The Richard Dawkins Forum Got Mad At Me For This...

PLEASE, READ THIS FROM BEGINNING TO END.

First things first: LET'S NOT TURN THIS INTO A POLITICAL DEBATE. This is merely a thread I've set up to see if people of both sides know where I'm coming from.

I'm hoping that more understanding people are here, but at the Richard Dawkins forum, they got mad at me for this. Now, bear in mind that I am reading The God Delusion right now and I enjoy it. In fact, it has potential to be one of my favorite books, since I am not particularly religious. It is very well-written, and it is a page turner. But anyways...

Here's a little background: I posted this thinking that atheists and agnostics on that site were reasonable enough to understand that pro-life proponents were not as totally religious or sexist as they thought pro-life proponents were. I'm not pro-life or pro-choice, I'm kind of undecided, but I do understand where both sides are coming from since I took a moral philosophy class that presented the strongest arguments available for both sides. However, when I presented an argument to the people there that was pro-life, since most there were pro-choice, they tore the argument to shreds. I won't deny that part. I mean, they destroyed the pro-life argument I set up. But my point was that we should respect peoples' opinions, not that any position was absolutely correct. And yet, people at that forum were not very happy about these posts there. I'm hoping that my old friends at Mac-Forums can understand my point of view better. I'll show both of my most important posts here (These are verbatim from RichardDawkins.net):

1.) If we give them the best argument we can, then they'll also respect our opinions more. (And, again, I have no opinion one way or the other on abortion. I'm just playing devil's advocate.) The "pro-life" proponents say they are against the right to an abortion because:

(Premise 1) The embryo, fetus, or what-have-you will become a person.
(Premise 2) A person has a right to life.
(Conclusion) Therefore, the embryo, fetus, or whatever should have a right to life.

Now, where is the religious component of this argument? There may be religious factors behind whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, but one cannot say that there is any religious (or sexist) component to this particular argument.

The argument is both sound and valid. So one can not merely accuse them of being religiously motivated or dismiss them as sexist. That's too easy. We must take issue with one of the two premises. I suggest attacking the second premise and showing why a person would have a right to life but not a fetus. And, if the fetus has no right to life, then when does a member of the species "earn" the right to life? Is it viability, consciousness, brain activity, or what? And remember, the cut-off point cannot be arbitrary, there must be a reason WHY the right to life is "earned" at that point.

Again, I'm not taking their side, I'm merely giving them the best argument I think they have. I can give pro-choice proponents a strong argument and sympathize with them as well. It's just a rule of debate etiquette. Understanding your opponent goes a lllloonnngggg way.

(Ok Mac-Forums friends, after this they DID dismantle my pro-life argument, but I went on...)

2.) Ok allow me to concede that you all dismantled my example argument completely. You dissected and annihilated it. I cannot even argue with that.

However, I'm not a pro-lifer, and if I was in an evangelical forum, I'd argue the pro-choice side. So let me get back to my real points.

First, I'm saying that you cannot talk down to conservatives. Their ideas may sometimes (or, oftentimes) be irrational, but adults generally don't like being talked to like pre-schoolers. That doesn't persuade them. It just offends them. Offending someone makes them hostile, and hostility makes people less likely to listen to what the source of the hostility is saying. (Remember: The goal is to persuade them that you are right. Not to show off intellectual superiority or mental prowess.) So, I'm just saying that a little bit of respect goes a long way. For instance, instead of saying "you're so dumb that..." instead say "I know you're smart enough to see..." As I said earlier, I talked a religious conservative into questioning his faith simply by being respectful and friendly, while calmly pointing out how inconsistent his beliefs actually were.

Second, you cannot say that all pro-lifers are motivated by religion. Arguing that a fetus has a right to life is not, in and of itself, religiously motivated. Religion may influence which side one takes, but the arguments that I have heard and read rarely invoke religion, or souls, or god, or the tooth fairy, or anything like that. If religion vanished tomorrow, as many here hope it would, I do not think the pro-life position would just fade away. There are plenty of non-religious, non-sexist, intelligent people out there that are just against the right to an abortion. Just as there are many good, intelligent people that are for the right to an abortion.

If the abortion debate is to become more civil, more respect needs to be given between both sides. I'm a fan of the Michael Shermer approach to debating. What is wrong with being friendly during a debate? Honestly?

So that's what I'm getting at. Good job dismantling the abortion argument. Like I said, I have no comeback to that.

(So, I hope the good people at Mac-Forums can understand my position better than those people. If you don't agree with me, you can go to Richard Dawkins' forum and read their responses. You will probably agree with them.)

Very interesting The_Customer_99.
I totally agree that not all pro-lifers are religiously motivated.

I hope you can make another argument that not all religious people are pro-lifers. I consider myself to be religious, however I'm one who supports pro-choice.

This is a very interesting topic. And I agree with what you said there. And i can see how this can easily turn into a heated topic. As the 2 sides here are at times bitterly apposed to each other.

My personal view: I am a religious person. To a point. I go to church when work permits. And I believe in what my religion (Baptist) preaches. Yes all embryo's given ideal conditions will turn into children. So on that front abortion is bad.

But we do not live in an ideal world. God created all sperm and eggs too. And they are all potential children as are embryos. So in that case we also should be against one night stands and all sex and removal of human genetic material that does not result in the production of a child.

I think both points above are ludicrous. If the above was the case the would would over populated, and not enough food or water or space for everyone. Plus there would be no research going on with the genetic material or stem cells, so more people would be dying with a wholly preventable disease and other conditions.

So after all that I am shall we say ok with abortion. I think it has it's uses in the world. And I believe God gave the knowledge and brains to be able to preform the abortions. If God wanted us to have every embryo as a child he would not have given us the ability to perform these operations and also miscarriages would never occur. Plus the research gained here is invaluable.

The only exception for me is places like India where they abort all female children. It got to do with many many factors and reasons that started thousands of years ago. But many people still practice these beliefs today. They want male children only. I think this is an abuse of the abilities God gave us above. And manipulating them for our own human reasons.

I'm not pro life or pro choice. I'm pro "do what needs do be done" If it's healthy and coceived in a natural way (ie not a rape or anything) then keep it. But if it's unwanted or a rape or the parent is not in a fit state or there is too many disabilities with the embyro (I think it's cruel to let it grow to a baby knowing it's whole life is a disabled mess), or for research purposes then abort it.

I am on neither side of this argument and tend to take the middle road on the abortion issue. One of the questions I always like to ask in these arguments is this:

Who says we have a "right to life?". That applies to not only the unborn but the living as well.

I always get interesting answers with that one.

Maybe we don't have a right to life but a right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life? I think having a right to life maybe goes a little too far, policy-wise. A positive right requires positive steps to implement and promote, whereas an obligation to refrain from taking life is a simple restriction on activities that are allowed.

We have no rights whatsoever.

Rights are a machination of the human mind.

Nature, upon which we rely to live, has no consideration of or care for our "rights" and will do with us as it, and chaos theory, see fit.

We come to live by stroke of chance. We continue to live by stroke of chance and we die at some time and in some fashion by stroke of chance.

Our consideration of our "rights" is simple hubris, and nothing else. It is a fallacy and a fantasy, like so much else of human existence.

TheCustomer99 said:

First, I'm saying that you cannot talk down to conservatives. Their ideas may sometimes (or, oftentimes) be irrational, but adults generally don't like being talked to like pre-schoolers. That doesn't persuade them. It just offends them. Offending someone makes them hostile, and hostility makes people less likely to listen to what the source of the hostility is saying. (Remember: The goal is to persuade them that you are right. Not to show off intellectual superiority or mental prowess.) So, I'm just saying that a little bit of respect goes a long way. For instance, instead of saying "you're so dumb that..." instead say "I know you're smart enough to see..." A

Click to expand...

I would suggest your words betray your inner hatred of conservatives. And saying, "I know you're smart enough to see..." would be a back handed insult worthy of an I LOVE FRILLY PINK DRESSES-kicking where I come from.

You further betray your own failing by the implied assumption that a conservative would be pro-life. The reality is few people aside from dim witted zealots on either side of the fence are likely to be 100% conservative or 100% liberal. Most people fall somewhere along a very broad spectrum and believe things both "liberal" and "conservative".

In my experience the most difficult mind to change isn't a conservative, as they tend to be reasonable intelligent... my experience in hitting a stubborn mule is the well educated liberal that refuses to accept facts unless they fit their own belief.

I am quite frankly not sure what the purpose of the entire post was? Were you trolling? Or did you actually think you had some significant insight that would gain you accolades? I don't get it.

thomas998 said:

I would suggest your words betray your inner hatred of conservatives.

Click to expand...

You do realize that you are responding to a post that someone made over a year ago?

Matter of fact...the original poster (the person you quoted) hasn't posted on Mac-Forums in 8+ months!

- Nick

This is one fo those threads that would have been better left alone...

pigoo3 said:

You do realize that you are responding to a post that someone made over a year ago?

Matter of fact...the original poster (the person you quoted) hasn't posted on Mac-Forums in 8+ months!

- Nick

Click to expand...

Haha good eye pointing that out, That being said I am a huge Richard Dawkins fan.

thomas998 said:

I
In my experience the most difficult mind to change isn't a conservative, as they tend to be reasonable intelligent... my experience in hitting a stubborn mule is the well educated liberal that refuses to accept facts unless they fit their own belief.

Click to expand...

Spoken like a true conservative

baggss said:

This is one fo those threads that would have been better left alone...

Click to expand...

Good point. I'm going to lock this now before it turns into a flame war since the most recent people to bring this up have proven they're quickly willing to go that way.