Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

-Thanks George. We're still laughing.

Late term abortions are not doe frivolously, only if there are big health risks involved to the mother. And the argument from "being able to live" is not a strong one - we can keep brain dead people alive indefinitely, but they still have to be kept alive - same thing with babies, they cannot in any shape or form take care of themselves. I would rather a baby/fetus was aborted at 3 months, than dumped in an alley to freeze to death, for instance. If people has made the choice, they should be able to exercise that choice easily, quickly and safely.

There's not a choice to get an abortion in the last period - if a mother says "i want an abortion" in the eigth month, she won't get it. In those cases there has to be serious reasons.

>> ^nadabu:
I'm with Xax. Pro-life personally and politically, and quite consistent about it. If we outlaw one murder, we should outlaw them all: abortion, the regular kind, the death penalty, suicide and absolute lunacies like pre-emptive war. Violence against humans (and imho, the higher animals) is only permissible in sports with safety measures taken and in reactive, clear and restrained self-defense, both personally and militarily.
That's only the general rule, of course. There MUST be room for exceptions, which either void conviction or provide ample latitude for judges when deciding punishments. The typical "mother at risk of dying" example is the clearest exception. Likewise, i currently think it unwise to outlaw abortions performed prior to 8 weeks, as the studies showing brain functions prior to that are not thorough. Similar exceptions should be made for withholding care to persons already born, but lacking brain function. And so on...
But the general rule of "thou shalt not kill" seems like damn good public policy to me. It's hard to see how abortion is justifiable, especially after 5 mos, when many babies can live outside the mother with the amazing preemie care possible these days. How long do you need to make your choice? Even in rape, where there was no choice about birth control, you still have around 2 mos before brain function is detectable (thus far). I'm ok with choice. But i think it is totally irrational and willfully ignorant to advocate giving 9 months for that decision. Maybe that made some sort of sense in the 60s or 70s, when most people had never seen an ultrasound or heard of things EEG, but that's just stupid nowadays. Get out of the dark ages. Don't kill people.

I'm with Xax. Pro-life personally and politically, and quite consistent about it. If we outlaw one murder, we should outlaw them all: abortion, the regular kind, the death penalty, suicide and absolute lunacies like pre-emptive war. Violence against humans (and imho, the higher animals) is only permissible in sports with safety measures taken and in reactive, clear and restrained self-defense, both personally and militarily.

That's only the general rule, of course. There MUST be room for exceptions, which either void conviction or provide ample latitude for judges when deciding punishments. The typical "mother at risk of dying" example is the clearest exception. Likewise, i currently think it unwise to outlaw abortions performed prior to 8 weeks, as the studies showing brain functions prior to that are not thorough. Similar exceptions should be made for withholding care to persons already born, but lacking brain function. And so on...

But the general rule of "thou shalt not kill" seems like damn good public policy to me. It's hard to see how abortion is justifiable, especially after 5 mos, when many babies can live outside the mother with the amazing preemie care possible these days. How long do you need to make your choice? Even in rape, where there was no choice about birth control, you still have around 2 mos before brain function is detectable (thus far). I'm ok with choice. But i think it is totally irrational and willfully ignorant to advocate giving 9 months for that decision. Maybe that made some sort of sense in the 60s or 70s, when most people had never seen an ultrasound or heard of things EEG, but that's just stupid nowadays. Get out of the dark ages. Don't kill people.

I think I'll weigh in on this because I like philosophical arguments. After reading all of the responses so far, I've decided to answer your original question and ignore the correlaries you've proposed; feel free to ask followups here or in my profile if you want more answers. I have also decided to present my findings in list format to fit my fickle whims.

Why is life sacred to me?

1. I'm Roman Catholic. The fifth commandment is pretty clear: Thou shalt not kill.
2. Each person has their own viewpoint and experiences, and when they are dead all that is not recorded is lost.
3. Death is irreversible. If a conflict ends in death, then those killed have no recourse left in this world.

Why isn't life sacred to me?

1. Various religious, ethnic, and national groups have throughout history sanctioned the death of other humans. Although I note above that Roman Catholicism demands that one not take other lives, during the Crusades they not only sanctioned the death of Arabs, but stated that any faithful who fall in battle during a crusade are immediately absolved and borne up to heaven. Given the varying historical context, there's no reason to believe that our current viewpoints are any more correct.
2. The universe is a vast place, and humans are tiny specks in comparison to all of creation. Even if we make a large impression on the world now, it's almost certain that it will be gone in one million years. Given that scope, any life is worth surprisingly little.
3. Death is a part of nature. Animals kill each other for various reasons, humans kill each other for various reasons, and this has always been the case.

>> ^lavoll:
isnt the simplest rule "don't kill"? or wait, doesnt it say something like "thou shalt not kill", that must mean something completely different.
this probably falls under go into neighbour countries and kill all the firstborn sons and take the virgins for yourself.


This all depends on your definition of "kill".

isnt the simplest rule "don't kill"? or wait, doesnt it say something like "thou shalt not kill", that must mean something completely different.
this probably falls under go into neighbour countries and kill all the firstborn sons and take the virgins for yourself.

I think Dawkins calls it altruism. God didn't create that. Nature nurtures itself, until it doesn't.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^Sniper007:
He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."

You just fail.
Your above statement displays an ignorance, arrogance and outright stupidity that quite frankly sickens me, and I'm not quite sure if I should laugh or cry, or bang my head against sharp objects.
How did the jews get to Mount Sinai in the first place? Where they, along with every other hominid and animal, for 3.5 billion years under the impression that murder and thieving was all OK? How come animals ever express kindness and fellowship to their kin, and even other kin?
You've got alot left to explain, and, more importantly, a lot left to read. Try picking up some books on morality, evolution, consciousness and human society. Not to mention a bit of history and general knowledge.

Those second two sentences don't make sense.

How exactly? I was responding to sniper007's claim that :

[Sam Harris] fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."

My point was that according to this absurd logic, no one prior to God's handing out the ten commandments (At Mount Sinai, to the Jews) could know that it was wrong to kill and steal, because God hadn't actually told anyone yet. In the second sentence I ask how other animals, who cant read stone tablets or bibles, can still avoid being murderers and thieves, and even express kindness and fellowship towards others.

The author chooses to describe the Bible's contradictions as clear contradiction; you feel they are 'apparent contradictions'. If the Bible were a regular book written by many authors the contradictions would be impossible to ignore, but you argue a better understanding of... the contex? or the material? will lead to a resolution of these contradictions. I personally don't see how.

I hope you're not arguing that the old testament was a meaner God who become less bloodthirsty by the new testament...

In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
So... the moral authority for all of life is "ethical intuitions"? Would not those fail us as well? Sam Harris presupposes (without discussion) that men are basically, fundamentally good and that men will define and keep the proper moral standards based on their own "ethical intuitions". How does Sam Harris know that it is wrong to "paddle children" (as his diatribe implies)? Is it wrong to paddle children because the majority of people feel it is against their "ethical intuitions"? Do we need a poll to determine the morality of such events? How would such moral standards ever change over time if there is no set standard to which we may return, and the only 'standard' is current popular opinion? He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." The true problem Harris has is understanding the apparent contradictions in the Bible. Rather than seeking a greater understanding of these ostensibly conflicting Biblical mandates, he chooses to ridicule all religious positions without clarifying or even considering his own position. His position is, in fact, untenable.

>> ^Sniper007:
He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."


You just fail.

Your above statement displays an ignorance, arrogance and outright stupidity that quite frankly sickens me, and I'm not quite sure if I should laugh or cry, or bang my head against sharp objects.

How did the jews get to Mount Sinai in the first place? Where they, along with every other hominid and animal, for 3.5 billion years under the impression that murder and thieving was all OK? How come animals ever express kindness and fellowship to their kin, and even other kin?

You've got alot left to explain, and, more importantly, a lot left to read. Try picking up some books on morality, evolution, consciousness and human society. Not to mention a bit of history and general knowledge.

>> ^Sniper007:
So... the moral authority for all of life is "ethical intuitions"? Would not those fail us as well? Sam Harris presupposes (without discussion) that men are basically, fundamentally good and that men will define and keep the proper moral standards based on their own "ethical intuitions". How does Sam Harris know that it is wrong to "paddle children" (as his diatribe implies)? Is it wrong to paddle children because the majority of people feel it is against their "ethical intuitions"? Do we need a poll to determine the morality of such events? How would such moral standards ever change over time if there is no set standard to which we may return, and the only 'standard' is current popular opinion? He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." The true problem Harris has is understanding the apparent contradictions in the Bible. Rather than seeking a greater understanding of these ostensibly conflicting Biblical mandates, he chooses to ridicule all religious positions without clarifying or even considering his own position. His position is, in fact, untenable.


So, you're suggesting you would like the school of your children to whack them in the butt with a paddle? I'm sure glad you weren't my parent. I'm not wholly against the odd smack FROM A PARENT when the situation warrants it, but:
a) It should be done in extreme moderation and only in extreme cases where the child really, really needs to remember how bad the thing they did was.
&
b) It is the PARENT'S choice, in any given moment. I would never want some detached teacher deciding that some puny 'wrong' deserved getting their butt whacked with a paddle. Give them detention, make them write out lines, make them apologize to whoever they did the wrong to, but do not inflict physical harm on my child.

I don't understand how you're trying to shoot him down either? What are you trying to say is the source of our ethical decisions? Are you saying, "well, some people a long time ago wrote down these things, so let's just follow them blindly because... well, we'd rather not have to think about or discuss it ourselves, that requires too much damn thought, and we have better things to do, like bashing gays." Or are you saying "We should seek to better pick and chose which parts of the bible to believe in?" Because if you are, how is that any better than starting with a blank slate? If you're going to discuss and work out what parts out of a text you are going to follow, then why even have the damn thing in the first place?

And if you're going to follow it fully then you're going to be completely contradictory and also an incredibly violent person. (Check out this sift to see the problems with trying to actually follow the bible for a year)

You seem so against norms changing over time, so you are, then, FOR slavery? FOR stoning to death for a myriad of crimes? Really, your position is by FAR the more untenable.

So... the moral authority for all of life is "ethical intuitions"? Would not those fail us as well? Sam Harris presupposes (without discussion) that men are basically, fundamentally good and that men will define and keep the proper moral standards based on their own "ethical intuitions". How does Sam Harris know that it is wrong to "paddle children" (as his diatribe implies)? Is it wrong to paddle children because the majority of people feel it is against their "ethical intuitions"? Do we need a poll to determine the morality of such events? How would such moral standards ever change over time if there is no set standard to which we may return, and the only 'standard' is current popular opinion? He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." The true problem Harris has is understanding the apparent contradictions in the Bible. Rather than seeking a greater understanding of these ostensibly conflicting Biblical mandates, he chooses to ridicule all religious positions without clarifying or even considering his own position. His position is, in fact, untenable.

As blankfist has described above, science is a method for gaining knowledge. Religion is merely a hypothesis, or rather a huge amount of smaller hypotheses, which can be tested with the scientific method. Thus there is no direct confrontation or contradiction between the two. That being said, religion demands faith of its followers, which is the belief of something in spite of evidence, and this means that it is corrosive to the scientific method. This is bad. And this is why religion hold up to any scientific fact. Faith is the opposite of knowledge.

The example of 1+2=3 is an overly simplistic one and not very useful, because there is only one correct answer; there can never be other answers, because math is a logical system. The world is not a logical system, and science is not merely logic.

An example which I think would be more apt, is the theory of a geocentric universe. Until Copernicus people had faith in the Bible's hypothesis that the universe circled around the Earth. His observations shattered that hypothesis and thus a new hypothesis was made, that the earth was circling around the sun. This has proven to be true through repeated observations and is as such regarded as a theory, or what we lay-people call fact. Every hypothesis that the bible has presented, which have been testable have turned out to be false, and thus it is within reason to regard the whole thing as bunk.

Evolution
Evolution is a theory, or what we lay-people call a fact. It has been observed in fossil records and is happening constantly every time any creature or life form has offspring. Evolution is the theory that life forms changes shape, abilities and such over generations.

Natural selection is a theory that tries to explain how evolution happens, which is why people call it Evolution by Natural Selection. Natural Selection says that the more you spread you genes, the more of your type there will be. (Seems pretty down to earth and intuitive, right?)

Evolution by Natural Selection is therefore NOT RANDOM, at all. Yes, any given mutations are random, but they are merely the catalyst by which natural selection works. Of all those random mutations, some are inherently better adapters than others and will procreate more than others, and that means more life forms with that mutation (which is no longer considered a mutation) will appear in the next generation. But I think we all agree on that particular point, but it is important to make it as clear as possible.

I have yet to see any knowledge gained from the bible that turns out to be true. Of course the things lifted from common sense, "Thou shalt not kill", that fact that gravity existed in the stories and so on are true, but any given hypothesis that the bible has made is always proven false, when it can be proven either way.

If something cannot be proven either way, there is no basis for evaluating it and thus it should not be considered in any situation. Doc_M, you say an agnostic says:

"there might be a God so I consider it when I look at data I take in on a daily basis"

That is false. An agnostic does indeed not consider the things he is agnostic about. I am technically an agnostic, but I am technically agnostic about many, many things. I don't consider them, why should a possible god be considered, more than the pixie-faeries of bubblegum forest? (sorry, I'm being a bit snide there)
--
When religion is evaluated with scientific terms, we have to break it down into smaller hypothesis. One such hypothesis, which is pretty basic to almost all religions is, "is there a God?"; the term "a God" must then be defined, so that we can test that hypothesis. If it is defined like in the bible, that there is a being which created everything and continually watches and judges humans, then the evidence until now clearly point to the hypothesis being false.

As I've written above, no hypothesis derived from the bible has yet been proven true. Thus there is no real reason to consider any of it true, and therefor no reason to live by its laws.

Thou shalt not kill

thou shalt not kill in the context with witch it was delivered, obviously meant for them not to kill each other, not necessarily not to kill at all ever. much of gods condemnation of these people was still viewed as perfectly ok however.

more to the point, alot of these bible thumpers who proclaim the bible and gods goodness simply want to pick and choose what parts to follow. if your going to swallow a pill like this, you have to accept the whole thing, not just what makes you all warm n fuzzy inside.

i will aggree i was rather sick of "this is repulsive" after the first 2 or 3 of em. we get the point already.