worth. I do not know how you get up in the morning with that kind of depressing outlook on life. It is a true wonder to me how most atheists do not kill themselves.
Terminally ill patients deserve a choice. Old people should be allowed to have DNR orders.
Why? If human life is not sacred and human life has no intrinsic value or dignity and is nothing more than a reaction of chemicals and molecules, then why do ill or old patients even "deserve" a choice? How can such a being have moral consideration when morality has no objective ontological basis in reality, according to your philosophy?
And banning abortion...would lead to an awful lot of gruesome, risky coathanger abortions.
Actually, if history and common continuing patterns tell us anything, making abortion illegal would significantly reduce the number of abortions performed. Abortions skyrocketed after Roe v Wade past in the 1970s. In contrast, the Guttmacher Institute revealed that abortions had fallen to their lowest number since Roe v Wade in 2008 under Bush who passed bills that increased restrictions on abortion. Yes, unfortunately, there will still be people who get and perform illegal abortions. There are always prostitutes even though prostitution is illegal. However, just because some people will always break the law does not mean that the law should be abolished. Legalizing something means that more people will do it. That is almost always the case. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to radically increase legal restrictions on abortion and reducing the number of abortions seems to me to be ideal goal.
After all, if the fundies can do that, they can put laws in that would keep atheists from marrying, or kill off assorted sciences within the United States. Or worse, start the Crusades again.
As a Christian who has seen and been involved in much of the evangelical community, I see no basis or evidence to support your statements. I have never heard any Christian say that atheists should not be able to marry or suggest that we start another literal crusade. Only the most fanatical and extremist fundamentalists would actually espouse or support such buffoonery.
Also, you are certainly right that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness require a degree of moderation and balance in order for a society to exhibit some degree of moral civility and cohesion. However, as an atheist, on what basis do you condemn people for leaving the streets broken and shooting their neighbors? On what basis do you condemn the rich and elite for indulging in hedonism on the backs of the proletariat? You've just made moral judgments and yet you have no basis for any objective moral standard that is empirically verifiable and apart from mere subjective human opinion. Why does it matter if one worthless collection of molecules oppresses another worthless collection of molecules? As Dostoevsky said, "If God is not, all is permitted."
Well, I will compliment you on being consistent in this regard at least. Indeed, if the materialistic, atheistic reductionist view is correct, human life is not sacred. Life itself has no meaning, objective value or worth. I do not know how you get up in the morning with that kind of depressing outlook on life. It is a true wonder to me how most atheists do not kill themselves.
Terminally ill patients deserve a choice. Old people should be allowed to have DNR orders.
Why? If human life is not sacred and human life has no intrinsic value or dignity and is nothing more than a reaction of chemicals and molecules, then why do ill or old patients even "deserve" a choice? How can such a being have moral consideration when morality has no objective ontological basis in reality, according to your philosophy?
And banning abortion...would lead to an awful lot of gruesome, risky coathanger abortions.
Actually, if history and common continuing patterns tell us anything, making abortion illegal would significantly reduce the number of abortions performed. Abortions skyrocketed after Roe v Wade past in the 1970s. In contrast, the Guttmacher Institute revealed that abortions had fallen to their lowest number since Roe v Wade in 2008 under Bush who passed bills that increased restrictions on abortion. Yes, unfortunately, there will still be people who get and perform illegal abortions. There are always prostitutes even though prostitution is illegal. However, just because some people will always break the law does not mean that the law should be abolished. Legalizing something means that more people will do it. That is almost always the case. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to radically increase legal restrictions on abortion and reducing the number of abortions seems to me to be ideal goal.
After all, if the fundies can do that, they can put laws in that would keep atheists from marrying, or kill off assorted sciences within the United States. Or worse, start the Crusades again.
As a Christian who has seen and been involved in much of the evangelical community, I see no basis or evidence to support your statements. I have never heard any Christian say that atheists should not be able to marry or suggest that we start another literal crusade. Only the most fanatical and extremist fundamentalists would actually espouse or support such buffoonery.
Also, you are certainly right that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness require a degree of moderation and balance in order for a society to exhibit some degree of moral civility and cohesion. However, as an atheist, on what basis do you condemn people for leaving the streets broken and shooting their neighbors? On what basis do you condemn the rich and elite for indulging in hedonism on the backs of the proletariat? You've just made moral judgments and yet you have no basis for any objective moral standard that is empirically verifiable and apart from mere subjective human opinion. Why does it matter if one worthless collection of molecules oppresses another worthless collection of molecules? As Dostoevsky said, "If God is not, all is permitted."
Reply
Leave a comment