Atheism And Moral Progress

[JimL]

What do I have to argue about?

You could actually defend your position on morality logically. That a thing is good or evil simply because a "god says so" is dumber than dumb.

Nothing you said is consistent enough for you to have made any actual point of debate. Even other atheists (Carp) have pointed out to you your inconsistencies. Arguing against you is like arguing against the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland. You can't argue with crazy.

No, unlike you and seer, I am actually able to logically argue my point of view concerning morality. Carp may disagree with me to a point, but he obviously also disagrees with you completely because your argument regarding morality i.e. "god says so" is a completely illogical stance.

[Cow Poke]

The Judeo-Christian tradition (including Southern Baptists until recently) has not considered the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings.

Nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JimL]

Nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite the argument you've made there CP. So many exclamation points, who could argue against that?

[One Bad Pig]

You're doing that thing, again, Tassman - where you just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again, hoping it eventually becomes true.

He's cherry-picking data to misinterpret in an attempt to shore up his position. Modern Israel is a secular state, so not even founded on the "Judeo-" part of "Judeo-Christian", he's suddenly shifted from "always" to "50 years ago" and from "Christians in general" to "Evangelicals" - when Roman Catholics significantly outnumber them and have a solidly anti-abortion official position then and now.

[One Bad Pig]

Quite the argument you've made there CP. So many exclamation points, who could argue against that?

Indeed.

[Cow Poke]

He's cherry-picking data to misinterpret in an attempt to shore up his position. Modern Israel is a secular state, so not even founded on the "Judeo-" part of "Judeo-Christian", he's suddenly shifted from "always" to "50 years ago" and from "Christians in general" to "Evangelicals" - when Roman Catholics significantly outnumber them and have a solidly anti-abortion official position then and now.

But I love his little tactic where he'll take, for example, a lowly bureau chief's opinion, and elevate him to some incredibly important spokesman for Baptists in general... he's quite gifted at editorial license!

[Cow Poke]

Indeed.

There was that loud "SCHOOOOOM" sound as the point flew over Jim's head.

[JimL]

There was that loud "SCHOOOOOM" sound as the point flew over Jim's head.

You mean the exclamation point.

[shunyadragon]

The fact of human history of all cultures since the paleontological evidence of the earliest humans morals and ethics have evolved and changed over time consistently without regard to any one religion through the history of humanity. You can argue for a Divine origins, influence, and spiritual laws and principles, but this is an argument based on belief and not the evidence.

[Sparko]

Abortion is legal in Israel and effectively available to all women. And, until around 50 years ago, Evangelical Christians widely believed the Bible says life begins at birth and supported looser abortion policies.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonat...b_2072716.html

That's not what that article says. It basically says STARTING about 50 years ago many liberal Christians started supporting abortion. Which is around when Roe V Wade happened. And that would have been during the Hippy generation, free love, blah blah.

AND it is nothing but an opinion piece.

[Sparko]

You could actually defend your position on morality logically. That a thing is good or evil simply because a "god says so" is dumber than dumb.


No, unlike you and seer, I am actually able to logically argue my point of view concerning morality. Carp may disagree with me to a point, but he obviously also disagrees with you completely because your argument regarding morality i.e. "god says so" is a completely illogical stance.

No JimL you are not able to logically argue your point. Your story keeps changing from post to post.

[Cow Poke]

That's not what that article says. It basically says STARTING about 50 years ago many liberal Christians started supporting abortion. Which is around when Roe V Wade happened. And that would have been during the Hippy generation, free love, blah blah.

AND it is nothing but an opinion piece.

[Tassman] Nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It says what I say it says... and I've repeated enough times that by now it's true! [/Tassman]

[Tassman]

He's cherry-picking data to misinterpret in an attempt to shore up his position. Modern Israel is a secular state, so not even founded on the "Judeo-" part of "Judeo-Christian", he's suddenly shifted from "always" to "50 years ago" and from "Christians in general" to "Evangelicals" - when Roman Catholics significantly outnumber them and have a solidly anti-abortion official position then and now.

The USA a also secular state as per Israel and is no more in a position to legislate against abortion than Israel is to legislate for it.

[Tassman]

Not only that, but Tassman's BLOG article that he uses as the cornerstone of his dumb argument DISTORTS the truth, in particular, with the Resolution passed by the SBC in 1971.

Here is what that BLOG opinion piece reports as "the Resolution".

In 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention agreed, in a joint resolution: “We call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

Here is the actual resolution.... [bolding mine]

WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and

WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and

WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother

The Resolution was about allowing EXCEPTIONS to the position - under very specific circumstances - that abortion is murder.

This has been shown to Tassman before, but he just doubles down and perpetuates the lie.

All this crap, which you repeat over and over, is irrelevant to the point that in the history of the largest Protestant Evangelical body in the USA, such objections to abortion only date back around 50 years, which is the point.

“When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

“Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

In short they were adopting the Jewish tradition that "a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth".

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ewish-thought/

[Cow Poke]

All this crap, which you repeat over and over...

Tass, you're talking to yourself! And then you proceed to post the same crap over and over and over.....