3RU7AL

Wow! Ten pages of replies from atheists trying to prove that they DO exist. Does anyone else appreciate the irony?

You use the ultimate reality as a synonym for god and since gods don't exist your ultimate reality doesn't exist

I am an Orthodox Christian. This is how we understand God.

Not deism.

I reason that to assume something, it cannot be ruled impossible and there must be some inkling of belief.

Lets entertain this claim.  Humans have to take the position of a god to conduct philosophy in respect of natural law via atheism.

Ok, so if I asked you, "If Zeus struck you down with a bolt of lightning, would you die?"  Do you have to believe in Zeus in order to entertain and or respond to this hypothetical?

Of course, because you need to make the assumption of Zeus

Ok, so if I asked you, "If invaders from Mars destroyed every government building on Earth, would you be prepared?"  Do you have to believe in invaders from Mars in order to entertain and or respond to this hypothetical?

Yes.

Lets entertain this claim.  Humans have to take the position of a god to conduct philosophy in respect of natural law via atheism.

Deism can be classified as a subset of theism, not atheism.  If atheists don't exist, naturally the appropriation of atheism is off the mark as an outlook.  

Lol. You can't debate your position, so you begin another thread with my comment cut and taken out of context. Win!

What liberals normally do in response to a principled conservative argument is lie, manufacture quotes, and call conservatives names.

-Ann Coulter

For this particular thread, I would like to stay on this topic.

Not everyone has turned in their quiz.

there were once a group of living cells/zygote/embryo/baby then trough the actions of abortion (insert label here) is no longer alive aka killed.

Ok.

So now you can say God exists.

That is the only point I am making.

The Ultimate Reality is what God means.

Practical implications is something else entirely.

Neither of you can comfess The Ultimate Reality, which is very telling.

You can't admit That Which Is Ultimately Real exists.

though I would pose you this, if population and to some extent poor are the problem to the world as the population grows, wouldn't it make more sense to euthanize the deformed, terminally ill, retarded etc that can only minimally contribute to society, rather than abort a potential productive member of society, perhaps a ground breaking genius

A condom is worth like, one Subway meatball. To many, a clear conscience is priceless.  Poor people can't afford to learn helplessness.

I'm not talking about my claims.

Cann you say The Ultimate Reality exists or what?

You need to be humble because you never say anything new or unique. To recap I accept that some reality exists and I reject that you could possibly know anything about anything which exists outside the observable. Anything that is not a part if the observable physical universe is by definition unobservable and an unobservable thing is an unknowable thing and if a thing is unknowable then you cannot know anything about it. It is ridiculous to think that you can teach anyone anything about something that you don't know.

Because I cannot save everyone, so I save the most innocent, the most defenseless, the most in need.

So what? Did you ask me for justifications for Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, or just perfectly justifiable reasons for going to war?

No Einstein. But you must be invited to surrender before it is possible to refuse to surrender.

Killing, knowingly, wilfully isn't the same as letting nature take it's cource, this is where society has drawn a line in most instances.  Dnr can be used to make decisions for those who can not. 

Neither one is realistic jasper. Everyone cannot be saved

Sure. To save another country. To make a region safer. To uphold the dignity of your country. To right a wrong. Etc.

The allies were not asked to surrender, and as such, could not have refused. This is typical liberal illogic.

It is incorrect. I did not say, "Saving every human being on earth that has already been born is much more realistic than trying to save every unborn embryo." You said it. I would never say anything that stupid.

Actually, Japan extended the war by refusing. 

Thank you. Common sense.

It was Japan at fault, not the US.

Of course not.

Ok, so when you said that it was more realistic to try and save the lives of every human that has already been born, and less realistic to try and save the lives of every embryo that has yet to be born, 

Please show where I said this. You abortion people always get so emotional. I have no clue why you think I said this.

...and you refused to explain why you decided to choose the latter rather than the former, 

I don't have to explain anything to you, especially things I didn't say. I'm sure you have your pro-life caricature in your mind, but please debate me and not him.

Saving every human being on earth that has already been born is much more realistic than trying to save every unborn embryo.

Perhaps, but...

1. I am in no way obligated to prioritize what you think is relialistic.

2. Only what I am able to do is realistic.

the argument that the woman has some kind of special right, or right at all due to dependency when it's inside her vs when it's not,  isn't correct or logical.

except there are D.N.R. laws, she is making a D.N.R. decision for her baby, where are you getting confused?

I'm trying to understand the position you are taking, even though it appears a devil's advocate one, which is fine.  If I understand you correctly....

Life starts at conception and the spark of life is a soul (something like that)

All human life is precious

Because all life is precious, in every instance, everything possible should be done to protect or ensure that life (miscarriage, immigration)

is that about right?  Anything I missed?

Actually, Japan extended the war by refusing. They knew they were defeated, but they decided to fight onn. Which is why we had to nuke them. Any other course of action would have killed many more people.

I'm asking if your justification of this particular event is capricious or based on some identifiable principle.

And I told you. Self defense. Please buy a clue.

Conservatives Side with - Greedy pharmaceutical corporations, overdoses and death and prohibition style criminal

And are against - Personal sovereignty and the right to decide how much suffering is reasonable     

The you say, Outlawing dangerous and or deadly substances has nothing to do with privacy.

So I ask you, Then how are conservatives against Personal sovereignty and the right to decide how much suffering is reasonable?

You can't answer.

You ask, Can't break a deadly addiction? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"

So whose fault is it?

Did you get that I was also mocking his post verbatim?

Or was that lost in my condescension towards him?

you brought up souls, I didn't

Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), also known as no code or allow natural death

You and me and 99.99999% of the human population believe that some life is more precious than others.

some=/=all

Once they are rejected and or deported (regardless of age), nobody cares if they live or die.

you presume to speak for everyone?  awww come on stretch geez.

Here's the way I see it. Theists want god to exist the same way children want the tooth fairy to exist. They know that god doesn't exist, but they suppress the truth. It's because they also know that they are credulous and deserve to know what is real. They know that we cannot avoid death. But these people love their credulity more than their analytical brain. Also, the Bible tells us lies about reality yet they still accept it. So it's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of critical thinking. There is such a thing as an atheist. In my opinion. This is what logic tells us.

Self defense is "protecting your family".

Only sometimes.

So? Did you ask me or ask the US Military? You asked about a specific event.

That's a speculative theory in American policy, and WWII history.  Indeed, the Japanese were willing to fight till the conclusion of the war.  I'd like to discuss the terms of surrender for their political merit when it inevitably comes up again some day but hopefully not as an armchair critic. 

...why would woman wait so long?

Given a choice between deportation or certain death which do you think most people would choose?

We are going to talk about souls now?  Not interested.

DNR is not manslaughter.

that's your opinion that all life is precious, I've never stated mine, stretch.

As I read history the US extended the war by demanding unconditional surrender.

rofl, dude that was stretch armstrong reach you got going on there.  Immigrant chose to risk life and limb

We don't seem to care if that human will almost certainly die after they are ejected from our country

unless you have some stats to prove otherwise, that's not true, given how many times people/criminals have been deported, i would call that flat out false.  Where as 100% of abortions end in death.  apples and grapefruit.

At the very least it's an animal, lesser life form, whatever, but it is alive.

Where is your personal responsibility now?

Why can't the skanks keep their legs closed if they don't want babies?

But your argument always starts AFTER the irresponsibility.

If they lived like human beings, instead of like rutting wilderbeests, they wouldn't have the problem.

When we try to (allow removal of an embryo), idiot liberals claim we are violating the woman's privacy.

Silly. There are hundreds of religions and hundreds of beliefs.

Especially since only you think [the status of an embryo] it's ontological.

No sir. Because what happens before the cord is cut determines whether there will be a cord to cut at all.

No one can address every real live child or adult that is in danger.

The war against Japan was clearly justifiable.  

Christians don't protect their family selfishly.

If fireboming japanese cities is a good thing then there would be no need to wait for a war to do it.

killing 100,000 people is a bad thing... it remains a bad thing even if not killing them would be worse.

Self defense. Japan attacked America first.

No, but America doing it [firebombing civilians] in 1945 was not bad.