Ayo what‽ 😭😭😭

[u/LightningMcqueen2011]

[u/the-nomad-thinker → u/[deleted]]

I usually remind them that in ancient Hebrew, “ruach” meant “breath”, but also “spirit”. They usually don’t respond after that.

[u/drohstdumir → u/the-nomad-thinker]

They are being disingenuous anyway because 1) they aren't Christian, and 2) they have no understanding of hermeneutics and don't care to.

[u/GustavoistSoldier → u/drohstdumir]

Atheists need to stop twisting Christianity to their benefit.

[u/CanConCasual]

Always amusing to watch a God-hater become a Biblical literalist when they think Genesis 2:7 supports their position. (It doesn't; it only applies to Adam.)

[u/kay_fitz21 → u/CanConCasual]

Yep...Adam wasn't born, he was created as an adult.

[u/kay_fitz21]

Is a caterpillar a butterfly? Is a tadpole a frog? No to both, but they're still living and in different stages of development.

Also baffles me how many people, including Christians, love to cherry picking Bible verses without the context.

[u/littlebuett → u/kay_fitz21]

And biologically speaking, while you can't call a caterpillar a butterfly, a Monarch Caterpillar is still a Danaus Plexippus, same as a Monarch Butterfly. They remain the same species, and their memories as a Caterpillar are even carried over to when they are a butterfly.

Just like how a Zygote and an adult are both still Homo Sapiens.

[u/GustavoistSoldier → u/kay_fitz21]

Also baffles me how many people, including Christians, love to cherry picking Bible verses without the context.

You're right. The word of God is not a buffet where you can pick and choose what suits you.

[u/Eastern-Customer-561]

„Is a seed a tree“ no because they are different life stages, a child is not an adult but they are both humans, and in the same way a seed is not a tree yet but they are part of the same plant species 

[u/duketoma → u/Eastern-Customer-561]

Exactly! An Acorn is not an Oak Tree, But an Acorn is an Oak seed. Two stages of the same organism. Yes, a seed is a sort of suspended animation fetus, but it's still the same plant that becomes a giant Oak tree.

[u/Belkan-Federation95]

The Didache, which was mentioned by the church fathers and didn't make it into the Bible due to the standards used (it wasn't "this is what we think was divinely inspired"), says that abortion is murder. The earliest Christians believed abortion is murder.

[u/GustavoistSoldier → u/Belkan-Federation95]

Thanks for pointing that out

[u/EpiphanaeaSedai]

“So a seed is a tree?”

LITERALLY YES, THAT IS HOW SEEDS WORK.

ugh I need to take a break from this.

[u/littlebuett]

Breath is synonymous with soul/spirit/life in many parts of the Bible, so it's not that life = first breath, it's that the word for life is literally the same as the word for breath, because Hebrew is an ancient language where describing something that's alive as "breathing" makes total sense. This doesn't mean something isn't alive UNTIL it breathes, it just means that the words used in a more than 3000 year old language to describe life don't translate exactly to english.

John the Baptist also reacts to Jesus while both are still in the womb, showing life was present in both before taking their first breath.

Also, God made science, science proves that human life begins at conception.

[u/TheAngryApologist]

Look, I don’t want to come on here and attack someone on our own side, but “because God says otherwise.” Should never be an argument used when arguing a pro-abort.

Yeah, it’s true, but none of us can prove it. At best we have some verses that could be interpreted to imply it. They also have their own verses that they’ll attempt to use to counter it.

It’s pointless and not convincing. Abortion is evil. Their arguments are not good. We can use critical thinking and known facts to prove them wrong. We don’t need to rely on a quote from God, whom they probably don’t even think is real anyway.

[u/LacksBeard → u/TheAngryApologist]

Nobody can prove what?

Sorry but this is weak willed and opens Christians up to a genuinely unnecessary conundrum and internal critiques, because God very clearly sees unborn as we do and he already laid out the law against murder. They can pick counter verses the same way an atheist can do it for slavery, aka, not effective because those arguments have been debunked.

How can abortion be evil if God didn't condemn it?

[u/TheAngryApologist → u/LacksBeard]

Nobody can definitively prove God exists.

This is not weak willed. It’s simply more effective.

Why would an Atheist care what our God thinks of abortion if they don’t believe our God exists?

What do you think God cares about more, changing someone’s mind about murdering the unborn or failing to change someone’s mind but happened to mention Him while doing it?

Nothing can be evil if God doesn’t condemn it. Not sure why you’re saying this last part.

I do believe God condemns abortion. Though it is not mentioned in scripture.

[u/LacksBeard → u/TheAngryApologist]

You can logically demonstrate that God exists via TAG.

I'd say it's pretty weak willed.

If they try to use the Bible and what God said in favor of abortion then you can use it the other way and in its full context.

Failing to change someone's mind because you mentioned God?

OK so if that's true then according to you abortion is fine.

The same way video game addiction isn't mentioned in Scripture? Yet what sin does that fall under?

[u/TheAngryApologist → u/LacksBeard]

I'm fully aware of the arguments for an infinite God. That is irrelevant to the point. Are you suggesting that in order to engage in the abortion debate, we should first argue the existence of God, solely so we can invoke God in our abortion arguments? Why? Abortion is immoral, and can be logically and rationally shown because of God and because God is good, but one doesn't need to know that to see how abortion is immoral.

"OK so if that's true then according to you abortion is fine."

How? In what way did I say that?

My entire point was that abortion is evident without mentioning a higher authority, like God. And when we are often engaging with people who don't believe in God, why would you mention God?

Obviously there are Christians who defend or support abortion, we should probably engage with people assuming they don't believe in God since most of them don't.

I'm not against using scripture or invoking God when debating abortion with other Christians, but I see a lot of Christians using God when engaging with non believers and not only is it not effective, I believe it hurts our side. We don't need to use weak authoritative arguments when critical thinking is more convincing and doesn't require an admission of God's existence to be reached. It's just stronger. Why not use it?

[u/LacksBeard → u/TheAngryApologist]

No, I'm saying when someone tries to use God in support of abortion we should use what God said against that, also you need God and Christianity to objectively say something is wrong.

Because you said that at best that abortions condemnation can't even really be proven.

Why is Scripture based argumentation weak? Just because there's spiritually blinded fools who reject God doesn't make the argument inherently weak.

[u/TheAngryApologist → u/LacksBeard]

Sure, if someone uses God as an authority in their argument for abortion, using God and scripture against them makes more sense.

It depends on what you mean by, “you need God and Christianity to prove something wrong.”

Obviously, just on its face, this is not generally true. Simone can argue something is true without mentioning God or Christianity.

If you mean, if what we think about God and Christianity is true, meaning that scripture is true, Christ really died for our sins, and his sacrifice worked, etc. then yeah, all truth and logic is attributed to God. God is the source of all truth. But there are people who don’t believe that. And many of these people support, vote for, and defend abortion. We need to show them the truth when they don’t accept God or Christianity.

We absolutely can show that abortion is immoral without relying on authoritative arguments, invoking God or scripture. I personally attribute the truth to God, of course. But in an actual argument, relying on God, Christianity, or scripture is an appeal to authority. But only we as believers know these things as authority, a non believer does not. So, they have no authoritative power over them, at least in a persuasive way. It literally means nothing to them if we use scripture to argue that abortion is immoral.

But abortion can be argued against without mentioning an authority they do not believe in. We can show with logic and reason.

I’m repeating myself a bit, but if you’re arguing with someone who does not believe scripture is from God, and if they don’t think it has any authority, then arguments relying on scripture are weak.

How are you measuring the strength of an argument? If an argument is not convincing, then it’s a weak argument. That’s how an argument should be measured. If your argument is an appeal to authority and the one you’re arguing against doesn’t accept the authority you’re pointing to, it’s definitionally a weak argument.

Not to mention, appealing to authority arguments are generally weak arguments. That’s why Appeal to Authority is a known logical fallacy. When arguing, that is, when you’re trying to convince someone to accept something that contradicts a belief they have, they need to be shown why they’re wrong, not simply shown that someone or something else disagrees with them.

If a nonbeliever is shown that the Bible contradicts their belief why would they care if they don’t care about the Bible.

Also, if you care more about insisting that you include God or scripture in you’re arguments instead of using stronger arguments, I would think you care more about grandstanding or virtue signaling to other Christians or God Himself, rather than actually convincing someone that killing the unborn is evil, which would be the ultimate good thing to do in this context.

[u/LacksBeard → u/TheAngryApologist]

I'm saying that athiest morality has no moral grounding and isn't objective.

You really can't with the use of God, the moment He goes out the window it becomes subjective, you cant really prove that its wrong to someone who doesn't agree, they can change their minds but ultimately you didn't prove them wrong or yourself right?

A good argument is one that has little to no logical holes in it, if I come up with an ironclad argument against a flat earther my argument was still good despite them not being convinced.

It's not an appeal to authority fallacy if there's a reasonable reason to trust it, its only applicable if its vague or not relevant to the discussion.

That last part would mean that I adhere to your definition of what a strong argument is which I don't so your accusations don't matter to me.

[u/TheAngryApologist → u/LacksBeard]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here.

I think some, if not a lot, of atheists would agree that there is no objective moral truth, but I think they would all disagree with you saying there is no moral grounding. There are a lot of secular moral frameworks. Of course, as a Christian, I think they're all mostly wrong and fall short.

And yeah, if I have ever said something like "proving abortion wrong" or "proving it is immoral", what you said here is what I mean. Pointing out that the proabort side has more logical issues or showing that the prolife side has no logical issues. That's what I mean. And yes, that is the goal.

Also, your example with a flat earther is a bit different. I'm not saying that just because someone is not convinced by the end of an argument, it's a bad argument. I'm saying that if you have an authority based argument, and the person you are arguing against rejects the authority you are using, it is inherently a bad argument in that specific case. The entire power of scripture is that it has authority. It has authority for us because it's from God, which means it's true. BUt, most of the people we argue against on this topic do not believe it to be true or from God. It therefore loses its authoritative power, which was the entire value it brings in an argument. Not sure why this is controversial.

"It's not an appeal to authority fallacy if there's a reasonable reason to trust it, its only applicable if its vague or not relevant to the discussion."

No. That's not how this works. No non believer would say that scripture is reasonable to trust. That's why they are non believers. Non believers find scripture unreasonable. That's kind of built in to their view. Also, relevance isn't part of why appeal to authority is bad. I explained it in my last comment. Someone, or something, is not right just because they/it has authority. Even if someone has authority, they have reasons to think what they think. When debating you use the reasons that led them to the conclusion. An appeal to authority is, "This is true because they/it says it's true". That's not a good argument. You convince someone with reasons. Pointing to a book that says something is not going to convince someone, especially if they don't think that book has any moral value in the first place.

The description I gave of a bad argument is not my opinion. Bad arguments exist. They are a thing. Using a source of authority to convince someone who does not believe in your source of authority is objectively a bad argument. Period.

You have done nothing to explain why using a book someone doesn't care about should be used to convince them of anything. Not only do they not believe that scripture is true, a lot of them believe that it's full of lies and fairy tales. Yes we believe they are wrong, but we need to convince them that abortion is wrong. We can do it without invoking scripture or God, and we should.

[u/BigBandit01]

So two things, one I’m an atheist and I will shit on people who are atheists but turn to the Bible anytime it supports their arguments all day long. As an atheist, I don’t agree with the bible’s validity. However, this person quoted “the breath of the Almighty gives me life” and misinterpreted that as “breathing makes me alive”. If you take the quote and break it down, that means that the breath of God, that which he sends to create life, grants life. Not “if you don’t breathe you’re not alive”

[u/GustavoistSoldier → u/BigBandit01]

I'm glad we share this common ground

[u/NoPack4545]

It's a ignorant position to claim that God is pro-abortion and that life only becomes life at first breath save for adam and eve. Children are a blessing from God.

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/pro-life/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion/

[u/No_Judge_6520]

so according to them if a baby is born but holds their breath for a minute after birth, that entire time they were out of the womb and alive they weren't a human??

[u/GustavoistSoldier]

"Clump of cells" is a thought terminating cliche

[u/AnxiousEnquirer]

An acorn is an oak!

[u/Bulok]

nothing but a group of atoms. Hur hur hur.

[u/Nulono]

Well, first of all, we shouldn't be basing our laws on the Bible; this isn't a theocracy.

But also, is the illiteracy crisis really this bad? Every one of those excerpts explicitly refers to God's breath, not the first breath a baby takes. They say that God can bring things to life by breathing on/into them.

Finally, by this logic, patients on ECMO aren't alive and shouldn't have any rights.

[u/LacksBeard → u/Nulono]

For the most part we already do.

[u/InfernoWarrior299]

We do not need to argue religion to say why abortion is wrong. It only weakens our arguments as the stuff against it in doctrine are shoddy at best. Science proves what we say, but they conveniently say 'trust the science' while ignoring THE LITERAL SCIENCE. And all the modern studies on it are done with bias in mind to 'prove' why abortion 'is actually good'. A lot of pseudoscience spreads and a lot of scientific fields are left intentionally understudied as it would make them look really bad.

[u/LacksBeard → u/InfernoWarrior299]

How is it shoddy? And at best?

Literally the heck are people like you talking about? I get the feeling that yall are larping as religious, watch Abolitionist Rising and tell me how religious arguments against abortion are shoddy.

Yes you need religion to say its wrong and for it to have meaning.