Abortion

[BilliardsBall]

I would expect that if there were any measurable difference in being "born again" we would have data to support such. But there is no data that I can find to back your claim in any way.

I do find evidence from multiple sources that secular democracies have less felonies, lower teen pregnancy rates, etc. than highly religious societies.

What percentage of people who claim to be born again do you think love Jesus Christ like I do?

Which modern theocracy that isn't Muslim are you thinking of? I can't think of a single modern born again nation.

 

[Sapiens]

Good question!

1. It is wholly unpopular with parole boards to say things like, "I'm an atheist! Morality is subjective and the laws of this state, a societal contrivance."

2. Is is POPULAR to claim Christian conversion in interviews, polls, parole boards to secure early release if possible--because the authorities see the 180-degree turn born agains make in prison.

3. You seem to be drawing an inference that Christianity gets people jailed while atheism has lawful citizens. I do not advertise Christianity as "spend less time in prison!" as if that's something laudable, just as atheists seem to say they are good despite the fact that policemen don't pull people over for obeying the law. "Hi, sorry to stop your vehicle, but you were going 68 in a 70, and I feel that I owe you a debt of gratitude for being safe." This doesn't play in Heaven, either--"Let me in, God, because although I was an atheist, I did a bunch of good things for self-preservation and to avoid jail time." So atheists are on the whole better educated and wealthier than other sinners and have better lawyers . . . that has to account in part for the statistics, because it is so--atheists tend to have more college degrees and more money than other sinners.

4. Again, a lot of people come to Jesus for salvation when the chips are down. Jesus said it was a shame that prostitutes and tax collectors were crowding the entrance door of Heaven while the religious were missing the door completely. I EXPECT to see MANY Christians in prison. On death row, a lot of people either get saved or claim to have gotten saved. They are facing an existential crisis as best they can--you don't really ever here about serial killers embracing atheism afresh in prison--what I hear is that atheists dislike talking about the grave and what comes after.

It maybe that it is a matter of Christian conversion for show, but if you just look at Atheists alone their recidivism is the lowest of any group. The point is that religion is nor required to have lawful, socially responsible behavior. I wonder why Atheists are better educated and earn more money despite the discrimination that they are subjected to.

 

[Sapiens]

What percentage of people who claim to be born again do you think love Jesus Christ like I do?

That much unrequited love must be hard.

 

[BilliardsBall]

All you needed to say is "no true Scotsman". We could have filled in the rest.

You are misapplying the NTS fallacy.

For the NTS fallacy to exist, "no true" something, something true must first exist along with the definitions of what is "false" and what is "true". The NTS fallacy includes the axiom:

True things exist and false things exist.

These are called by we Christians absolutes, and are used to demonstrate that immaterial absolutes (truth, falsity, God, spirit, math, logic, love, justice et al) exist. Thus I encourage atheists never to invoke the NTS fallacy, for it is based on axiomatic truths that immaterial realities exist.

Further, since Jesus Christ said "you must be born again to be a Christian and follow me," I should think that HE is entitled to say some true Christians exist, and what determines them to exist, i.e. being truly born again. After all, atheists LOVE to say Jesus was the first one to espouse Christianity but the NT writers messed it up.

Can my parents tell me my sister and I are their sole two surviving children without my invoking the NTS fallacy?

Do you invoke the NTS fallacy when your espoused or spouse says, "You don't truly love me . . ."?

Jesus Christ said you and I go to Hell apart from being born again. Why are you reluctant to allow me to accept His axiomatic definition, please?

PS. If you truly (pardon the axiomatic pun) wish to deny my definition set, YOU are saying you define the only true definition set between you and I, and are therefore guilty of the NTS error.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It maybe that it is a matter of Christian conversion for show, but if you just look at Atheists alone their recidivism is the lowest of any group. The point is that religion is nor required to have lawful, socially responsible behavior. I wonder why Atheists are better educated and earn more money despite the discrimination that they are subjected to.

I will accept that atheists have the least recidivism if you will show me scientific studies that parse born again Christians (willful Christians) from born Christians.

In my own case, a Jew who still deals with a lot of nonsense for being a Christian also, I can tell you that my money is where my mouth is, and that being born of two Christians doesn't make you a religious, devout, practicing, Bible-reading, stay-out-of-jail-do-not-collect-$200-do-not-pass-Go Christian.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That much unrequited love must be hard.

I agree! I don't know why the Lord Jesus Christ would suffer a horrible death by torture and then resurrect in glory for me.

 

[Thumper]

I will accept that atheists have the least recidivism if you will show me scientific studies that parse born again Christians (willful Christians) from born Christians.

In my own case, a Jew who still deals with a lot of nonsense for being a Christian also, I can tell you that my money is where my mouth is, and that being born of two Christians doesn't make you a religious, devout, practicing, Bible-reading, stay-out-of-jail-do-not-collect-$200-do-not-pass-Go Christian.

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

~ Emo Phillips

 

[Thumper]

I will accept that atheists have the least recidivism if you will show me scientific studies that parse born again Christians (willful Christians) from born Christians.

In my own case, a Jew who still deals with a lot of nonsense for being a Christian also, I can tell you that my money is where my mouth is, and that being born of two Christians doesn't make you a religious, devout, practicing, Bible-reading, stay-out-of-jail-do-not-collect-$200-do-not-pass-Go Christian.

"There have been nearly 3000 Gods so far but only yours actually exists. The others are silly made up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real." ~ Ricky Gervais

 

[Thumper]

I agree! I don't know why the Lord Jesus Christ would suffer a horrible death by torture and then resurrect in glory for me.

“Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.” ~ Andrew Lias

 

[Thumper]

You are misapplying the NTS fallacy.

For the NTS fallacy to exist, "no true" something, something true must first exist along with the definitions of what is "false" and what is "true". The NTS fallacy includes the axiom:

True things exist and false things exist.

These are called by we Christians absolutes, and are used to demonstrate that immaterial absolutes (truth, falsity, God, spirit, math, logic, love, justice et al) exist. Thus I encourage atheists never to invoke the NTS fallacy, for it is based on axiomatic truths that immaterial realities exist.

Further, since Jesus Christ said "you must be born again to be a Christian and follow me," I should think that HE is entitled to say some true Christians exist, and what determines them to exist, i.e. being truly born again. After all, atheists LOVE to say Jesus was the first one to espouse Christianity but the NT writers messed it up.

Can my parents tell me my sister and I are their sole two surviving children without my invoking the NTS fallacy?

Do you invoke the NTS fallacy when your espoused or spouse says, "You don't truly love me . . ."?

Jesus Christ said you and I go to Hell apart from being born again. Why are you reluctant to allow me to accept His axiomatic definition, please?

PS. If you truly (pardon the axiomatic pun) wish to deny my definition set, YOU are saying you define the only true definition set between you and I, and are therefore guilty of the NTS error.

There you go making stuff up again.

For those that are reading this thread and care, No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree! I don't know why the Lord Jesus Christ would suffer a horrible death by torture and then resurrect in glory for me.

Humble brag?

 

[BilliardsBall]

There you go making stuff up again.

For those that are reading this thread and care, No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

You are actually going to disagree with me? For there to be a "No True Scotsman fallacy" in force from any of my posts you must accept this axiom:

True and false things absolutely exist.

If you are an atheist who says nothing absolute exists, you cannot invoke the NTS fallacy. Be consistent.

 

[Thumper]

You are actually going to disagree with me? For there to be a "No True Scotsman fallacy" in force from any of my posts you must accept this axiom:

True and false things absolutely exist.

If you are an atheist who says nothing absolute exists, you cannot invoke the NTS fallacy. Be consistent.

That has nothing to do with the "no true Scotsman" position as a rebuttal argument. I don't care if you understand this or not.

I was merely pointing out to other readers of this thread that they could go look it up for themselves rather than take your or my word for what this fallacious argument entails.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Humble brag?

My thoughtful comments to you and others invite adult, not child play. Care to join us?

It is not a "humble brag" to boast upon someone who died on my behalf. What's wrong with you? You can't possibly be that immature, because you seem way too intelligent to me to be such a child emotionally.

 

[columbus]

You are actually going to disagree with me? For there to be a "No True Scotsman fallacy" in force from any of my posts you must accept this axiom:

True and false things absolutely exist.

If you are an atheist who says nothing absolute exists, you cannot invoke the NTS fallacy. Be consistent.

Now you are using the strawman fallacy.

One of the more frustrating aspects of this discussion is the weak arguments employed. I expect those from the knee jerk baby killers. But the ones from anti-feticide people tend not to be better, often worse.
I agree with their conclusions, in a general sense. But their evidence and logical reasoning is terrible. Their methods of fighting elective abortions tend to be ineffective and inhumane. Their overall stances on ProLife issues tend to be hypocritical as hell.

I tend to agree with many of the criticisms put forward by pro-feticide people. It's a problem for me.
Tom

 

[Thumper]

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." ~ Sister Joan Chittister

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My thoughtful comments to you and others invite adult, not child play. Care to join us?

It is not a "humble brag" to boast upon someone who died on my behalf. What's wrong with you? You can't possibly be that immature, because you seem way too intelligent to me to be such a child emotionally.

"Well, I don't see why I'm special, but Christ thinks I'm important enough to die for." Sure seems like a humble brag to me.

 

[columbus]

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." ~ Sister Joan Chittister

Sister Chittister was a hero to one of my top Christian heroes, the late Pat Conard. Pat was one of those people too busy helping do Jesus's work to talk about religion.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

You are actually going to disagree with me? For there to be a "No True Scotsman fallacy" in force from any of my posts you must accept this axiom:

True and false things absolutely exist.

If you are an atheist who says nothing absolute exists, you cannot invoke the NTS fallacy. Be consistent.

You do realize that atheism is not the same as materialism. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. That in no way limits people to only believing in the material world. There are plenty of atheists that believe in ghosts, spirits, the separate mind, etc.

 

[leibowde84]

You are actually going to disagree with me? For there to be a "No True Scotsman fallacy" in force from any of my posts you must accept this axiom:

True and false things absolutely exist.

If you are an atheist who says nothing absolute exists, you cannot invoke the NTS fallacy. Be consistent.

This makes no sense. The "no true scottsman" fallacy is something like the following:

No Christians believe in evolution.
Well, I'm a Christian and I believe in Evolution.
Well, no TRUE Christian believes in Evolution. You aren't a TRUE Christian. (This final claim is the "no true scotsman" fallacy)