LOGIC DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE DATA IT MANIPULATES. I plainly indicated that God is claimed to have certain characteristics. I simply chose to work with them instead of dispute them.
I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE TRUTH **ALWAYS** MAKES LOGICAL SENSE. There is room in that to have no problem with the notion that souls (and more) exist.
FALSE. I am not the one who originated the claims that God is smart and knowledgeable and loving. All I did was report them, and work some Logic with them.
THE IMAGINARINESS OF GOD IS IRRELEVANT. My post was directed toward believers in that "imaginary creature". If you were not one of them, you have no business in this Thread.
FALSE, because believers in God claim that God's existence does have bearing on the Abortion debate.
I CERTAINLY DID MAKE A POINT OR TWO, which I hope believers in God will contemplate!
YET THE THREAD IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT A RELIGION-RELATED TOPIC. It need not be complexified just for those with no interest in religion-related matters.
HATE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WHEN RELIGION IS WRONG, IT CAN TAKE CENTURIES TO ADMIT IT IS WRONG --and therefore its wrong-ness actually needs to be trumpeted as loudly and widely as possible.
QUITE A FEW FOLKS HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT THAT, TOO (what "human life" actually is). Which is one reason why the topic of "personhood" is vastly more relevant to the Overall Abortion Debate than the topic of "human life".
PROVE IT. Be specific. Because if it was actually a logical conclusion, it was not "arbitrary!"
THAT WAS THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION. Not an arbitrary statement! And it is perfectly acceptable for the title of some text to be extracted from anywhere in that text!
ACCORDING TO YOU, SUCH THOUGHTS ARE NON-EXISTENT. ARE YOU SURE YOU KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT THAT?
I MADE A COMMENT THAT EXPRESSES THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF CERTAIN STANDARD CLAIMS MADE ABOUT GOD. I can see that you have chosen to interpret that statement differently from how it was intended. I can apologize for not being quite as clear as I needed, about what I intended to say. But I'm not going to retract it, because that statement really is the logical consequence of certain standard claims made about God.
IN DEBATE, EVERYONE MAKES UP ARGUMENTS --including you.
THAT IS YOUR MISINTERPRETATION. I never equated claims about God with knowledge of god. YOU did, erroneously!
LIKE YOU EQUATING CLAIMS WITH KNOWLEDGE. Tsk, tsk!
TRUE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED AT THE START OF THIS THREAD IS WEAK. I noticed you have yet to point out a specific flaw in its Logic!
AND HUMAN PHILOSOPHY INCLUDES RELIGIOUS STUFF. Right or wrong, vast numbers of humans have faith that there is more to existence than just the physical realm.
RELIGIOUS STUFF INCLUDES CLAIMS ABOUT ABORTION. Duh!!!
THAT WORKS BOTH WAYS, INCLUDING CLAIMS REGARDING GODLY OPPOSITION TO ABORTION. On a basis of that particular claim vs the opposite claim, it clearly cancels out. But what about other claims, about which folks on both sides of the Overall Abortion Debate generally agree? Those are the ones I was working with!
EVERYONE DOES THAT IN A DEBATE, INCLUDING YOU. Logic takes various data items and fits them together into a coherent whole. If the claims/data are true, then the consequences of the logic is valid, every time. To invalidate the conclusion usually means showing that an initial data-item is not true (which no one is likely to do since as I stated just above, I'm working with claims that just about every Religious believer agrees), or that some extra data-item must be included.
THEN YOU ARE FORGETTING THAT YOU CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT KILLING. Your immune system kills large numbers of invading bacteria every day. Your food almost certainly contains significant quantities of killed life-forms.
ARE YOU SAYING YOU WOULD RATHER BE STUPIDLY PREJUDICED AND DEAD, THAN WILLING TO ADMIT OTHER LIFE IS AS IMPORTANT AS HUMAN LIFE? (Not to mention that after we invent True Artificial Intelligence, unplugging them arbitrarily would be murder, which means their non-life also will be as important as human life!)
AND THE BOY SCOUT MOTTO IS "BE PREPARED". (Lots of folks, including women, who were never in the Boy Scouts, are aware of that motto.)
VERY FEW QUESTIONS ARE SILLY. And your answer appears to be something about preferring Stupid Prejudice and equally-stupid lack-of-preparedness, to accepting the Fact that the concept of "person rights" is far more relevant to the future than the idiocy of giving "human rights" to hydatidiform moles and brain-dead corpses on life-support.
YOU ARE FREE TO USE WHATEVER WRITING STYLE YOU CHOOSE. I've been using computers since the days when they simply were not able to do lower-case letters, so all-caps text bothers me not at all. And I've explained before why I use this style here.Please let me know if I need to reply in all-caps to make myself clear.
Extraterrestrial life is only theoretical at this point. I hope this answers your silly questions. Please let me know if I need to reply in all-caps to make myself clear.