Presidential Debate thread

[Toonces the Driving Cat]

This is where science as a belief system fails, because it cannot define what differentiates life from non-life.

Not only can and does science define this difference, even if that definition were off, why would that make science a failed belief system?

Whereas the religious argument can just define life as being different from non-life in that there is a "soul."

So by just completely guessing at it, that makes religion a better answer? The fact of the matter is the bible doesn't define whether a fetus has a soul. Although in one nice part God commands Abraham to murder his own infant.

Science can't believe in a soul, because it cannot prove or disprove a soul.

And why should I believe something that can't be proven? I'm not an idiot you know!

[Shannow]

Science can't believe in a soul, because it cannot prove or disprove a soul.

And why should I believe something that can't be proven? I'm not an idiot you know!

Faith = Belief without proof. OMG Starport developer calls those with faith idiots! News at 11!  Boycott Starport!

[HaemishM]

Belief is about faith. Science can't have faith in something it can't prove. Religion believes in a soul, even when it can't prove it as anything other than "God says..."

Ask a pro-lifer religious person why killing a fetus is wrong, and more than likely it will revolve around that fetus having a soul.

[Samwise]

Science can't believe in a soul, because it cannot prove or disprove a soul.

And why should I believe something that can't be proven? I'm not an idiot you know!

On the other hand, why disbelieve something that can't be disproven?  It's no less idiotic, from a scientific viewpoint.  

As any creationist will gleefully tell you, evolution hasn't been rigorously proven as fact, but most educated people do still believe in it.  

In a situation where something can be neither proven nor disproven with 100% certainty, it's all about plausibility.  Many people believe in the existence of a soul because they find it more plausible than the alternative.  This doesn't make them idiots, any more than those who disbelieve the existence of a soul because they find that more plausible than the alternative.

[Toonces the Driving Cat]

Don't boycott my game please =)  I'm all for freedom of religion. My personal religion happens to be based on fact, logic, science, and that which is provable being worthy of belief. Go ahead and burn me at the stake.

[Bunk]

On the other hand, why disbelieve something that can't be disproven?

You've got some crazy double-negatives going there chum.

The heart of the matter is that you have religous folk telling non-beleivers that they don't want you doing embryonic research because they beleive that these fetuses have souls.

So, they are saying that we should put the value of the fetus's soul above the value of potentialy of saving a grown human being's life.  And they are saying this to people that don't neccessarily beleive in souls anyway...

I know I am drastically oversimplifying here, but that is how this whole argument looks to an Atheist.  

I think one factor of all this that really bugs me is this sudden urge by the Pro-Lifers to make a stance on this.  Personally I've never heard about major protests or calls for government interferance against fertility clinics.  Why is this particular issue suddenly getting so much heat?  Is it that Joe pulic Pro-Lifer just never new how many embryos are destroyed regularly in these clinics anyway?

Eh fuck it, I'm jumping too far in to stuff I admitedly don't know enough about.

[Samwise]

On the other hand, why disbelieve something that can't be disproven?

You've got some crazy double-negatives going there chum.

Perfectly logical, though.  Disbelieving in a thing is the same as believing in its inverse.  Calling it "disbelief of FOO" instead of "belief in the logical inverse of FOO" doesn't make it any more substantiated in fact or reason, regardless of how comforting it may be to think so.

People that claim they only believe in things that can be proven but are happy to disbelieve in things that can't be disproven just get my goat with their illogic, that's all.

[Merusk]

Just use the left over fertility zygotes. There are lots of them going to waste (I personally have 15 on ice that won't be used).

BTW, since we are on the subject, the very IVF process you are talking about produced THIS:

http://home.comcast.net/~brianandjulie/Alec.html

Grats Ab!  He looks nothing like you though.  Where's the cranial ridge?

[Roac]

You don't get it. I don't consider the destruction of embryos immoral....at all.

I know being rational is difficult, and you love your life as a troll, but come on.

I don't believe it is ethical to CREATE a human embryo for the sole purpose of destroying it.

"Here's your sign."

[Roac]

the logical extension is that life is immanent and all cells are divine sparks.

Er, no, that's not neccessarily logical at all.  At least, if your intent by "divine spark" is to bring a religious (pseudo-Christian?) argument into it.  Otherwise every scratch or bruise is equivalent mass-murder, and nowhere does that sentiment extend itself at all.  Nor is there any loss ascribed to sperms or eggs that perish.  There is, however, a loss ascribed to miscarriadge.  I also *think* that it is Jewish tradition (and by extention Christian/Muslem) that God "knows you from conception" - but I may be wrong and that is only New Testiment.

[WayAbvPar]

Nor is there any loss ascribed to sperms or eggs that perish.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.


Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.


Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

[Roac]

The fact of the matter is the bible doesn't define whether a fetus has a soul.

Actually, yes it does - it states that God "knew you from conception".  The meaning could also be implied through the Jewish laws regarding pregnant women - causing a miscarriage through violence was a sin, and additional to the penalties for violence against the woman herself.  

Although in one nice part God commands Abraham to murder his own infant.

If the attempt is to try and point out that God (Yahweh, Allah, depending on your tradition) was immoral, you've missed the point.  In moral absolutism, where the absolute is the divine, morality and immorality are defined by the divine's will.  Murder was only ever immoral to start with because God told men not to commit it.  The point of the story is to demonstrate that the only moral option ever available to the readers (or Abraham) was to follow God's will; nothing else was acceptable.  "Worship" of the self, or rather placing the desires of the self over the will of God is a recurring theme in the Bible, both OT and NT.

It's a fairly cold viewpoint to take; one would have to accept that God could order you to cut your own son and you'd be morally bound to do so.  While religion is often not given as a reason for AQ terrorists to do what they do, despite the rhetoric that Bin Ladin etc would like people to believe, understanding this viewpoint can be useful in getting in their heads.

And why should I believe something that can't be proven? I'm not an idiot you know!

"I think, therefore, I am" is the famous philosophical resolution to that quandry.  We have a soul because we realize we have a soul, even if we (nor do the main religions of the world, perhaps surprisingly) fully understand what that revelation means.  Meaning, nothing about our scientific or philosophical understanding of the world gives us the first clue as to whether or not we should be able to exist with our sense of self.  There's no reason I should have a concept of "I".  Human beings are, after all, nothing measurable beyond complex chemical reactions.  Automotauns make scientific sense, but self-identity does not.  

Religions took that for granted since before history, as a sign from their respecitve deities.  Philosophers worked it out a few thousand years ago.  Science is still comming up empty.

[Dark Vengeance]

I know being rational is difficult, and you love your life as a troll, but come on.

"Here's your sign."

At this point, you aren't even trying to discuss the matter.

I have a problem with creating embryos under certain circumstances. Our ability to create life, or (if you prefer) an embryo that has the potential for human life should not be abused, nor taken lightly.

I don't have a problem with deriving some benefit for mankind out of an embryo that fails to fulfill its potential. An embryo manufactured to harvest stem cells never is never given any opportunity to succeed or fail as a potential human life....the outcome is predetermined before the embryo is ever even created.

Do you see it yet? It's the predetermination of failure. It's unethical IMO to intentionally create a human embryo when it is predetermined that it will fail. Not that it could fail, not even that it probably WOULD fail....that it WILL fail.

The 0 vs >0....not the goal, not the ends, the predetermination of failure.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Toonces the Driving Cat]

I shouldn't have even brought up the bible. As stated above, I believe what can be proven, not what is written in lore.

[Margalis]

Headlines today: No WMD, no WMD programs, sanctions were working fine.

[Dark Vengeance]

Headlines today: No WMD, no WMD programs, sanctions were working fine.

Just to flesh it out beyond the headline:

The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

Let's note what this means:
1) No WMD stockpiles in his possession at the time of the invasion
2) No active WMD programs at the time of the invasion
3) He did have the capability to produce WMD

Note that #3 is still a violation of UN sanctions, and that he didn't disclose those capabilities is still a material breach of 1441.

Not that it matters much, this is what Kerry and the ABB crowd have been saying for quite some time....and Bush's crowd has been saying he was in material breach and had the capability to produce WMD in response for quite some time as well.

Part of me thinks that each side is so entranched in their position by now that it doesnt really matter. There are under 30 days left, and it does absolutely nothing to change the rhetoric on either side.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Romp]

Science can't believe in a soul, because it cannot prove or disprove a soul.

But science can explain how life works without needing for there to be a soul or anything mystical, so why postulate that one exists?

In the past it seemed like the existence of a soul explained many things we did not know about life.  But due to science we now know a lot of things we didnt know before about where life comes from, how cells work etc

[Disco Stu]

As any creationist will gleefully tell you, evolution hasn't been rigorously proven as fact, but most educated people do still believe in it.  

Yet another reason why creationists are idoits.

[Nebu]

Science is our best guess of the truth based upon data-based research.  The best scientists I've ever met will still tell you that there's a chance that they're mistaken, but they believe what they do based on years in pursuit of the truth.  Some of these scientists also happen to be religious people with a great deal of faith.  Bottom line is that there are very few certainties.

It's possible for faith and science to coexist.  It really boils down to what beliefs help you live your life most happily.  Of course, zealots from any camp still suck.

[Boogaleeboo]

But science can explain how life works without needing for there to be a soul or anything mystical

So what's the deal with self awareness again?

Or just sleep. Or, you know, are we saying the big bang was the beginning now or not? It seems to change from week to week.

Science knows jack and shit about the big questions of life. All it knows is what it doesn't know and a series of amusing parlor tricks.

[Romp]

Bottom line is science has credible theories which can explain life without the need for souls.  In my opinion there is no need to invent something to explain things unless science cannot explain it.

Science cannot as yet explain everything so as to leave no place for God, but we are heading that way.  The more we understand things through science, the less room there is for religion which we formerly used to explain things we didn't understand.

[Tebonas]

Most people just can't live with the thought that not everything is explainable. Therefore there will always be religion as a kind of blanket explanation for the last great riddles.

There are just some things beyond the grasp of our tiny human brains, I just never understood why people have to give those things names and worship them.

[SirBruce]

To me the existance of a God has interesting philosophical consequences, but I don't see why it should follow I should then turn around and worship such a being or do whatever he says I should do.

It is logically impossible for all of the following to be true:

 0. Evil exists.
 1. God is omnipotent.
 2. God is wholly good/loving/etc.
 3. We have free will.

Now, I put evil exists as 0. because I think we can most all agree that it is true as a premise.

Most people who believe in God believe in 0-2, but say that 3 explains how all that can be so.  "Evil exists", they say, "because we have free will, and that means sometimes we choose to do evil."

But if God is omnipotent, why not create people who HAVE free will, but nevertheless never ACTUALLY choose to do evil?  "Well, that's impossible," they say.  "If you are free to do something you must actually sometimes do it."  This is known as the "actual choice" conception of free will.  (There's a side-argument to this about whether or not omnipotence means God can do the logically impossible, but either way the answer doesn't impact on this argument.)

But this fails to hold up under analysis.  Let us suppose an ice cream store sells two flavors: chocolate and rocky road.  Now, I don't like rocky road, so every time I go to the store, I choose chocolate.  All my life, time and time again, I choose chocolate.  Would one seriously believe I did *not* have free will to choose rocky road?  Indeed, even if I never choose either flavor and simply leave the store, I still had free will to choose either flavor, did I not?  I simply chose chocolate because that's my preference.  Indeed, it would be a very odd sort of free will if I WANTED to choose chocolate, but somehow I chose rocky road instead!  That wouldn't be my will at all!

So what are we forced to conclude?  Well, we could decide we don't have free will, in which case none of this matters.  We're just along for the ride.

But if I decide I have free will, and I know evil exists, then either God isn't omnipotent, or he's not the paragon of virtue.  Either way, I see no reason to worship such a being, or do what he tells me to do -- or indeed, do what OTHER people TELL me he wants me to do.

Bruce

[Margalis]

Let's note what this means:
1) No WMD stockpiles in his possession at the time of the invasion
2) No active WMD programs at the time of the invasion
3) He did have the capability to produce WMD

3 is not true. He did not have the capability to produce WMD. He had the capability to restart the programs, which could THEN produce WMD.

He didn't have the capability, but he was capable of getting the capability. Is that what we call an imminent threat?

The fact is, the santions were working. Lack of WMD and WMD programs are proof of that.


Edit: "and Bush's crowd has been saying he was in material breach and had the capability to produce WMD in response for quite some time as well"

But, that's not all it said. Bush went on national TV and said he was confident the WMD existed and would be found. He didn't say what we would find was some facilities in disrepair that could be all polished up if sanctions were lifted.

You can't pretend the administration has taken the same position on this the whole time. Remember how our troops were supposed to be careful because the Iraqis were getting ready to release chemical weapons near Bahgdad?

If by the "Bush crowd" you mean "Geoge Bush on national television" your statement is incorrect. That's not disputable, the transcipts are available.

---
You guys can now go back to arguing whether science is better than random conjecture.

Edit: In the old testament there is more than one god, he is not omnipotent, and is not wholly good by any stretch of the imagination, or even rational.

[Calantus]

I've never gotten the whole worship of God myself anyway. I don't worship my parents, why should I worship God? If God made me, he made me for his own purposes, which presumably I'm fulfilling just by my being. Maybe it's my upbringing, as my parents always made sure I felt I owed them nothing, that it's their decision that brought me here for their own purposes. God gets his ant in the ant farm, I get to live. Fair trade.

That's how I feel anyway. What I believe is that the God of the bible does not exist. Maybe a true God did visit someone at some point and that started it, but regardless I doubt the bible holds any real truth. So I don't disbelieve in the possibility of the Divine, I just disbelieve the religeons and THEIR Gods. I'm willing to hold onto the big-bang theory until someone comes up with one I like better, or manages to prove one beyond reasonable doubt.

I also don't care too much beyond being curious in a "why is the sky blue?" kind of way.

Oh, and on bringing God to debates... "Mr. Sock puppet says abortion is naughty". Say that in a Ralf voice (from the Simpsons), and that's what it sounds like to me. Little annoys me more in a debate than someone trying to bring in the oppinion of a third party that I don't even believe exists, and who's "original words" have been distorted by translations, interpretations, and out-and-out manipulation by people seeking to use said words. I also dislike it when people give "reasons" without logic/reason/explanation behind it, which is much the same as saying "because God says so". Sheep, stop baaa-ing at me and give an oppinion, or at least explain to me a reasoning behind God's words, that will do. And if God "works in mysterious ways", how can you presume to speak for him? So don't pull that cop-out on me either.

Meh. I should stop now. The trauma of people telling me God will send me to hell because I don't believe in him still leaves a stark bitterness in my mouth. Seriously, they should class that as child abuse. Stopping. Now.

EDIT: And yes, I do realise I'm more accurately Agnostic, but experience tells me that saying you're athiest leaves you less likely to encounter attempted conversions. It incites less "huh? what's that?" comments too.

[Roac]

At this point, you aren't even trying to discuss the matter.

When you contradict yourself worse than even Bush spin campaigns portray Kerry, there's not much left to discuss.  You've said you're both fine and not fine with the exact same scenario, and my whole gripe with you to start with is that you're not being rational in your arguments.  WTG.

Do you see it yet? It's the predetermination of failure.

I do; you don't.  IVF procedures predetermine failure; when you follow that procedure, you are all but absolutely certain that there will be multiple otherwise viable embryos that will be proactivcely destroyed, and you have in this paragraph defined failure as "create a human embryo when it is predetermined that it will fail."  If the procedure were such that it would constantly create single embryos until there was a healthy, viable one, the matter would be different; but as it stands, the procedure involves purposefully creating embryos for destruction.

The inconsistancy goes away if your stance is that the value of success imeasurably outweighs the cost of the loss, but every time I offer up that out you balk at it.  Or it goes away if your stance is that destruction of embryos is not immoral, and you won't take that out either.  Instead you rant about predetermination of failure in the same way a gambling addict talks about beating the house.  It's a logical fallacy - you're going to lose, and the house knows you're going to lose.  The gambler will swear he's got it beat, but it just shows he doesn't know too much about numbers.

[schild]

Isn't it a little early in the morning to start the retards slapfight? Can't you at least wait til like after-lunch EST?


Edit: hehehehehee, I said 'bush pissing' the first time.

[HaemishM]

3) He did have the capability to produce WMD

No, no he didn't. The programs were dismantled. He did not have all the things in place to produce WMD. He had an intention of starting the programs up again once he got sanctions lifted, but the report states that he did not have the capability at the time to produce them. It also stated that the only manner in which he was actually breaching UN sanctions was in the attempted development of ballistic missles with a longer range than was allowed. That's it. End of story.

It also stated he had no intention of using any WMD's produced against the US, but against Israel and Iran instead.

Anyone who looks at that report and still thinks Saddam was an "iminent threat to the US" as stated by the Bush administration over and over is really not looking at the report from anything other than jaundiced eyes.

[Roac]

I shouldn't have even brought up the bible. As stated above, I believe what can be proven, not what is written in lore.

Nothing wrong with bringing it up.  The wrong bit was bringing up items in gross factual error in relation to it.  It makes it difficult to give credit to your implied argument that Biblical items (and presumably, most religious items of other faiths) cannot be proven, if you are unaware what claims they attempt to make and what evidence exists to back the claims up.  It is no better than (and from an argumentative pov, identical to) a conservative Christian taking shots at evolution because "it cannot be proven".  Both arguments originate in ignorance of the opposition.

Of course, neither argument (a biblical one or an evolutionary one) can be proven, but that alone cannot be the basis for dismissal.  Evolution is accepted as factual, for practical purposes, because of the incredible amount of overwhelming evidence for it.  There's no videotape showing evolution is what happened, but it's about impossible to look at the evidence and argue anything but.

But that same track doesn't need to be limited to this classic issue - it covers a whole range of debates that crop up.  The same types of implied assumtions about opposing arguments, and the following dismissals, create all sorts of misunderstandings between groups; science and religion here, rich and poor, west vs east, Christian vs Muslem, US vs Middle East, and so on.

[HaemishM]

The trauma of people telling me God will send me to hell because I don't believe in him still leaves a stark bitterness in my mouth. Seriously, they should class that as child abuse. Stopping. Now.

I'm right there with you on this one. It's a main part of the reason I have a hard time in any sort of "religious" ceremony, simply because I've been so jaundiced against them by continual fear-mongering evangelism.

ALL the religions have it wrong, IMO, because they attempt to label and classify something we have no possible hope of understanding with our human perceptions. Our limited thought processes cannot hope to encompass all possible aspects of any sort of Godhead, and therefore classify it. The whole point of religion is boiling down the most fundamental question of existence into something we can soundbite and therefore understand. It's a method of owning God.

That's not to say belief in God or spirituality is wrong; it isn't. But the dogmatic application of a fundamental misunderstanding of the universe generally just tends to make people into stupid fuckers.

[Roac]

3) He did have the capability to produce WMD

No.  Capability to produce != capability to resume production.  He had no programs, and no infastructure in place (factories, etc) to begin production whenever he wanted.  Capability to resume production means he could've rebuilt factories, staff it appropriately (with scientists, etc), which would've *then* given him the ability to resume production.

The "material breach" that Iraq was in violation of, in UN res. 1441, was "Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors", which he resumed after the passing of 1441, at the request of the same resolution.  That resolution also did not declare that Iraq must not have the capability to resume production, but did state it Iraq had "disarmament obligations", which were described in other resolutions.  WMDs were on the list, as well as certain other non-WMD military applications (long range missles, etc).

Further, despite being in material breach, 1441 stated that it (res. 1441) was to give Iraq "a final opportunity to comply".  Meaning, 1441 stated Iraq was not cooperating, and 1441 was his last chance.  Turns out that although Iraq was being an asshat about the whole thing, they were in technical compliance.

But hey, the US knows better than the UN anyhow, right?

[Paelos]

But hey, the US knows better than the UN anyhow, right?

Anybody knows better than the UN. Those hypocritical bastards wouldn't know how to enforce their own bowel movements without the US backing them.

[Roac]

It is logically impossible for all of the following to be true:

0. Evil exists.
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is wholly good/loving/etc.
3. We have free will.

Christians and Jews (and I presume Muslems) would refute 0, at least to a point.  The Judeo-Christian argument is that good is defined by God's will, and evil (sin) is anything that violates God's will.  Dualism is expressly voided by this premise, which states Good and Evil are two independant items.  Instead, the J/C stance is that there is, and only ever was, Good.  

The difference is that in dualism, God could not be omnipotent, as there is another power over which he has no authority.  Under the J/C argument, 0 is true as long as it's taken with the understanding that it is nothing more than a further description of 3; free will takes with it the freedom to go against God's will, which is defined as evil.  An omnipotent God (1), could have created Humans who had no capacity to violate his will.  However, a God who loves (2) wants something worthy of love.  Such a thing needs to have the capability to love back, which neccessitates free will (3).  Love is something that needs to be given freely and describes a relationship more important than the self.  A loving God (2) wants to be a loving God.  Being omnipotent (1), he creates Man (3).  The only options available to a loving God is to create Man, or stop being loving.

[Roac]

I also don't care too much beyond being curious in a "why is the sky blue?" kind of way.
...
I also dislike it when people give "reasons" without logic/reason/explanation behind it

I completely agree with the second sentiment - towards any issue, religious or secular.  Don't claim soemthing to be true if you don't have the first clue as to why it might be.  However, if you're apathetic towards an issue (religious or secular), the soundest logic in the world won't matter.  For example...

...and who's "original words" have been distorted by translations, interpretations, and out-and-out manipulation by people seeking to use said words.

The Dead Sea scrolls are a famous example that demonstrate there has been almost no distortion across millenia of recopying and retranslating the material, but it is not alone.  Other examples are the Jewish culture itself; mistelling an OT story, for cultures who even today do not have written traditions, carries with it severe social penalty.  Despite having an oral tradition, their retelling matches with written traditions.

There is of course a drift, and there's a whole discipline within literary science that looks at situations like this, and can compare for example, Jewish traditions with mythological cultures, note the "rate of change" at least in abstract, and suggest or cite cultural/linguistical reasons why.  But again, as Toonces did, it's far easier to be an apathetic critic about something instead of learning about it.

[Bunk]

But science can explain how life works without needing for there to be a soul or anything mystical

So what's the deal with self awareness again?

Or just sleep. Or, you know, are we saying the big bang was the beginning now or not? It seems to change from week to week.

Science knows jack and shit about the big questions of life. All it knows is what it doesn't know and a series of amusing parlor tricks.

So since we don't have hard answers for the big questions in life, we therefore have to attribute everything we don't understand to an omnipotent entity?

Personally, Im just happy with admiting that I don't have an answer to those questions, and I probably never will.

Human beings fear the unknown more than anything else. Religion is a convenient way to provide answers for the unknown.  Please don't take this statement as a troll, its just how I feel.  If you feel comfortable in your own personal faith, more power to you.