[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/4/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/4/96 [16:09] Aco
[ref001]
#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/4/96
#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/4/96
[16:09] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined
#apologetics.
[16:09] Acol....what does ping/pong mean on
the server?
[16:10] Does it mean someone looks at your
info? on nic?
[16:12] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu:
The Home of Rational Theism
[16:15] newsong (newsong@perham-41.dialup.eot.com)
left #apologetics.
[16:15] Neuron (binky@dave.voicenet.com) joined #Apologetics.
[16:15] what verse was it that u cited?
[16:15] PRO CHOICE!!!!!!!
[16:15] thats nice, what verse was it that
u cited?
[16:15] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[16:16] It's the most famous verse in the Pro-choice
lobby, mate! You know the one.
[16:16] neuron please give me the refernce,
Iwould like to see if it is inthe Bible
[16:16] or not
[16:16] +o Neuron
[16:16] what verse?
[16:16] ops are earned here, sorry
[16:16] make me an op and i will tell you where
[16:16] what verse?
[16:16] yeah right
[16:16] and my dog flies
[16:17] i'm not going to even start this discussion
if you uptight people are going to kick me
[16:17] 1. I am not a fundamentalist
[16:17] ok Iwillmake a deal with you
[16:17] redleg (redleg@ascend04-19.icanect.net) joined
#Apologetics.
[16:17] what does it take to "earn" an op, Acolyte?
Do i have to take a vow of chastity?
[16:17] I won't kick u if you won't use vulgar
words
[16:17] redleg (redleg@ascend04-19.icanect.net) left
#Apologetics.
[16:17] or blasphemous statements, sound fair?
[16:17] Neuron only those who hold certian
beliefs are allowed tobe ops here
[16:18] ut anyhow, u are pro-choice, why?
[16:19] ut anyhow, u are pro-choice, why?
[16:19] i feel that no one has the right to
tell me what to do with MY body. And Pro-choice advocates
do not go around bombing clinics and shooting people
[16:19] ok, so you think the unborn entity
is your body like your toe or finger then?
[16:19] you pro-life people and your fanaticism
is the MAIN cause of what we're seeing today.
[16:20] Who said Iw as pro life?
[16:20] I did not say either way
[16:20] neuron but even if that is the case,
I would like tolearn what your view is and why you
hold it
[16:20] I didn't say that. You are clogging
the lines with hyperbole, Acolyte
[16:20] Neuron huh? what hyperbole?
[16:21] Neuron, do you think that the unborn
entity is part of your body?
[16:21] Why do i hold my view? You want to know
why I hold my view? Because I have firsthand experience
dealing with religious fundamentalist FREAKS that used
to line up outside the clinic and harrass those who
passed by
[16:22] ok, that is not a logical argument,
if you don't have any logical arguments for your position,
I guess there is othing to talk about
[16:22] Nueron I am not a Fundy for one
[16:23] nueron secondly, ppl used to think
Blacks in the US were religious freaks, just because
someone is a freak or non-freak does not amke their
argument true or false
[16:23] I am interested in truth, can you show
me why you think that the unborn entity is part of
your body if you indeed believe that to be the case.
[16:23] ?
[16:25] Neuron, why do u think that the unborn
entity is part of the body of the woman?
[16:25] you place too much weight on the human
soul, the notion that what is created out of natural
biological processes is possessed of a soul, and can
feel pain. I have a natural view, that we are animals,
and religion tries to deny us
that realisiation
[16:25] Neuron have I even mentioned a soul?
no
[16:25] Neuron, seocndly I asked a question,
please answer what I asked
[16:26] Neuron, why do u think that the unborn
entity is part of the body of the woman?
[16:26] then where are you going with your question
to me? I do in fact believe that the unborn entity
is merely a part of the body
[16:26] Neuron thenI am confused, perhaps you
can help to clarify the issue for me
[16:27] Neruon if I swollow a gem or diamond,
and it is IN me, is it part of my body?
[16:27] yes or no?
[16:28] the unborn entity is part of the body
because it came about as a result of teh natural biological
process that takes place INSIDE the human female body.
If you swallow a gem, then that is something which
has nothing to do with the
se processes
[16:28] Neruon fine, ia gree, but is there
a difference between being IN a body and being part
of that body?
[16:28] yes or no?
[16:28] sure there is
[16:28] ok
[16:29] neuron, then I have somethng else to
ask
[16:29] shoot
[16:29] neuron what sex is a body that carries
a male child?
[16:29] male or female or hermaphodite?
[16:30] what sex is a body that carries a male
child? That's female, last time i checked
[16:30] which of the three, unless of course
you can think of some other sex
[16:30] oh no its not
[16:30] think about it
[16:30] the female body has a penis and vagina
at the same time
[16:30] its a hermaphodite
[16:31] because the result of the biological
process of conception does not affect the integrity
of the biologcal being
[16:31] the fetus is merely a PART of the womans
body, hence the woman is not female
[16:31] but during preganancy it is a hermaphodite,
it has a poenis and vagina
[16:31] but is the penis in a functional state?
[16:31] neuron even if it is not functional,
it still has both sex organs
[16:32] and genes
[16:32] and hormones
[16:32] so when a woman is pregnant if she
has a female she has two vaginas and 2 heads and 4
eyes etc
[16:32] but biological designations are based
on development of the sexual organs, and that doesn't
meet the criteria
[16:32] its just like her toe, its a aprt of
her
[16:33] neuron, perhaps it does not, but for
the last 2 trimesters it does
[16:33] neuron but it does have a brain and
heart and hands and toes early one,hence the women
has multiple features
[16:33] one=on
[16:33] bueron that seems rather illogical
to me
[16:34] that's getting into an area of debate,
which i cannot claim to have any expertise in. However,
i would probably agree that after a certain point,
abortion becomes more of a sin
[16:34] neuron just because it is connected
to thge woman and aprt of the natural process does
not make it PART of the woman
[16:34] neuron it is simple logic,it has nothing
to do with expertise
[16:34] neuron, just because it is connected
to the woman does not make it part of th woman.
[16:35] neuron your arguments rests on a logical
equivocation of terms, hence it is logicaly falalcious
it seems to me
[16:35] however, the pro-life lobby does not
always make this distinction, and therefore i feel
it is a reckless movement that does much harm
[16:35] neuron what distinction is that?
[16:35] more of a sin or is a sin?
[16:35] between the developmental stages of
the fetus.
[16:36] at what point is abrotion a sin? 9
months?
[16:36] 8 months?
[16:36] 7 months?
[16:36] how abut 6months?
[16:36] should I keep going?
[16:36] when?
[16:36] pro-lifers make as much noise about
first trimestre as they do the later stages. I feel
the movement is hopelessly flawed by passion, and the
failure to make a distinction.
[16:37] perhaps, but please address the question
[16:37] perhaps you said it is a sin at a certain
satge, what stage is that?
[16:37] what stage?
[16:38] who knows? you can't tell me the answer
any more than i could tell you. but there is a point,
it does exist, and prolifers just seize on this to
say that ANY fetus is past the crucial point
[16:38] neuron perhaps I can tell you
[16:38] pleas do
[16:38] neuron perhaps I do know, I mean after
all, youa re not psychic are you?
[16:38] neuron well i thnk it is rather simple
[16:38] what is a human being?
[16:38] maybe you do know, but that's a bit
presumptuous on your part.
[16:38] has certain things
[16:39] not if I am right it is not
[16:39] neuron no more presumptious of youto
presume that I DON'T know
[16:39] how anyone could base their views, especially
strong ones such as these, on pure speculation is beyond
me
[16:39] Humans have certain things, they have
certan potentialities and cahracteristics
[16:39] neuron logic is not speculation
[16:39] neither is scietific evidence
[16:40] I'm NOT presuming anything. That's the
whole definition of presume - no one knows
[16:40] let me make my case for a second ok?
[16:40] neuron ok lets talk about that for
a second
[16:40] do you mean that no one CAN know or
that no one DOES know?
[16:40] which one?
[16:40] see, i don;t agree with your assessment
of humans. I agree we are special, masters of our world,
but we are very much animals
[16:41] neuron, well lets deal with this first,
then we can talk about being animals, monism vs dualism
[16:41] do you mean that no one CAN know or
that no one DOES know?
[16:42] i mean that no one can know, at least
[16:42] neuron why?
[16:42] neuron what is it about human nature
that you are aware of that prevents this knowledge
from being obtainable?
[16:44] Neuron bascially what do you know that
makes it possible to know that no one can know the
truth about this topic.
[16:44] ?
[16:44] Petrel (petrel@128.227.8.10) joined #apologetics.
[16:44] hullo petrel
[16:44] hullo
[16:45] Neuron how do you know that no one
can know?
[16:45] neuron that is what I am asking
[16:46] nueron I am waiting for your answer
[16:46] Neuron (binky@dave.voicenet.com) left #Apologetics.
[16:46] guess he could not answer it.
[16:46] or she rather
===============================================================
[18:58] Plover (petrel@grove.ufl.edu) joined #apologetics.
[18:59] Apologize
[19:00] hi plover
[19:00] s'ok
[19:00] hehehe
[19:00] So someone here
[19:01] jus me
[19:01] how are ya?
[19:01] ok, what do you do here
[19:02] are you an apologeticist?
[19:02] Yes, perhaps
[19:02] well there are ussually
[19:02] for the Pharisees
[19:02] ops here that are professors and such
[19:03] or are in collage for aplolgetics
[19:03] fatjac (fatjac@wck-ca8-16.ix.netcom.com) joined
#apologetics.
[19:03] So maybe they know something
[19:03] Hi, you'all!
[19:04] CTCP SOUND: arethere.wav You there??? from
fatjac (fatjac@wck-ca8-16.ix.netcom.com) to #apologetics
[19:04] Well...
[19:04] hi fat!
[19:04] Are we lagging?
[19:05] C5H8O2 (estoeben@asm4-3.sl140.cns.vt.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[19:05] hi everyone
[19:05] XP:Hi, finally some people here!
[19:05] so are you christians?
[19:05] im not trained
[19:05] No
[19:05] yeah. trained?
[19:05] Speak my son! I'll help you.
[19:05] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp9.snni.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:06] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((((((((((((( Xpressor
))))))))))))))))))))
[19:06] but i will try to help
[19:06] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((((((((((((( fatjac
))))))))))))))))))))
[19:06] ^Sioux (chance@ppp46.snni.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:06] Hi all
[19:06] ned can help
[19:06] {{{{ned and sioux}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
[19:06] What's the subject?
[19:06] Action: ^Sioux gives a big hug to ((((((( Xpressor
)))))))
[19:06] that figure ...
[19:06] whats the issue?
[19:06] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((((((((((((( Xpressor
))))))))))))))))))))
[19:06] im just about to run out of time!
[19:07] There is an omnipotent, omniscient,
personal, loving being responsible for the universe.
[19:07] <^Sioux> so...re boot!
[19:07] plover may have one for you ned!
[19:07] yes, Were there 2 Isaiahs
[19:07] Plover....may I be of some help?
[19:08] Are you christian?
[19:08] the tapes will be in the mail monday!!!!!!
[19:08] Plover...are you a Christian?
[19:08] No
[19:08] Kool EXP...No rush :)
[19:08] I think this apolobot thing is great.
Is there anyway to copy that to the christian channel?
[19:09] Plover....what is your worldview??..are
you an atheist?
[19:09] Jewish, agnostic
[19:10] Anyone belive in Sole Fide ?
[19:10] Plover....so...how would you phrase
your belief about the existance of God?
[19:10] "??"
[19:11] Plover....Fiedism is not a Biblical
view
[19:11] "By Faith ONLY"
[19:11] Plover....so...how would you phrase
your belief about the existance of God?
[19:11] I lean towards atheism
[19:11] ??
[19:12] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu:
The Home of Rational Theism
[19:12] So you are not Lutherian
[19:12] can you explain for me..I dont know
you :)
[19:12] I lean towards atheism
[19:12] ??
[19:12] I lean towards atheism
[19:13] Plover....I asked for a statement
about what you believe/base your Non belief on....
[19:13] a description is not a statement
that tells me much...there are many views
[19:13] Very complex subject, the evolution
of religious thought
[19:15] or any thought for that matter
[19:15] BRB
[19:15] PLover:Would you be interested in a
philosophical proof for the existence of GOd?
[19:16] C5H8O2 (estoeben@asm4-3.sl140.cns.vt.edu) got
netsplit.
[19:16] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp9.snni.com) got netsplit.
[19:16] ^Sioux (chance@ppp46.snni.com) got netsplit.
[19:16] do you believe there is no God
[19:16] Sure, but Ive probably already heard
it
[19:16] Not me, Z
[19:16] X rather
[19:16] ^Sioux (chance@ppp46.snni.com) returned to
#Apologetics.
[19:16] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp9.snni.com) returned
to #Apologetics.
[19:16] C5H8O2 (estoeben@asm4-3.sl140.cns.vt.edu) returned
to #Apologetics.
[19:17] <^Sioux> woah
[19:17] Plover I've broken it up in 6 parts.
Anybody here object if I run it, or shall we go to
chat.
[19:17] i would im allways up for learnin
[19:17] Are we laggin again?
[19:18] Ok here we ggo!
[19:18] id personally like to see it
[19:18] If we examine the universe we find that
everything that does exist might very well have not
existed. i.e. We ourselves exist but might very well
not have existed had not a man and woman met and mated.
[19:18] re sioux!
[19:18] Nothing therefore is the explanation
of its own existence. In other words their existence
in contingent upon something else. Each thing has existence
and can pass on existence, but did not originate existence.
[19:18] newsong (newsong@perham-41.dialup.eot.com)
joined #apologetics.
[19:18] It is impossible to conceive of a universe
consisting exclusively of contingent beings, i.e. beings
which are only receivers of existence and not originators.
[19:18] re ned!
[19:18] fatjac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[19:18] If nothing exists save beings that receive
their existence, how does anything exist at all? Where
do they receive their existence from? If each being
receives its existence from another how did existence
get in the system at all?
[19:18] We are driven then to see that contingent
beings could not exist at all unless there is also
a being which differs from them by possessing existence
in its own right. It does not have to receeive existence
it simply has existence.
[19:18] It is not contingent: It simply is.
This is the Being we call God.
[19:18] radio guys all over tonight...hmmmmmmmm...
[19:18] That all folks
[19:19] fatjac....hope i didn't chase you off!!!
[19:19] Hope you're loggin PLover.
[19:19] what is your reason for believing
there is no God?
[19:19] fatjac-are you saying that anything
in the universe could not exist, and the universe would
still exist?
[19:20] Sorry very trite
[19:20] hello Ned
[19:20] im game but i prefer plover have his
preference
[19:20] brb......I have a problem here
[19:20] Arostotelian
[19:20] Nick change: NedFlndrs -> Ned_away
[19:21] C5:Sure. Many things no longer exist
but the universe still exists. That does not mean though
that the universe could not cease to exist.
[19:21] Like the unmoved mover, very primitive
[19:21] if the universe had no positive charged
particles, would the universe be able to exist?
[19:22] Action: C5H8O2 is checking what his nick is
[19:22] Not in this form
[19:22] PLover:Not Aristotlean, Scholastic.
[19:22] Nick change: C5H8O2 -> EAC4105
[19:23] PLover:So cite your objections.
[19:23] Whats Scholastic?
[19:23] PLover:Thomas Aquinas.
[19:24] ITs just the same old, first cause argument,
in different dress
[19:24] Plover:Sooo?
[19:24] is there a flaw in that arguement?
[19:25] So the usual retort is skip a step and
just say we always existed
[19:25] Conservation of energy
[19:26] PLover:Which begs the question.
[19:26] What does it mean to say simply has
existance?
[19:26] You imply outside time?
[19:27] and God is....outside of time.....God
created time
[19:27] I really don't think the problem is
so much arriving at a Prime Mover. I think the problem
is what have we found when we get there. What kind
of being is this God?
[19:28] Or what is Gd or what is it that exists
[19:28] that begs the question....How BIG is
God?
[19:28] Plover:Has existence in ther sense that
it need not receive existence. It is infinite existence.
It cannot not exist.
[19:28] |