All abortions aren't legal. consider late term abortions. They are only legal in certain states.
People are constantly put on suicide watch. Just eliminate this and we won't have a problem.
And saying that having the death penalty will result in us eventually just killing innocent people all the time is like saying that having marijuana legalized will eventually lead to us legalizing Crack and Meth.
Fact is, if you can prove that someone is a murderer or child rapist, they should be executed. I'm not saying execute based on ONLY the decision of the jury. I'm saying proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which is how cases are trialed anyway).
When you're killing off all of the worst people, that's it. No one else is next in line. Might as well say "If you're curing all diseases, what will be next? Taking away the ability to think?"
Ways to slow down the possibilities:
Legalize all abortion
Legalize Suicide
Legalize Euthanasia in all circumstances (if you don't have money to keep a brain dead person alive, pull the plug).
Use the death penalty more often (child rape, no insanity pleas, etc.)
Predators are not behaving immorally because they lack the intellectual capacity for morals.
With that argument, is it that immoral to kill a creature that doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand anything other than Mate Feed Kill Repeat?
I think Donnie Darko can rap this up a bit. It's pointless to care about the death of an animal.
Yes, when torture of an animal occurs it's wrong because it's prolonged pain of a living creature. But just to kill it (for food, vanity or sport) is part of what makes us human. We dominate.
No, Catholicism where I am isn't that big. It's mainly the Protestants and other stuff. They all volunteer at the church or sing in the choir and shit like that. And they love having a "relationship" with Jesus. They are also generally happy. It isn't the cheery stuff you probably see in small towns, it's more of just people who look they found something that really makes them happy.
on the answer of a deity, they are actually more agnostic. They just believe that "it is what it is". They believe in Karma and Darma, though, which I don't believe in (since it insights that we're being watched or something).
As for the other religions... most people who are very religious (that i meet at least) are very happy... you should probably stop hanging out with such depressed people.
the whole comparison between God and Santa Claus is really upsetting... I thought we went beyond that.
God can be anything. From an intelligent designer to an unnatural, yet natural bundle of energy in the middle of the Universe. I consider these possibilities mainly because Random chance is not acceptable. But, to believe in random chance is to disbelieve in God. I believe neither, for we are merely at stage one of understanding the Universe.
I should have said "atheists don't need to prove that God doesn't exist". Once again, this is a far greater force than just Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. This is something that, when you ignore what religion has says, actually has some leg.
Agnosticism is surpassing that childish debate on whether one should believe in God or not and is just considering the possibilities. Atheists don't consider intelligent design. Atheists say "of course you can't prove that God doesn't exist, but the idea is just silly". They dismiss it completely. Agnostics, on the other hand say "Well, considering that the Big Bang had to occur in perfect conditions or else the Universe would never have formed it's not irrational to say that something might have guided it". That is the difference.
Once again, I can not give an answer on whether i believe that a "God" exists. I am not smart enough... sorry.
Atheists believe that they don't need proof. That's why they're atheist. Actually, just how theists believe that they don't need proof. That's why they're theists.
What makes the agnostic different from those two is that they decide not to bother in believing one or the other because they know they're not smart enough to make such a decision. They believe in progressing in knowledge and not making a decision to believe in some kind of theory that has no means of being proven.
God is still a vague and incalculable ideal. Agnostics realize that we are nowhere even near the understanding of the Universe. They say "a type of God is possible, and so is the absence of one". They don't say "Well, there's no true way of finding out, so i just will not believe in him." The appropriate response of an agnostic who is asked "do you believe that a type of God exists" is " I don't know".
So everyone's confused except you? I was just quoting what he said since you said "he's not an agnostic, he's atheist" and I provided how he said that he himself is not atheist and is agnostic.
Disbelief in a personal God doesn't make you atheist... a personal God is a God that watches over you and answers your prayers. People who believe in that are religious. Einstein made some hints about the idea of intelligent design, but never said that it was what he believed in. He always questioned things and was amazed by the laws of the Universe. This is why he refused to become atheist. To reject the idea that there may be an intelligent designer or some kind of superior force of energy seemed contradictory to his beliefs.
My answer to your first questions is the agnostic answer:
I don't know.
It's simple. I don't know if there is an intelligent designer or a superior force of energy. It seems possible, but it also seems possible that it was all random occurrences. But I am clearly not intelligent enough to just decide that there is or isn't a "God".
It's not exactly a middle ground, it's basically the acceptance that we are not capable of answering such a question. We admit to be clueless. That is agnosticism.
Atheism and Theism are bold beliefs. People who are bold enough to decide on whether they believe that God exists or not.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
quote from Einstein.
Also
Im not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.
He says that he is an Agnostic and not an Atheist. Pretty upfront about it as well.
I think the quote you were referring to is the one where he says that other people may call him an atheist. But he was just saying how religious people would probably call him an atheist. I go through the same thing. Religious people all call me an atheist, but i'm not.
although i agree that Einstein did not believe in a personal God and did not follow and religions and was basically an outright Agnostic, you got the quote wrong.
He said that Science without religions was LAME... not blind. He said religion without science was blind.
IDK if you read it wrong or wrote it wrong, but i just want it to be clear.
in fact, in the quote he was not saying that religion was right. He was just saying that religion becomes a sort of feeling that we create for something. A sense of explanation that goes beyond explaining.
