Sure,I love a healthy debate, civil discussion, good conversation. A good debate has the potential to do two things:
a) Bolster one in their position/beliefs
b) Or lead one to the Truth it they are in error.
But i would want to have a separate debate over each attribute. There is a lot to unpack and debate with omniscience, omnipotent, etc and it often gets convoluted, when trying to defend/argue for/against all the attributes. In addition, I would want to use the Catholic Bible (NAB version would suffice) and not the Protestant version.
The "stone too heavy to lift" is just another example of the Omnipotent Paradox, just packaged differently. While not exactly the same, it's analogous to "the triangle with 2 sides"
But as I implied before, I think your definition of "omnipotence" is not the same as the Christian's view (or at least my view) of "omnipotence". It's a critical/fundamental difference A critical point. Or put another way (with some questions)
1. Is your definition of "Omnipotence" consistent with the Christian's understanding of "Omnipotence"?
2. If God CAN'T make a stone so heavy even He can't lift (or make a triangle with 2 sides, etc), does that mean he doesn't exist? Or does it mean He simply doesn't fit into your definition of omnipotence (which may or may not be consistent with the Christian's definition of "omnipotence" or what is implied in the Bible")
Just because something is widespread and in use by a lot of people, doesn't make it the authority or correct text to use. Just sayin'. "Popular vote" is not necessarily the best means to determine is true and authoritative.
Eh, no. What is a paradox or impossible in your mind might not necessarily be binding to God. Here's a fun little thought exercise:
Atheist: "God, if you are all-powerful, I want you to make a triangle with 2 sides."
God: "Ok. Before I begin, I want to make sure I'm on the same page as you. Please define "triangle". What exactly is a 'triangle' in your opinion"
Atheist: "Sheesh, if you were God, you'd know that already. But here goes, a triangle is an enclosed shape that has 3 sides and 3 angles."
God: "Ok. Let me get this straight. You've just defined "triangle" as an enclosed shape that has 3 sides and 3 angles. But then now you want me to make one that has 2 sides. According to your definition, that would not be a triangle."
The classic "Omnipotence Paradox" leaves out one crucial element-- God's nature. There are certain things that God can not do, such as go against His
That's why definitions are important, especially omnipotent. I'm willing to bet most Christians and Atheists differ on what it means to be "Omnipotent". An atheist claims that if God is omnipotent, He should be able to do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, including illogical possibilities, falsehoods etc, and then use this as a claim that God doesn't exist. Whereas most Christians I know don't hold that belief of "omnipotence". And I would argue that the Christian Bible (either Protestant or Catholic) doesn't claim or imply this version of omnipotence.
And my comment about "beating chest, etc" was simply for effect ;-) lol. Point remains though, that Atheists will use the "Omnipotence Paradox" as a reason God doesn't exist.
In your debate description, you say whoever accepts the debate is taking the Contender role. But then in your overview it says YOU are taking the Con position.
A few questions:
1) Are you arguing for or against "The most rational response to the question of god's existence is to have faith."?
2) how are going to define these terms: "omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent "
Why are using the King James version? Or perhaps, a better question is, why are you using a "Protestant" Bible and not the "Catholic" Bible?
Both the Catholic and Protestant Bible have 27 books in the New Testament. But the Old Testament versions differ greatly. The Catholic Bible has 46 books in the OT, whereas the Protestant Bible has only 39 books in the OT.
There's much debate as to why they differ, but many theologians agree that the "Catholic" version was in use ever since the Canon of the Bible was affirmed, and it wasn't until the Reformation some 400-500 years ago that the Protestants decided the Catholic version was wrong and opted for "their Canon".
Anyway, it may seem inconsequential, but I think it's a very important point. You want to make sure you are using the "correct" texts and your opponent agrees . Otherwise, that would be like debating Shakespeare based on his sonnets, but leaving out some of his 154 sonnets....
You should probably also define "supernatural", "omniscient", "omnipotent", and "omnibenevolent".
I've seen folks try to rebut God's omnipotence by saying "Well, can God create a stone so heavy even He can't lift it", which is akin to saying something like "Can God create a triangle with only 2 sides?".....and then when you say "No", they beat their chests and proclaim "SEE! Your God is not all-powerful!". lol
But first, in terms of omnipotence, can you clarify? Power to do anything or the power to do any that is logical or in the realm of possibility? You're not going to pull the classic trick of "Well if God has the power to do anything, then can he make a stone so heavy even He can't lift it? No? Well then God doesn't exist!" or "Can God make a triangle with only 2 sides? No, well then God doesn't exist!".
True, but that is not what the Debate is about. The debate is about whether or not the State (government) should codify and enact legislation to "legalize" same-sex relationships as "marriages". I'm going to argue that the State has no obligation to recognize a same-sex union the same as a man-woman union.
I'm not going to argue and say that the State should outlaw gay marriage. In no way am I saying that. I'm saying the State is not obligated to "legalize" a same-sex union.
This will be revealed as the debate unfolds. My argument is that the State (Gov't) has no reason to formally recognize a relationship between two same-sex individuals. Just because the State doesn't formally recognize it doesn't mean it's illegal and worthy of punishment. I can go out and put a giant inflatable Barney in my backyard-- this harms no one (of course my neighbors may beg to differ). There are no laws that specifically state I can do this-- nor are there laws that prohibit this either. Simply because an activity doesn't "harm any one" is not a good enough reason for the State (Government) to go out and Codify and enact legislation calling this activity (putting up an inflatable Barney) as "legal".
Interesting. I'm curious how you arrived at the Conclusion that because there are multiple religions, this means God doesn't exist. 10 people that witness a hit and run may have 10 different depictions of the suspect. Does the fact that they defer, perhaps even contradict each other, mean that the suspect doesn't exist? Perhaps it means only 1 of them is correct?
Thanks for clarifying. Might I ask for more clarification?
1) What do you mean, exactly, by "conscious"?
2) How can you now for certain (without a doubt) that a being has thoughts/memories?
I think I won't ask about the "function independently". I don't believe that is a requirement for being "alive". A newborn baby can only breathe on it's own (and it even needs help to start doing THAT!)-- a baby left on the delivery table will die if not fed by another human. So I would cross "function independently" off your "evidence it's alive" list....
Your argument is based on a lot of assumptions, and you conveniently use different words in effort to keep the person in the womb totally different from the person outside the womb, and not eligible for any rights that the person outside the womb has.
So you are basing the right to life simply on the fact that the person outside the womb has someone to love them, whereas the fetus doesn't? So if a baby is born, and yet it's parent do not love it (or want it), are you ok with that baby just being left to die? Choose your answer carefully, You say that fetuses that aren't aborted have someone that will care for them, etc. However, if a baby doesn't have someone to care for it are you ok with it being left to die?
God doesn't burn people in hell. People end up here of their own choosing. The choices you make in life determine where you end up. God says "Do these things, and you will end up with me in Heaven, or do these things and you will have an eternity without me (i.e. Hell), but the choice is yours"
Life is a journey. Each action we take moves us either in the direction toward God or away from Him.
I feel like I need to correct you as a fellow Christian. It is not your place to say who is or who isn't going to Heaven. Only God knows. To say with certainty who is or who isn't going to Heaven is pretty much elevating yourself to God's level. That you can not do, my friend.
The Bible also says thou shalt not kill. So you are taking as truth when the Bible says unborn go to heaven. But yet, you are not taking as truth (or rather perhaps disobeying) the Bible when it says thou shalt not kill. Why is that?
Just because laws are enacted by a group of people does not automatically mean those laws are "right" and "just". Hell, in the very near future a group of people could enact a law that says all guys named "Alec" must be strung up by their testicles every day at noon for 10 minutes. I'm sure you'd be quick to say "Hey now! That is NOT a just law!" If I were to say "But hey, it's legal. I mean come on, the majority of the population thinks all guys named Alec must be strung up by their testicles for 10 minutes. I mean come on, we're doing these guys a FAVOR-- it's building their character.", I'm sure you would still find issue with the law. In fact, you might even argue that just because it's a law doesn't mean it's "right" or "just"
Awesome. Now you're getting close to the heart of the issue. It's primary purpose/objective is reproduction. but likewise, it has a secondary purpose-- gratification...."fun", as you put it.
But would you agree it's primary purpose is reproduction?
As a former Boy Scout, and the father of an Eagle Scout, it's sad to see the program changing.
Does (did) the Boy Scouts offer a great benefit to boys? Absolutely! It's not just the "title" of Eagle Scout that one can put on resumes, but it's the life lessons one learns while on the journey to Eagle.
So, then. what about girls? Aren't girls "missing out"? Shouldn't they also learn these same "life lessons" as boys? Absolutely! Doe sthat mean they should automatically do the exact same things and participate in the exact same programs as boys? Absolutely not.
there should be programs tailored to girls that teach them life lessons, life skills similar to BSA. If Girl Scouts can't do that, then that's a failure on Girl Scouts. That doesn't mean girls should automatically be allowed in Boy Scouts.
I have twice as many daughters as I do sons. I (we) teach our girls
(a) life skills
(b) boys and girls, men and women, males and females are different. They just are. It's at the core of who they are-- their biology. As a result, there are just some things that are different among boys and girls. There are just some things boys can't do that girls/women can ("Sorry son....you can't get pregnant.). There are just some things girls can't do that boys can ("Sorry, daughter...you can't father a child").
Boys need "safe" places where boys can be boys and just be themselves.
Likewise, so do girls.
You put a group of 10 boys together and you will see them do things...crazy things..."boy" things. You put a few girls in the mix and the whole dynamic changes. I've seen it. We've gone on troop outings with just the boy scouts and they do all sorts of things....they smell...they fart...they belch....they help each other out...they tease each other...they fight, they play....they wear they same clothes for days on end. You add some girls (which we've done in the past when we let the Venture crew join us), and things change.
**So you are for tanks, rocket launchers and mortars? **
Nope. Because it's not necessary for me to have a tank, rocket launcher and mortars in order for me to defend myself. HOwever, take away all our guns and if I have nothing, then yes, I will be for tanks, rocket launchers, and mortars.
** Why do you care so much about the past when that is burdening the progression United States as a society can have? **
I don't view it as a burden. I view it as a freedom. Guns are not a burden. However, lack of education and and lack of morals are.
** Good judgement? So basically are you for or against the right to bear arms? **
I am FOR the right to bear arms.
** The vast majority of automatic rifles and automatic rifle owners do not inflict human harm. Do you want to bring that back?**
It pays to be prudent AND have good judgement. I seriously doubt tanks, rocket launchers and mortars are what our forefathers hand in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights. Of course, one could argue "the right to bear arms" should include tanks and the like (not me), but again Good judgement is in order. The vast majority of guns and gun owners do not inflict human harm.
Yea, and without cars, drunk driving accidents wouldn't occur either. Why do you blame the tool (Guns) in one instance, and not the tool in the other instances?
Nope, that is not what I meant. I mean you can't blame the instrument/tool for the result (unless it was defective).
Regardless of whether the person is drunk or not, it's still the person, not the car that is responsible. We don't hear people yelling "WE MUST BAN CARS!" because are there are a lot of traffic deaths....
Seems you have Christianity all wrong. REAL Christianity is not about condemning the invididual (i.e. homosexuals) but rather condemning the ACT.
Believing in eternal life does not mean you don't value life. On the contrary, it means that what you do in THIS life DOES matter and has an impact on your eternal life.
What was the context in which Jesus told them not to wash their hands? HOw are YOU so sure your understanding of what Jesus said is the correct understanding?
Hey folks. Back from the dead...well, not the dead, just work :)
If guns are responsible for klling people, then cars are responsible for drunk driving, pencils are responsible for misspelled words, and spooks and forks make people fat.
1. It's not ad populum, it's using supporting data. We do that all the time. If we think or believe gravity causes objects to fall, we then see out supporting data. If other people's data corroborates that, then we can be reasonably sure we are on the right path. Are you suggesting that SCIENCE is basically ad populum? I mean, it's that what science does-- a person obtains data and then also uses the data from others to support their claims.
2. Agreed. Yes. One must ensure their senses are properly formed and ordered properly. If they are mal-formed and not order properly (dis-ordered), then one's interpretation of data will be off. Same question can be said than of you and subjective morality-- Wouldn't you have to prove that what you think is right/wrong is actually right/wrong before saying your action is right/wrong?
3. Through the corroboration of others. Are you suggesting that SCIENCE is purely subjective? Isn't that what science is/does? Uses what we perceive through our senses to obtain info.
1. I wasn't asking you to explain your vote. I'm trying to understand which parts/points of my argument do you disagree with? You said my argument was bad, implying there were errors (or you disagreed) with certain parts of my argument. What I'm trying to understand (at least gain yoru perspective) is which poitns of my argument did you not agree with, and why? Of course, I won't settle for a general "I disagree with all of it" lol...that's a cop out...you should be able to address the points specifically, otherwise it'll like you disagree for other reasons...
2. Regarding my comment about an “This Entity (God) would be an uncaused Cause”......so you disagree with that statement,-- YOu belive God, too, would require a Cause? If so, then I must ask why? Why do you think the Creator of the universe would require a cause? I ask because I believe you are reading things I didn't say into my arguments, or not fully understanding.
**** Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms. ***
I don't need to explain WHAT ABOUT collective ownership of the means production leads to government control. Honestly, I don't know what it is about socialism that leads to government control. Can socialism lead to other types of control besides government control? Sure. I'm not saying it doesn't. What I said typically, how does "community control" manifest itself? The government controlling it.
I'm curious.....what are some other means, besides government control, would/does a socialist advocate for the society to control the means of production? In what other ways could a society control the means of production?
1. If i observe that gravity causes objects to fall. And others corroborate my findings...and if MANY MANY others corroborate my findings, then I can be reasonably sure that what my senses tell me about gravity is accurate.
2. Agreed with a good and proper sense we are at a disadvantage. Likewise the person who has a disordered sense of what is right/wrong.
3. Agreed. Our senses are what we have. It's what we use to experience the world around us. But against, that doesn't mean that everythign we do is subjective.
Value...Opinion. You can mince words, change words all you want. It's all the same. People have different values. I get that. But interchanging words doesn't change the discussion.
Your first question is spot on. If my senses are bad, how can i be trusted to actually know what is objective. The key is keeping your senses formed and in shape. Same question pose to you, if your sense of right and wrong is bad...or off...or disordered, how can you be trusted to do what is right? How? By properly forming your "moral compass", if you will. And how do you keep your moral compass in tip top shape? By forming against things yo uknow are right-- objective things.
Ok. I lied. I will respond. Wow. When did say my senses are good source of information? Did I say that? Yo uasked me how I perceive the world. I said via my senses. I never said they were good :-)
But you highlight the point. If you are implying senses are faulty and prone to error, the all the more reason morality is to be objective and not subjective. If your sense is faulty, why look inward to determine morality? If your sense of direction is very poor- would you rely on that to get you where yo uwant to go? of course not. If your sense of what is right or wrong is faulty, why would you rely on that? Why not look to something beyond you?
They rape question is fair. If you say morality is subjective, then what you think is right, and you would have to believe that if another person thinks something is right, then they are right...because that is their opinion.
Nah. Not having issues. I never said "writing the law" is what makes it objective, now did I? Please re-read what I wrote. I said the person that follows the law is being objective. Big difference.
If a person is looking to something beyond themselves to determine morality, they are being objective. If they look to a law to determine the morality of their behavior, they are being objective. It doesn't matter what the law is...could be a law about not wearing Blue on Thursdays....a law about watering your lawn on Fridays....a law about murder...a law about rape...And it doesn't matter if said person is a King, a waif, a pawn or a rock star.
You're actually making my points. You are pointing instances (rape, cutting fingers off etc) and basically implying that it shouldn't matter what the person things (feels or opines about the subject), you are implying that despite what the person (the King or me) thinks, it's wrong. Guess what...that's being objective.
Ok. What speicifically did I accept to be true and not tell you how?
Does the fact that I'm blind negate the fact that water is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? nope.
I'm using "we all do" as reason. I don't see how yo ucan make that claim. You're making the claim that everything is subjective because we use our senses. I'm simply stating that just because we use our senses to perceive the things around us, that doesn't make everything objective. We use our senses to perceive and detect gravity. Does that mean gravity is purely subjective? of course not.
So, tell me...how did I interpret your argument? That's the best example to see if you understand that person-- restate what the person said (perhaps in slightly different terms) and see if the other person agrees. What exactly was the strawman you said I concocted?
And this will probably be the last I'll respond today-- I'm about to go watch some MARCH MADNESS BABY! GO TEXAS TECH! (Not really a Tech fan, but they are the team from the greatest state in the union still worth watching).
I use my sense to perceive my world. We all do. But that doesn't mean everything is subjective. I use my senses to observe that water is composed of 2 hydrogen atoms coupled with 1 oxygen atom. Does that mean the chemical makeup of H20 is purely subjective? Of course not. Facts/objectives abound and we use our senses to discover/uncover these facts.
Explain it? Didn't you accuse of constructing a straw man by bringing about the worst extent that logically follows (i.e someone thinking rape is good), and you called it unfair. My response to you was, the discussion of morality concerns human behavior.....you can't say morality is subjective and then change your tune because all of sudden the behavior is now deemed severe.
If we were playing "Match Game" a giant RED X would appear after your response.
The moment you say it's against the law, you're being objective. Happens every time. Subjective means influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. The fact you say it's against the law, means it's objective (i.e. not dependent on a person's feelings, tastes, or opinions).
You realize that in a subjective morality, what you just said is just your opinion. YOU think that it brings psychological/physical harm, etc....but what if others disagree. What if they share your same feelings or opinions? In fact, what society as a whole deems "rape to be good". Something tells me you still wouldn't be ok with that.
You bring up a good point-- the notion of "harm". So what is harm. What you consider "harmful" others may not......so again, in a subjective morality it all becomes a matter of opinion. You have no basis to call sometihng good or bad, other than just your opinion. And your opinion is just one of millions.
I guess that depends on who you ask. People use different objective standards all the time: some base the morality of their behavior on what their parents think....or what their spouse thinks....or what the government says....or what they believe God says.
It's not a strawman. I think it's very fair. Morality referencing behavior...actions..... Behavior is deemed either good or bad. If you are going to say morality is subjective, you can't change your story based on the severity of the action.
And for the record, I wasn't the one who introduced rape and murder into the discussion ;-)
@Type1 "Objective means that something is a fact. Subjective means it depends on perception rather than reality itself."
Ok. I'm going to stick with the rape scenario.
Consider this statement: "Rape is wrong." Is that a fact. Or is it simply a matter of perception?
Are you willing to say that "rape is wrong" is simply a matter of opinion?
You can't measure outside yourself? Of course you can. I'm willing to bet you do it all the time. If you want to see how wide a table is, do you eyeball it and stick your arms and say "Hmmm, i think it's about 4 feet wide".....no, you get something else (measuring tape) to measure it. You are using an objective standard (the measuring tape) to measure the table.
When you travel from one town to another, you don't use your own idea or inkling or sense of direction. No. You use objective standards outside yourself to guide you, to give you direction. The sailors of yore did not use their own idea of North or South when the sailed the seas....they used objective standards, like the sun, the moon, the stars, a compass, an astrolabe to guide them. What would happen if they used their own sense of direction instead of objective standards? They'd get lost.
same thing happens with behavior. When we use our own idea of what is right or wrong as opposed to objective standards, we become lost.
It's not a strawman. It makes a point. So the person who thinks Rape is ok is in the right? If you say "No", i'd like to understand why you think it's wrong? What is your basis or reasing for it-- simply because you think it is? That's not a good enough answer .
yes, I get it. We use our senses, but that doesn't mean we are being subjective. We use our senses even to explore scientific data-- but I'm willing to bet you would now say that science is objective....
Sure,I love a healthy debate, civil discussion, good conversation. A good debate has the potential to do two things:
a) Bolster one in their position/beliefs
b) Or lead one to the Truth it they are in error.
But i would want to have a separate debate over each attribute. There is a lot to unpack and debate with omniscience, omnipotent, etc and it often gets convoluted, when trying to defend/argue for/against all the attributes. In addition, I would want to use the Catholic Bible (NAB version would suffice) and not the Protestant version.
The "stone too heavy to lift" is just another example of the Omnipotent Paradox, just packaged differently. While not exactly the same, it's analogous to "the triangle with 2 sides"
But as I implied before, I think your definition of "omnipotence" is not the same as the Christian's view (or at least my view) of "omnipotence". It's a critical/fundamental difference A critical point. Or put another way (with some questions)
1. Is your definition of "Omnipotence" consistent with the Christian's understanding of "Omnipotence"?
2. If God CAN'T make a stone so heavy even He can't lift (or make a triangle with 2 sides, etc), does that mean he doesn't exist? Or does it mean He simply doesn't fit into your definition of omnipotence (which may or may not be consistent with the Christian's definition of "omnipotence" or what is implied in the Bible")
Just because something is widespread and in use by a lot of people, doesn't make it the authority or correct text to use. Just sayin'. "Popular vote" is not necessarily the best means to determine is true and authoritative.
Eh, no. What is a paradox or impossible in your mind might not necessarily be binding to God. Here's a fun little thought exercise:
Atheist: "God, if you are all-powerful, I want you to make a triangle with 2 sides."
God: "Ok. Before I begin, I want to make sure I'm on the same page as you. Please define "triangle". What exactly is a 'triangle' in your opinion"
Atheist: "Sheesh, if you were God, you'd know that already. But here goes, a triangle is an enclosed shape that has 3 sides and 3 angles."
God: "Ok. Let me get this straight. You've just defined "triangle" as an enclosed shape that has 3 sides and 3 angles. But then now you want me to make one that has 2 sides. According to your definition, that would not be a triangle."
The classic "Omnipotence Paradox" leaves out one crucial element-- God's nature. There are certain things that God can not do, such as go against His
That's why definitions are important, especially omnipotent. I'm willing to bet most Christians and Atheists differ on what it means to be "Omnipotent". An atheist claims that if God is omnipotent, He should be able to do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, including illogical possibilities, falsehoods etc, and then use this as a claim that God doesn't exist. Whereas most Christians I know don't hold that belief of "omnipotence". And I would argue that the Christian Bible (either Protestant or Catholic) doesn't claim or imply this version of omnipotence.
And my comment about "beating chest, etc" was simply for effect ;-) lol. Point remains though, that Atheists will use the "Omnipotence Paradox" as a reason God doesn't exist.
In your debate description, you say whoever accepts the debate is taking the Contender role. But then in your overview it says YOU are taking the Con position.
A few questions:
1) Are you arguing for or against "The most rational response to the question of god's existence is to have faith."?
2) how are going to define these terms: "omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent "
Why are using the King James version? Or perhaps, a better question is, why are you using a "Protestant" Bible and not the "Catholic" Bible?
Both the Catholic and Protestant Bible have 27 books in the New Testament. But the Old Testament versions differ greatly. The Catholic Bible has 46 books in the OT, whereas the Protestant Bible has only 39 books in the OT.
There's much debate as to why they differ, but many theologians agree that the "Catholic" version was in use ever since the Canon of the Bible was affirmed, and it wasn't until the Reformation some 400-500 years ago that the Protestants decided the Catholic version was wrong and opted for "their Canon".
Anyway, it may seem inconsequential, but I think it's a very important point. You want to make sure you are using the "correct" texts and your opponent agrees . Otherwise, that would be like debating Shakespeare based on his sonnets, but leaving out some of his 154 sonnets....
You should probably also define "supernatural", "omniscient", "omnipotent", and "omnibenevolent".
I've seen folks try to rebut God's omnipotence by saying "Well, can God create a stone so heavy even He can't lift it", which is akin to saying something like "Can God create a triangle with only 2 sides?".....and then when you say "No", they beat their chests and proclaim "SEE! Your God is not all-powerful!". lol
Which Bible are you using when you refer to "the Bible"? THere are many many different versions, translations, interpretations etc.
sure thing
Sounds interesting. I'm game.
But first, in terms of omnipotence, can you clarify? Power to do anything or the power to do any that is logical or in the realm of possibility? You're not going to pull the classic trick of "Well if God has the power to do anything, then can he make a stone so heavy even He can't lift it? No? Well then God doesn't exist!" or "Can God make a triangle with only 2 sides? No, well then God doesn't exist!".
True, but that is not what the Debate is about. The debate is about whether or not the State (government) should codify and enact legislation to "legalize" same-sex relationships as "marriages". I'm going to argue that the State has no obligation to recognize a same-sex union the same as a man-woman union.
I'm not going to argue and say that the State should outlaw gay marriage. In no way am I saying that. I'm saying the State is not obligated to "legalize" a same-sex union.
This will be revealed as the debate unfolds. My argument is that the State (Gov't) has no reason to formally recognize a relationship between two same-sex individuals. Just because the State doesn't formally recognize it doesn't mean it's illegal and worthy of punishment. I can go out and put a giant inflatable Barney in my backyard-- this harms no one (of course my neighbors may beg to differ). There are no laws that specifically state I can do this-- nor are there laws that prohibit this either. Simply because an activity doesn't "harm any one" is not a good enough reason for the State (Government) to go out and Codify and enact legislation calling this activity (putting up an inflatable Barney) as "legal".
The problem with the pro-LGBTMICKEYMOUSE movement is that they equate "calling an action wrong" with "hating the person committing the action."
Correct. They can't all be true :)
Interesting. I'm curious how you arrived at the Conclusion that because there are multiple religions, this means God doesn't exist. 10 people that witness a hit and run may have 10 different depictions of the suspect. Does the fact that they defer, perhaps even contradict each other, mean that the suspect doesn't exist? Perhaps it means only 1 of them is correct?
Thanks for clarifying. Might I ask for more clarification?
1) What do you mean, exactly, by "conscious"?
2) How can you now for certain (without a doubt) that a being has thoughts/memories?
I think I won't ask about the "function independently". I don't believe that is a requirement for being "alive". A newborn baby can only breathe on it's own (and it even needs help to start doing THAT!)-- a baby left on the delivery table will die if not fed by another human. So I would cross "function independently" off your "evidence it's alive" list....
oh yea? If you're being sarcastic, the sarcasm doesn't translate well on this thingy...
Eh, you can't really pick and choose Scripture in order to make your position "right". SOrry, it doesn't work like that.
Curious, must all 3 things be present in order to be classified as "alive"
a) You are conscious (24-28 weeks) in the womb
b) function independently (breathe and take in nutrients)
c) Have thoughts/memories
Is it "You must have all 3 in order to be alive" or is it "If you have at least 1 to be alive?"
Your argument is based on a lot of assumptions, and you conveniently use different words in effort to keep the person in the womb totally different from the person outside the womb, and not eligible for any rights that the person outside the womb has.
So you are basing the right to life simply on the fact that the person outside the womb has someone to love them, whereas the fetus doesn't? So if a baby is born, and yet it's parent do not love it (or want it), are you ok with that baby just being left to die? Choose your answer carefully, You say that fetuses that aren't aborted have someone that will care for them, etc. However, if a baby doesn't have someone to care for it are you ok with it being left to die?
So how do you know God wants you to kill unborn children?
God doesn't burn people in hell. People end up here of their own choosing. The choices you make in life determine where you end up. God says "Do these things, and you will end up with me in Heaven, or do these things and you will have an eternity without me (i.e. Hell), but the choice is yours"
Life is a journey. Each action we take moves us either in the direction toward God or away from Him.
The Bible says thou shalt not murder? Really? What version are you reading? Most versions I've seen has it as "Thou Shalt Not Kill"
YOu say going to Heaven is more important than following God's commandments...The question is, how do you get to Heaven?
Curious. Why are you pro-abortion?
I feel like I need to correct you as a fellow Christian. It is not your place to say who is or who isn't going to Heaven. Only God knows. To say with certainty who is or who isn't going to Heaven is pretty much elevating yourself to God's level. That you can not do, my friend.
The Bible also says thou shalt not kill. So you are taking as truth when the Bible says unborn go to heaven. But yet, you are not taking as truth (or rather perhaps disobeying) the Bible when it says thou shalt not kill. Why is that?
Just because laws are enacted by a group of people does not automatically mean those laws are "right" and "just". Hell, in the very near future a group of people could enact a law that says all guys named "Alec" must be strung up by their testicles every day at noon for 10 minutes. I'm sure you'd be quick to say "Hey now! That is NOT a just law!" If I were to say "But hey, it's legal. I mean come on, the majority of the population thinks all guys named Alec must be strung up by their testicles for 10 minutes. I mean come on, we're doing these guys a FAVOR-- it's building their character.", I'm sure you would still find issue with the law. In fact, you might even argue that just because it's a law doesn't mean it's "right" or "just"
Awesome. Now you're getting close to the heart of the issue. It's primary purpose/objective is reproduction. but likewise, it has a secondary purpose-- gratification...."fun", as you put it.
But would you agree it's primary purpose is reproduction?
The basic question that must first be answered is, what is the purpose/objective of sex? How would y'all answer this?
As a former Boy Scout, and the father of an Eagle Scout, it's sad to see the program changing.
Does (did) the Boy Scouts offer a great benefit to boys? Absolutely! It's not just the "title" of Eagle Scout that one can put on resumes, but it's the life lessons one learns while on the journey to Eagle.
So, then. what about girls? Aren't girls "missing out"? Shouldn't they also learn these same "life lessons" as boys? Absolutely! Doe sthat mean they should automatically do the exact same things and participate in the exact same programs as boys? Absolutely not.
there should be programs tailored to girls that teach them life lessons, life skills similar to BSA. If Girl Scouts can't do that, then that's a failure on Girl Scouts. That doesn't mean girls should automatically be allowed in Boy Scouts.
I have twice as many daughters as I do sons. I (we) teach our girls
(a) life skills
(b) boys and girls, men and women, males and females are different. They just are. It's at the core of who they are-- their biology. As a result, there are just some things that are different among boys and girls. There are just some things boys can't do that girls/women can ("Sorry son....you can't get pregnant.). There are just some things girls can't do that boys can ("Sorry, daughter...you can't father a child").
Boys need "safe" places where boys can be boys and just be themselves.
Likewise, so do girls.
You put a group of 10 boys together and you will see them do things...crazy things..."boy" things. You put a few girls in the mix and the whole dynamic changes. I've seen it. We've gone on troop outings with just the boy scouts and they do all sorts of things....they smell...they fart...they belch....they help each other out...they tease each other...they fight, they play....they wear they same clothes for days on end. You add some girls (which we've done in the past when we let the Venture crew join us), and things change.
**So you are for tanks, rocket launchers and mortars? **
Nope. Because it's not necessary for me to have a tank, rocket launcher and mortars in order for me to defend myself. HOwever, take away all our guns and if I have nothing, then yes, I will be for tanks, rocket launchers, and mortars.
** Why do you care so much about the past when that is burdening the progression United States as a society can have? **
I don't view it as a burden. I view it as a freedom. Guns are not a burden. However, lack of education and and lack of morals are.
** Good judgement? So basically are you for or against the right to bear arms? **
I am FOR the right to bear arms.
** The vast majority of automatic rifles and automatic rifle owners do not inflict human harm. Do you want to bring that back?**
ABSOLUTELY. A resounding "YES". Why not?
It pays to be prudent AND have good judgement. I seriously doubt tanks, rocket launchers and mortars are what our forefathers hand in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights. Of course, one could argue "the right to bear arms" should include tanks and the like (not me), but again Good judgement is in order. The vast majority of guns and gun owners do not inflict human harm.
Yea, and without cars, drunk driving accidents wouldn't occur either. Why do you blame the tool (Guns) in one instance, and not the tool in the other instances?
Nope, that is not what I meant. I mean you can't blame the instrument/tool for the result (unless it was defective).
Regardless of whether the person is drunk or not, it's still the person, not the car that is responsible. We don't hear people yelling "WE MUST BAN CARS!" because are there are a lot of traffic deaths....
sorry...those comments to SpeedRace were meant for Wrick-it Ralph
Seems you have Christianity all wrong. REAL Christianity is not about condemning the invididual (i.e. homosexuals) but rather condemning the ACT.
Believing in eternal life does not mean you don't value life. On the contrary, it means that what you do in THIS life DOES matter and has an impact on your eternal life.
What was the context in which Jesus told them not to wash their hands? HOw are YOU so sure your understanding of what Jesus said is the correct understanding?
Hey folks. Back from the dead...well, not the dead, just work :)
If guns are responsible for klling people, then cars are responsible for drunk driving, pencils are responsible for misspelled words, and spooks and forks make people fat.
1. It's not ad populum, it's using supporting data. We do that all the time. If we think or believe gravity causes objects to fall, we then see out supporting data. If other people's data corroborates that, then we can be reasonably sure we are on the right path. Are you suggesting that SCIENCE is basically ad populum? I mean, it's that what science does-- a person obtains data and then also uses the data from others to support their claims.
2. Agreed. Yes. One must ensure their senses are properly formed and ordered properly. If they are mal-formed and not order properly (dis-ordered), then one's interpretation of data will be off. Same question can be said than of you and subjective morality-- Wouldn't you have to prove that what you think is right/wrong is actually right/wrong before saying your action is right/wrong?
3. Through the corroboration of others. Are you suggesting that SCIENCE is purely subjective? Isn't that what science is/does? Uses what we perceive through our senses to obtain info.
@Wrick-It
I want to see if you and I agree on what my baseline premise was. Can you restate for me what you think my baseline premise was?
@Ramshutu A few things:
1. I wasn't asking you to explain your vote. I'm trying to understand which parts/points of my argument do you disagree with? You said my argument was bad, implying there were errors (or you disagreed) with certain parts of my argument. What I'm trying to understand (at least gain yoru perspective) is which poitns of my argument did you not agree with, and why? Of course, I won't settle for a general "I disagree with all of it" lol...that's a cop out...you should be able to address the points specifically, otherwise it'll like you disagree for other reasons...
2. Regarding my comment about an “This Entity (God) would be an uncaused Cause”......so you disagree with that statement,-- YOu belive God, too, would require a Cause? If so, then I must ask why? Why do you think the Creator of the universe would require a cause? I ask because I believe you are reading things I didn't say into my arguments, or not fully understanding.
@Type1
**** Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms. ***
I don't need to explain WHAT ABOUT collective ownership of the means production leads to government control. Honestly, I don't know what it is about socialism that leads to government control. Can socialism lead to other types of control besides government control? Sure. I'm not saying it doesn't. What I said typically, how does "community control" manifest itself? The government controlling it.
I'm curious.....what are some other means, besides government control, would/does a socialist advocate for the society to control the means of production? In what other ways could a society control the means of production?
Great questions
1. If i observe that gravity causes objects to fall. And others corroborate my findings...and if MANY MANY others corroborate my findings, then I can be reasonably sure that what my senses tell me about gravity is accurate.
2. Agreed with a good and proper sense we are at a disadvantage. Likewise the person who has a disordered sense of what is right/wrong.
3. Agreed. Our senses are what we have. It's what we use to experience the world around us. But against, that doesn't mean that everythign we do is subjective.
Value...Opinion. You can mince words, change words all you want. It's all the same. People have different values. I get that. But interchanging words doesn't change the discussion.
Your first question is spot on. If my senses are bad, how can i be trusted to actually know what is objective. The key is keeping your senses formed and in shape. Same question pose to you, if your sense of right and wrong is bad...or off...or disordered, how can you be trusted to do what is right? How? By properly forming your "moral compass", if you will. And how do you keep your moral compass in tip top shape? By forming against things yo uknow are right-- objective things.
Ok. I lied. I will respond. Wow. When did say my senses are good source of information? Did I say that? Yo uasked me how I perceive the world. I said via my senses. I never said they were good :-)
But you highlight the point. If you are implying senses are faulty and prone to error, the all the more reason morality is to be objective and not subjective. If your sense is faulty, why look inward to determine morality? If your sense of direction is very poor- would you rely on that to get you where yo uwant to go? of course not. If your sense of what is right or wrong is faulty, why would you rely on that? Why not look to something beyond you?
They rape question is fair. If you say morality is subjective, then what you think is right, and you would have to believe that if another person thinks something is right, then they are right...because that is their opinion.
Nah. Not having issues. I never said "writing the law" is what makes it objective, now did I? Please re-read what I wrote. I said the person that follows the law is being objective. Big difference.
If a person is looking to something beyond themselves to determine morality, they are being objective. If they look to a law to determine the morality of their behavior, they are being objective. It doesn't matter what the law is...could be a law about not wearing Blue on Thursdays....a law about watering your lawn on Fridays....a law about murder...a law about rape...And it doesn't matter if said person is a King, a waif, a pawn or a rock star.
You're actually making my points. You are pointing instances (rape, cutting fingers off etc) and basically implying that it shouldn't matter what the person things (feels or opines about the subject), you are implying that despite what the person (the King or me) thinks, it's wrong. Guess what...that's being objective.
Ok. What speicifically did I accept to be true and not tell you how?
Does the fact that I'm blind negate the fact that water is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? nope.
I'm using "we all do" as reason. I don't see how yo ucan make that claim. You're making the claim that everything is subjective because we use our senses. I'm simply stating that just because we use our senses to perceive the things around us, that doesn't make everything objective. We use our senses to perceive and detect gravity. Does that mean gravity is purely subjective? of course not.
So, tell me...how did I interpret your argument? That's the best example to see if you understand that person-- restate what the person said (perhaps in slightly different terms) and see if the other person agrees. What exactly was the strawman you said I concocted?
And this will probably be the last I'll respond today-- I'm about to go watch some MARCH MADNESS BABY! GO TEXAS TECH! (Not really a Tech fan, but they are the team from the greatest state in the union still worth watching).
For the record, i don't care much for votes :-) Votes, after all are...dare I say it....subjective....lol. It's a matter of opinion.
This is fun though and it's good having lively debate and civil discussions. I do this to try and stay sharp. Iron sharpening iron, ya know.
I respect the fact that thus far no on has ventured into the realm of insults etc (which seems to run rampant on other sites).
I use my sense to perceive my world. We all do. But that doesn't mean everything is subjective. I use my senses to observe that water is composed of 2 hydrogen atoms coupled with 1 oxygen atom. Does that mean the chemical makeup of H20 is purely subjective? Of course not. Facts/objectives abound and we use our senses to discover/uncover these facts.
Explain it? Didn't you accuse of constructing a straw man by bringing about the worst extent that logically follows (i.e someone thinking rape is good), and you called it unfair. My response to you was, the discussion of morality concerns human behavior.....you can't say morality is subjective and then change your tune because all of sudden the behavior is now deemed severe.
Yes. It wsa brought up in the debate arguments.
If we were playing "Match Game" a giant RED X would appear after your response.
The moment you say it's against the law, you're being objective. Happens every time. Subjective means influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. The fact you say it's against the law, means it's objective (i.e. not dependent on a person's feelings, tastes, or opinions).
You realize that in a subjective morality, what you just said is just your opinion. YOU think that it brings psychological/physical harm, etc....but what if others disagree. What if they share your same feelings or opinions? In fact, what society as a whole deems "rape to be good". Something tells me you still wouldn't be ok with that.
You bring up a good point-- the notion of "harm". So what is harm. What you consider "harmful" others may not......so again, in a subjective morality it all becomes a matter of opinion. You have no basis to call sometihng good or bad, other than just your opinion. And your opinion is just one of millions.
"What are you using to measure outside youself?"
I guess that depends on who you ask. People use different objective standards all the time: some base the morality of their behavior on what their parents think....or what their spouse thinks....or what the government says....or what they believe God says.
It's not a strawman. I think it's very fair. Morality referencing behavior...actions..... Behavior is deemed either good or bad. If you are going to say morality is subjective, you can't change your story based on the severity of the action.
And for the record, I wasn't the one who introduced rape and murder into the discussion ;-)
@Type1 "Objective means that something is a fact. Subjective means it depends on perception rather than reality itself."
Ok. I'm going to stick with the rape scenario.
Consider this statement: "Rape is wrong." Is that a fact. Or is it simply a matter of perception?
Are you willing to say that "rape is wrong" is simply a matter of opinion?
You can't measure outside yourself? Of course you can. I'm willing to bet you do it all the time. If you want to see how wide a table is, do you eyeball it and stick your arms and say "Hmmm, i think it's about 4 feet wide".....no, you get something else (measuring tape) to measure it. You are using an objective standard (the measuring tape) to measure the table.
When you travel from one town to another, you don't use your own idea or inkling or sense of direction. No. You use objective standards outside yourself to guide you, to give you direction. The sailors of yore did not use their own idea of North or South when the sailed the seas....they used objective standards, like the sun, the moon, the stars, a compass, an astrolabe to guide them. What would happen if they used their own sense of direction instead of objective standards? They'd get lost.
same thing happens with behavior. When we use our own idea of what is right or wrong as opposed to objective standards, we become lost.
It's not a strawman. It makes a point. So the person who thinks Rape is ok is in the right? If you say "No", i'd like to understand why you think it's wrong? What is your basis or reasing for it-- simply because you think it is? That's not a good enough answer .
yes, I get it. We use our senses, but that doesn't mean we are being subjective. We use our senses even to explore scientific data-- but I'm willing to bet you would now say that science is objective....