Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Quote:Well Hurny seems that these guys have given it their best shot and come up short.
Oh look. Our resident shithead showed up to contribute absolutely nothing but more bible-based bullshit to the discussion. Try and remember G-C that she is arguing with a papist fuck that you don't even think is a xtian. When you guys are busy oppressing women into having babies they don't want you are real quick to ally yourself to them but try to remember that the catholic hates you as much as you hate him.
In fact, I daresay you'd both spend most of your lives wishing the other one into that fucking hell you invented for your enemies.
July 26, 2011 at 9:05 pm (This post was last modified: July 26, 2011 at 9:40 pm by Hurny.)
Quote:Actually, if you read all the replies you received you'd have some pretty good definitions of what a person is including a biblical one directly from Genesis.
I'm starting to wonder if you are an apologist in wolf's clothing.
I'm a person who has not been particularly persuaded one way or the other, however at this point I have one theist who is giving me well formatted logical arguments with persuasive proofs while I have a lot of people here not giving me many direct answers but rather spending the whole time talking about how illogical, dogmatic, and idiotic theist's are. I wish we could just have a discussion about truth as known by reason without all the rest of the junk.
I don't want to sound like I don't appreciate the help you guys have been giving me, its just that no one seems to be taking this guy too seriously and seem to sort of act as if his arguments are just nonsense automatically without really giving them a decent look.
(July 26, 2011 at 5:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Sure is it morally right to kill an innocent person. Simple answer, one that you already know...it depends. As far as absolute moral authority, your catholic buddy is the one who insists that such a thing exists. Why not ask him to show proof of that authority, rather than allowing him to set the pace of a discussion he's obviously had before.
You see I am not willing to make this admittance. I don't really see how any one can honesty say it without being severely evil. And I don't see much justification in the distinction between an innocent person and an innocent person you know, they are both equally innocent and so it is going to be ok to kill one it would be just as much ok to kill the other.
This is the evidence for the absolute moral law that he is pointing too, the fact that it appears to be objectively wrong.
That's more or less the argument. Do I believe it is absolutely and objectively morally wrong to kill and innocent person. Yes I do. But if I believe that is true it seems inescapable not to admit then that it is an objective truth. That is the point he keeps sticking me on.
Also it seems a lot easier to say 'yeah I believe its ok to kill an innocent person' then actually believing that in reality when you're standing face to face with an innocent person threatening them. Skydiving isn't all that scary while i'm in my living room but it sure is from a plane, and I think that whatever you want to call it about what it is that is in us, this conscience if you would, that seems to really make an appearance when the rubber hits the road.
Quote:That concept being an absolute moral authority. That's his job, not yours. What you feel about a fetus or life, or morality needs only stand up to your own opinions. That's all you need to justify. Your standards of morality are not absolute, but they are an authority....an authority as to your own opinions of morality.
I feel like I am rambling a bit on the same point but I don't think we really act as if it is an opinion. Something he said to me was that when non believers attack religions for the crimes they accuse them of they are not saying in their opinion it is wrong, they are saying such and such people are evil because of these actions. If I said 'I feel sick' there wouldn't be any reason for us to get into a heated argument and you say to me 'no you don't you feel well!' If all morality is is our own opinions I don't think we would have such arguments regarding it as if there really was a right and wrong. I think all of us would say it is objectively wrong for religious people to torture and kill non believers for not converting to their faith. we don't just say its our opinion that they shouldn't do this but if they want to well then different strokes for different fokes.
Quote:The science he brought up is irrelevant. If it were definitively shown that a fetus isn't a human life (it has been..at least here in the US), that wouldn't bother him in the least.
can you give me some kind of reference to find this science, it would be pretty helpful.
July 27, 2011 at 1:02 am (This post was last modified: July 27, 2011 at 1:07 am by Godscreated.)
(July 26, 2011 at 9:05 pm)Hurny Wrote:
Quote:Actually, if you read all the replies you received you'd have some pretty good definitions of what a person is including a biblical one directly from Genesis.
I'm starting to wonder if you are an apologist in wolf's clothing.
Hurny Wrote:I'm a person who has not been particularly persuaded one way or the other, however at this point I have one theist who is giving me well formatted logical arguments with persuasive proofs while I have a lot of people here not giving me many direct answers but rather spending the whole time talking about how illogical, dogmatic, and idiotic theist's are. I wish we could just have a discussion about truth as known by reason without all the rest of the junk.
I don't want to sound like I don't appreciate the help you guys have been giving me, its just that no one seems to be taking this guy too seriously and seem to sort of act as if his arguments are just nonsense automatically without really giving them a decent look.
Hurny I've been reading this entire post and paying attention closely to what you have written and the responses to what you've written and it's there same old worn out arguments. I've been on this forum for a while now and nothing has changed in the way they argue a point, they gang-up on someone and throw a bunch of the same old stuff and always telling christians we have no ground to stand on, they come up with nothing new they just spew the same old stuff, it gets to be boring at times. I believe from what I've read that you are a fair minded person who can determine from your own mind and heart what is true, just take the time to meditate on what your friend is telling you and make up your own mind on the matter. Look at Min's response to my previous post and you will see the general attitude towards christians on this forum. He thinks that I do not like catholics because I'm a baptist, well at least that's what he wants you to think so that you will disregard what I write and if you do, well that's your choice, make that choice for yourself, it is your life that will be changed, not theirs, if you chose to believe what they say. I have no problem with a lot of catholics and know many I'll see in heaven, I do however have a problem with the persons who run the catholic church because they have instituted some things I see as not standing with what Christ taught. Now I want to say that I do have a respect for most of the nonbelievers on this forum, heck if it wasn't for them I would have no rep. at all, my rep. points have come from them because I stand my ground on what I believe and they seem to appreciate that, and I'm taking a firm stand against what they have told you and am encouraging you to make up your own mind. Now for my two cents worth, if there are no objective standards or morals then why do we have a standard of law, that's not to say all laws are right but the greatest majority are humans are not perfect.
(July 26, 2011 at 5:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Sure is it morally right to kill an innocent person. Simple answer, one that you already know...it depends. As far as absolute moral authority, your catholic buddy is the one who insists that such a thing exists. Why not ask him to show proof of that authority, rather than allowing him to set the pace of a discussion he's obviously had before.
You see I am not willing to make this admittance. I don't really see how any one can honesty say it without being severely evil. And I don't see much justification in the distinction between an innocent person and an innocent person you know, they are both equally innocent and so it is going to be ok to kill one it would be just as much ok to kill the other.
This is the evidence for the absolute moral law that he is pointing too, the fact that it appears to be objectively wrong.
That's more or less the argument. Do I believe it is absolutely and objectively morally wrong to kill and innocent person. Yes I do. But if I believe that is true it seems inescapable not to admit then that it is an objective truth. That is the point he keeps sticking me on.
Also it seems a lot easier to say 'yeah I believe its ok to kill an innocent person' then actually believing that in reality when you're standing face to face with an innocent person threatening them. Skydiving isn't all that scary while i'm in my living room but it sure is from a plane, and I think that whatever you want to call it about what it is that is in us, this conscience if you would, that seems to really make an appearance when the rubber hits the road.
Quote:That concept being an absolute moral authority. That's his job, not yours. What you feel about a fetus or life, or morality needs only stand up to your own opinions. That's all you need to justify. Your standards of morality are not absolute, but they are an authority....an authority as to your own opinions of morality.
I feel like I am rambling a bit on the same point but I don't think we really act as if it is an opinion. Something he said to me was that when non believers attack religions for the crimes they accuse them of they are not saying in their opinion it is wrong, they are saying such and such people are evil because of these actions. If I said 'I feel sick' there wouldn't be any reason for us to get into a heated argument and you say to me 'no you don't you feel well!' If all morality is is our own opinions I don't think we would have such arguments regarding it as if there really was a right and wrong. I think all of us would say it is objectively wrong for religious people to torture and kill non believers for not converting to their faith. we don't just say its our opinion that they shouldn't do this but if they want to well then different strokes for different fokes.
Quote:The science he brought up is irrelevant. If it were definitively shown that a fetus isn't a human life (it has been..at least here in the US), that wouldn't bother him in the least.
can you give me some kind of reference to find this science, it would be pretty helpful.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
July 27, 2011 at 1:32 am (This post was last modified: July 27, 2011 at 1:35 am by Hurny.)
Quote:Hurny I've been reading this entire post and paying attention closely to what you have written and the responses to what you've written and it's there same old worn out arguments. I've been on this forum for a while now and nothing has changed in the way they argue a point, they gang-up on someone and throw a bunch of the same old stuff and always telling christians we have no ground to stand on, they come up with nothing new they just spew the same old stuff, it gets to be boring at times. I believe from what I've read that you are a fair minded person who can determine from your own mind and heart what is true, just take the time to meditate on what your friend is telling you and make up your own mind on the matter. Look at Min's response to my previous post and you will see the general attitude towards christians on this forum. He thinks that I do not like catholics because I'm a baptist, well at least that's what he wants you to think so that you will disregard what I write and if you do, well that's your choice, make that choice for yourself, it is your life that will be changed, not theirs, if you chose to believe what they say. I have no problem with a lot of catholics and know many I'll see in heaven, I do however have a problem with the persons who run the catholic church because they have instituted some things I see as not standing with what Christ taught. Now I want to say that I do have a respect for most of the nonbelievers on this forum, heck if it wasn't for them I would have no rep. at all, my rep. points have come from them because I stand my ground on what I believe and they seem to appreciate that, and I'm taking a firm stand against what they have told you and am encouraging you to make up your own mind. Now for my two cents worth, if there are no objective standards or morals then why do we have a standard of law, that's not to say all laws are right but the greatest majority are humans are not perfect.
Well thanks for the respectful reply. I do appreciate the help everyone is giving me the only thing I wish is that we could focus a little more on reasoning through the arguments with a little less irrelevant criticism's. I guess I'm to blame also because I make my posts too long and cram too many topics in one. But I think I can say my main priority is to find out which arguments line up best with reason and seem to make sense of the universe.
I haven't talked to my coworker too much about the differences in Christian denominations but I have studied them a bit in history courses and in some books I've read. The thing that I guess I don't understand is the reformation. As you mentioned some what and from what I've heard other non-catholics mention, they all say things about the Catholics being some bad institution but wasn't it the only Christian church for the 1500 years before the reformation?
Also if you don't mind educating me a bit, where or when I guess did Baptist's begin? I only really know about Lutheran's and the other guy who worked with him in the reformation.
Quote:and always telling christians we have no ground to stand on,
You don't, G-C. It's always the same shit with you. "God said......" Well fuck you and your god. Either demonstrate he exists or give it up. You have nothing to sustain your vision of eternal bullshit beyond your own word...which, you should have guessed by now, is utterly worthless.
July 27, 2011 at 2:46 am (This post was last modified: July 27, 2011 at 2:49 am by Godscreated.)
(July 27, 2011 at 1:32 am)Hurny Wrote:
Quote:Hurny I've been reading this entire post and paying attention closely to what you have written and the responses to what you've written and it's there same old worn out arguments. I've been on this forum for a while now and nothing has changed in the way they argue a point, they gang-up on someone and throw a bunch of the same old stuff and always telling christians we have no ground to stand on, they come up with nothing new they just spew the same old stuff, it gets to be boring at times. I believe from what I've read that you are a fair minded person who can determine from your own mind and heart what is true, just take the time to meditate on what your friend is telling you and make up your own mind on the matter. Look at Min's response to my previous post and you will see the general attitude towards christians on this forum. He thinks that I do not like catholics because I'm a baptist, well at least that's what he wants you to think so that you will disregard what I write and if you do, well that's your choice, make that choice for yourself, it is your life that will be changed, not theirs, if you chose to believe what they say. I have no problem with a lot of catholics and know many I'll see in heaven, I do however have a problem with the persons who run the catholic church because they have instituted some things I see as not standing with what Christ taught. Now I want to say that I do have a respect for most of the nonbelievers on this forum, heck if it wasn't for them I would have no rep. at all, my rep. points have come from them because I stand my ground on what I believe and they seem to appreciate that, and I'm taking a firm stand against what they have told you and am encouraging you to make up your own mind. Now for my two cents worth, if there are no objective standards or morals then why do we have a standard of law, that's not to say all laws are right but the greatest majority are humans are not perfect.
Well thanks for the respectful reply. I do appreciate the help everyone is giving me the only thing I wish is that we could focus a little more on reasoning through the arguments with a little less irrelevant criticism's. I guess I'm to blame also because I make my posts too long and cram too many topics in one. But I think I can say my main priority is to find out which arguments line up best with reason and seem to make sense of the universe.
I haven't talked to my coworker too much about the differences in Christian denominations but I have studied them a bit in history courses and in some books I've read. The thing that I guess I don't understand is the reformation. As you mentioned some what and from what I've heard other non-catholics mention, they all say things about the Catholics being some bad institution but wasn't it the only Christian church for the 1500 years before the reformation?
Also if you don't mind educating me a bit, where or when I guess did Baptist's begin? I only really know about Lutheran's and the other guy who worked with him in the reformation.
The baptist can trace their history back to Amsterdam and John Smyth in the early 1600's, there are however many baptist denominations, I'm a member of the Southern Baptist. We believe in full immersion baptism at a time close to one's conversion, we believe in once saved always saved, we believe that the Bible is the true word of God, we believe in the virgin birth, we do not believe in predestination, we do not believe in infant baptisim which is one of the main reasons the baptiat were formed. We also believe and accept that all Southern Baptist are not required to accept all that I have just written, we are free to form opinions of what we see as the truth as long as we do not use said practice to divided the church. The southern baptist is generally conservative but there are liberals too. I guess that the most important thing to Southern Baptist is salvation comes through faith and faith alone and that works are generated through faith in the living Christ. There is more but this is what most Southern Baptist believe.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
July 27, 2011 at 8:44 am (This post was last modified: July 27, 2011 at 11:51 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Examples of the decision that an unborn fetus is not a human being, ergo abortion is not murder? Wow...Roe v Wade. That's how such things are decided. The individual has an opinion of what is moral, it gets weighed against an opposing opinion, and a decision is made (always subject to review). It may not be satisfying to those that want to believe in absolute moral authority, but there it is. What is "morally upright" is determined by the culture. Sure there are minimums, the price of entry into life, whereby we cant be so destructive to each other that there are none of us left....but that's it, everything else is fair game, as history has shown us since we began recording it. My own personal morality doesn't factor in, I'm not pro abortion, personally, but my own predispositions for this or that are irrelevant except where they serve to represent the group. If enough people felt the same way I did about abortion then perhaps it would be illegal, it is not. Again, I do not have to refer to absolute morality for the conclusions of the group to be valid. I do not believe that such a thing exists, again, it is not my burden to prove that it does, and that my opinions, or the opinions of others are consistent with the concept. Sometimes the conclusions we reach when we have an honest discussion about a concept like "absolute morality" are uncomfortable. That the world around us is not concerned with our comfort goes without saying, but I do understand the desire for there to be "more" to it than some set of rules agreed upon by the individuals of the group for the betterment of the whole, there just isn't anything to demonstrate to us that this isn't the case.
You want god, you want absolute morality, fine, prove it. Your cross, not mine.
Here you go Hunry, a nuts and bolts focus on his logic.
Your friend has stated that abortion is wrong/immoral (whatever he wants to call it)
He gave his supporting evidence, from the realm of science, he also has an implied set of support from his religious beliefs. To him these seem complimentary, no problem.
The problem is that his assertion, part of his premise, is that there are things that are absolutely morally bankrupt. That there is an absolute moral authority. He must show this to be the case before he may proceed from premise to conclusion. If he cannot, than his propositions from that premise to that conclusion do not follow each other. They are invalid.
It is illegal to murder a human being
Fetus=human being
Abortion should be illegal
Would be fine if we hadn't already decided that for the purposes of legal procedure fetus does not equal human being. Going from legality to morality is an interesting jump that he seems to have made. Or going from legality to absolute moral authority. He's not arguing his main point, he's not arguing his "god" assumption, and the argument he's making from legality does not follow. In the end he uses this argument as tacit approval for both his main point of absolute morality and god assumption. Its tortuous logic. That may be why you get more criticism than focus on the logic itself.
Wondering whether or not you could pull the trigger when faced with someone who you have absolutely no knowledge of (innocence/guilt) can be an interesting line of discussion. Drawing from recorded human history and my own personal experiences, it seems obvious to me that we can do this thing, that the act is not beyond any of us. Whether or not it is "kosher" to do so is muddy. It's an honest answer, one with few assumptions. Doesn't mean I like it. It would be nice if we were all on the same page regarding morality. Would save alot of strife in the world, I have kids, I want them to have a safe world to live in..........however, there's no shame in stating the obvious.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(July 26, 2011 at 9:05 pm)Hurny Wrote: I don't want to sound like I don't appreciate the help you guys have been giving me, its just that no one seems to be taking this guy too seriously and seem to sort of act as if his arguments are just nonsense automatically without really giving them a decent look.
Well personally im an atheist and im not too sure that I support abortion. Ill confess I dont know alot about the debate in genral and when a fetus becomes a person but it seems to me and forgive me if i misrepresent that the only agrument im seeing is "well he belives in god so that automically makes all his points invalid." just what it seems like.
Well it makes God-related arguments invalid, obviously.
For example, if he says "LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION CUZ POPE SAID SO ZOMGWTFBBQ" that argument is invalid.
Arguments Christians make are always based on the Bible, which is why they are bullshit. A pro-life argument that didn't require the Bible to make sense would still be bullshit, but it wouldn't be so obviously bullshit so people might discuss it more.
