Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I disagree. What would you expect from a living, thinking, rational, logical Being?You would expect to find life coming from life, as living beings producing other living beings is all you ever witness.Therefore your imaginary god cannot be living, well said. From what living being did your god come?How can an eternal Being come from anything? He always is, a necessary Being transcending time. Thus, life comes from the living! No contradiction there.So your god can't be living given the definitions you gave above.
The difference is in speaking about someone that has a beginning as opposed to Someone who does not. He is the necessary Being that all other beings derive their existence from. He is self-sustaining. We are not.
Again, you FAILED to answer the question because you can't hear or understand what people are asking you. Your worldview stops you from understanding. Being eternal and the Creator then all life that begins comes from Him.
If you were eternal, how could you have a beginning? Answer that question.
Again, you FAILED to answer the question because you can't hear or understand what people are asking you. Your worldview stops you from understanding. Being eternal and the Creator then all life that begins comes from Him.
If you were eternal, how could you have a beginning? Answer that question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Why SHOULD slavery be abolished?And here is the evidence that your allegedly unchanging standard is inferior to my moral standards.
No, you are misrepresenting me again by not including the whole context. I am placing myself in the position of someone who does not have an absolute, universal, unchanging reference point and asking that question.
consistently by God's righteous standardsHitler and Stalin were adamantly living by your god's righteous standards, their attempts at genocide prove that.
No, they were not. They do not have the right to take innocent life because they can't restore it. Not only this, what they did was complete and utter evil. There was no mercy or compassion in so many of their actions. God's righteous standard is to live righteously and act justly. They killed many people unjustly, without sufficient cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
How can an eternal Being come from anything? He always is, a necessary Being transcending time. Thus, life comes from the living! No contradiction there.Prove that the god created by IPSS is eternal, your entire life is built on the writings of the IPSS. Fancy relying on their ignorance and superstition.
BS. My life is built on the credible testimony of the Bible with transcends the ANE and still applies in its message today; that is there is one way for a person to experience a right relationship with God and humanity without that relationship the person is answerable to God by their merit - what they do.
Are you? You have a universe without meaning, intention, or purpose, and you cannot explain why it is here with any certainty because you don't have what is needed for certainty, yet you pontificate your silly ideas.We actually share the same universe but in your mind your universe is different because you have a man made god who created it for the sole purpose of creating the laws that govern it. How very sad.
It is your claim that the biblical God is made up, not mine. You choose to believe this so believe what you want. You are welcome to your belief. Death will be the determiner of whether you are right or wrong.
He had a purpose in creating the universe.How do you know?
Because it is reasonable to believe based on the biblical revelation and what we see. It makes sense. It has corroborating evidence.
Your worldview has no purpose for the universe, thus it is you who are engaged in the tomfoolery, for ultimately what does it matter, it's meaningless, and I do not take stock in anything you say since your bias and prejudice is asserted into everything you say - everything, IMO.And here it is your abject fear of death writ large. "I'm too important to just die, I deserve better, there must be something after this, I must have a purpose for evolving like everything else on this planet but I'm better than everything else. They die but I can't I'm important I deserve to live forever in paradise, I can't just die I can't." You don't take any stock in what I say because it's true and the truth is you will die like everything else that has evolved on this planet, you can't allow yourself to even approach that truth because it means that to this universe you are not special at all, you live and you die and you are once again unaware because you no longer exist. That scares the bejesus out of ya.
Here again, you treat physical death as if it is the end of our existence - your choice. That is not the way I see life. I believe you have convinced yourself that all you have is here and now based on your limited knowledge and a specific worldview belief. Your belief system denies God. Thus, you are not open to God and afterlife. I think you feel it is in your best interest to deny God.
Romans 1 reveals that denying God leaves people unaccountable and available to practice a sinful lifestyle. After years of dialog with you, I realize you do not want to change your belief system because you, just like the persons described in Romans, want to do your own thing.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being [if fertilization takes place].Proven false billions of times a day.
If two human beings mate and a new being then starts to grow in the womb it can only be a human being.
What you do is ignore what I have stated numerous times before regarding the start of the life of the unborn. For instance, Post 281:
"First, the genetic material comes from two different human beings, combining to form a new and distinct human being at FERTILIZATION. It can be nothing other than a human being. When two human beings mate and the egg is fertilized you can't get a dog or chimpanzee. What starts to form at fertilization is a distinct individual human being, period.Show me one case that shows two human beings mating with the result of anything other than a human being - go ahead."
I have constantly made the distinction but because I may not have put it in here you jump all over it to mislead. What is more, you do not supply any more of the actual context. It is very easy to misrepresent someone by not supplying the full context or ignoring other contexts where the rest of the subject has been included.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You do not apply an equal standard to all human beings but discriminate and demonize the most helpless.You do not apply an equal standard to all human beings but discriminate and demonize all women.
BS.
No, you are wrong. I apply the same standard to all human beings. It is wrong to kill (murder) an innocent human being regardless of whether you are male or female. I believe ALL human beings should be treated with dignity and respect. I believe that moral wrong should be fought against, regardless of whether you are male or female.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Whatever innocent human life God takes He restores.Prove it or admit you are lying.
Jesus said the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these as He pointed to little children.
But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Matthew 1:21
21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
What happens to the souls of the aborted.
I believe they are with God in heaven, but the point is that those who kill them or are accomplices are guilty of wrong before God. Without repentence and trust in the Savior, those who condone abortion will be judged for their sin. Only God has the right to take an innocent life because only He is able to restore it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Who was the most outspoken in taking up the cause? I believe two of its most candid spokesmen were William Wilberforce and John Newton. The reason was that they UNDERSTOOD that all humans are created in the image and likeness of God and deserve to be treated with kindness and compassion.Perhaps "The reason was that they UNDERSTOOD that all humans deserve to be treated with kindness and compassion."
I can't argue with this, but I believe it was through their reasoning from the Bible that they came to the conclusion they did. They understood the kindness and compassion, the mercy and grace of God and they shared these qualities with others. They knew slavery was wrong based on Scripture. If you read their biographies you see this is the case. I have both their biographies in my library.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Different stages of growth do not change what it naturally is - a human being no further than describing the changes or stages of a woman's reproductive development makes the female any less human.There is no distinction between a human being and a Homo Sapien. A homo sapian is a human being.But of course there's a difference.Homo sapiens just indicates membership of the homo sapiens species. A human being indicates a member of homo sapiens that has attained personhood
"Homo sapiens, (Latin: “wise man”) the species to which all modern human beings belong. Homo sapiens is one of several species grouped into the genus Homo, but it is the only one that is not extinct. See also human evolution.
The name Homo sapiens was applied in 1758 by the father of modern biological classification (see taxonomy), Carolus Linnaeus. It had long been known that human beings physically resemble the primates more closely than any other known living organisms, but at the time it was a daring act to classify human beings within the same framework used for the rest of nature. Linnaeus, concerned exclusively with similarities in bodily structure, faced only the problem of distinguishing H. sapiens from apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gibbons), which differ from humans in numerous bodily as well as cognitive features."
The name Homo sapiens was applied in 1758 by the father of modern biological classification (see taxonomy), Carolus Linnaeus. It had long been known that human beings physically resemble the primates more closely than any other known living organisms, but at the time it was a daring act to classify human beings within the same framework used for the rest of nature. Linnaeus, concerned exclusively with similarities in bodily structure, faced only the problem of distinguishing H. sapiens from apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gibbons), which differ from humans in numerous bodily as well as cognitive features."
If you scroll down the webpage you will see that they all mean the same thing in what is developing, many quotes even giving those exact words.What are "each of us?" We are human beings, and thus the author is calling the unborn, from conception onward, a human being.But we are not the beginnings of human beings, which the author writes.
Where do they state that? You made the charge, now support it with well-researched facts which all your posts have been devoid of to date.
In this case, the author is stating the beginning of us as humans start at fertilization.The start of the development of a human being at fertilization is not equivalent to being a human being at fertilization. Much like how I cannot stick a wooden post in the ground and exclaim I've made a house
You are wrong. By nature, a new individual human being starts at fertilization. You cannot change your nature and become a dog. You are at fertilization the type of being you will grow into, just less developed. Development does not affect what you are.
Your analogy is fallacious once again. A wooden post is not a house and it has no ability in itself or by anyone else to make it into a house. You would need all kinds of other inputs besides the post to make a house. It does not become a house of its own accord. The unborn from fertilization onward grow into what it is.
It is LIVING. Most of the quotes state as much. Your argument is mute.To be living is not equivalent to have lived. A senile man is not equivalent to an embryo. Both are living, only one has lived. Clear difference right?
What kind of confused reasoning is this? Listen to your words. To be LIVING is not equivalent to have LIVED?
If it is not living it can't be alive.
IT IS LIVING. YOU ARE KILLING A LIVING DEVELOPING HUMAN BEING.But it hasn't lived. It hasn't attained personhood and it isn't a human being.
Again, you are wrong. It may not have developed its personality or expressed its personhood yet but that does not mean that it will not because its very nature is a personal nature.
By its nature that governs what it is, it is both human and a personal being.
You don't want to admit you are wrong so you continually produce these counterfeit or spurious arguments and ignore the facts before you.The facts are these. I've argued that prenatal-forms of homo sapiens are not human beings.
And I have shown repeatedly that your argument is fallacious and that you are ill-informed.
They have not had any experiences, nor have they provided any experiences, which I've argued are required to be described as a human being and not a husk in the shape and form of one.
Experience does not govern what type of being you are by nature. Within the unborn genetic makeup is everything needed for it to develop what it is by its very nature.
They are not people and they have not attained personhood. You haven't made any arguments against this. Instead, you have brought up cherry-picked testimonies from scientists that have also not made any arguments against this.
They are people. Their nature is a personal nature. They are growing into what they are, persons. Have you ever seen a human being when left to develop into what it is is not a personal being? You deny the unborn its natural development by ending its life.
Are you actually going to say anything relevant against my argument?
When you give me a factual argument I will counter it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I have given medical quotes from embryological and medical texts that this is indeed the case, the fact, that something new, living and human separate from the woman begins to grow. Until you can give factual or logical evidence to the contrary your case is non-existence as anything other than wishful thinking.Did you even read what your quotes said?Steven Ertelt says that because the NIH's definition of "fertilization" states that the development of a new individual is initiated (which is perfectly true), this means that life begins at fertilization. This is his own interpretation. Clearly, the initiation of the development of a new individual does not mean that the initiation is life itself. Moreover neither Ertelt or LifeNews are reputable scientific sources and both are heavily biased towards pro-life views.
We KNOW that if we fertilize an egg in a petri dish a new individual human life starts.
What do you base your reasoning on? You have not presented one fact to the contrary to his argument that is reasonable. You believe that just because you can state something then that makes it true to your mind.
Now, I've already written about the usefulness of your second quote so if you put it all together, what have you actually proven? Basically nothing right? There's little scientific basis beyond the fundamental facts upon the creation of a zygote. It's just assertions upon assertions.
I have given reasonable and logical evidence that I have backed up by CREDIBLE experts in the field, who scientifically study and investigate this narrow field and understand more than you do about it.
Not only have I given you factual evidence that can be seen under a microscope, but I have also given you logical arguments that when something new begins to grow then that something is human and can be nothing but human if its donors are human.And seeds are trees? Is your house made of seeds? When I eat seeds am I also eating trees?
A seed needs germination to start to grow, just like the egg needs fertilization.
What do you mean by human?
I mean the same thing that you and I are by NATURE. We don't grow into a tree because that is not our nature.
You are trying to blur or cloak and obscure what the thing that comes from fertilization is as not quite human by your labeling."Developing stage?"What is developing? It is a human being that is developing.No, it's a prenatal form of homo sapiens. If you mix the terms, you are going to further confuse yourself.
It does not change what is it in the womb, it grows into what it is.
All human beings in existence today are classed by this term - Homo Sapien. How does that make it any less a human being?All human beings are homo sapiens. However not all homo sapiens are human beings.
Whatever starts from the human egg and sperm donor at fertilization is a human being and can be no other kind of being.
Your logic is so badly flawed and you do not listen because of your bias and cognitive dissonance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
How am I asserting by asking you to prove your assertion?Haven't you been constantly asserting that the resultant organism at fertilization is a human being?
I backed it up with common sense and scientific facts. Through a microscope we see this fertilized egg start to change and follow the new living human being grow through the stages of pregnancy.
Medical science explains that with fertilization a new and distinct human being starts to exist. It can't be any other kind of being because its parents are human beings.Lets take this bit by bit. Using the phrase medical science is obviously an appeal to authority and more is obviously needed to defend this view. Are you claiming that there's a consensus among medical scientists that your statement is correct? What are the specific characteristics of a "human being" that allows for this consensus that a newly fertilized embryo is indeed a "human being"? Do you understand where I'm coming from? You keep asserting that science says this and science says that, but ultimately it has very little substance to it. If you wish to argue from this point, you need to bring more to the table.
An appeal to authority would be using an authority to appeal to something because they were an expert without factual evidence supporting that claim but just by stating their name and charging the expert believes this is a fact.
"Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities."
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority
For example, in your previous post you gave this as evidenceHuman life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).What does this tell me? It says that a zygote is a highly specialized, totipotent cell which is formed from the male and female gametes. The writer then asserts that this zygote is the beginning of a new human being.
It tells you that in its very first stage of growth it is a new human being by a medical expert. Check the source out:
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998),
What is this assertion based off? Where is the reasoning? What is so specific about a specialized totipotent cell that allows it to be called a human life?It doesn't tell me anything! It's just opinionated drivel.
It is based on experts in the field of embryology that make a living investigating the unborn from its beginning, thus the evidence is credible. It is not as if we can't understand and document when a new life begins.
You've asserted so much but you have given no scientific or factual evidence that this is the case. You seem to think that just because you can state something without facts to support your claim that this then makes it so.That's because my argument is philosophical reasoning. You're trying to derail it by abusing scientific definitions. But as we found out as toddlers, square blocks do not fit into star-shaped holes.
Philosophical reasoning that ignores and will not accept facts that counter your philosophy.
I am not abusing scientific definitions but using credible scientists to explain what happens. You will not LISTEN because it goes against a philosophy in your head that is not valid and cannot be shown by scientific evidence to be so. You are out on a limb and you are sawing it off,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
You are creating an artificial distinction. When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being. Prove otherwise, don't assert it.It's hardly artificial. Differentiating terms is obviously a clear necessity. Because you still seem to be confusing human being and Homo Sapien. What makes a human being a human being, and how do we differentiate that from Homo Sapien? My answer is experiences and you have yet to refute this.
Different stages of growth do not change what it naturally is - a human being no further than describing the changes or stages of a woman's reproductive development makes the female any less human.
There is no distinction between a human being and a Homo Sapien. A homo sapian is a human being.
Now lets examine your sources. First, note that they both state that life begins at fertilization. However this is not equivalent to saying that fertilization results in a distinct human being. Secondly, note that if you examine the statements carefully, they don't really justify their statements. They certainly utilize scientific descriptions of what happens to fertilization. But there's nothing overly convincing about those definitions themselves. What is left is an appeal to authority.
If you scroll down the webpage you will see that they all mean the same thing in what is developing, many quotes even giving those exact words.
“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
What are "each of us?" We are human beings, and thus the author is calling the unborn, from conception onward, a human being.
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
In this case, the author is stating the beginning of us as humans start at fertilization.
Do you want me to cite more?
Rubbish, that is exactly what is taking place, the killing of a human being.As again, how can you kill something that has not lived?
It is LIVING. Most of the quotes state as much. Your argument is mute.
Whether you realize it or not that is exactly the argument you are making, that it is okay to kill some human beings (the unborn).Not at all. Because I've denied that you can kill what hasn't lived or is alive. Because what is extinguished isn't a human being. You claim that I am dehumanizing human beings. Likewise, I claim that you are humanizing that which are clearly not human beings.
IT IS LIVING. YOU ARE KILLING A LIVING DEVELOPING HUMAN BEING.
“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)
***
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
***
“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. 1974 Pages 17 and 23.You don't want to admit you are wrong so you continually produce these counterfeit or spurious arguments and ignore the facts before you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Then killing the unborn results in the killing of a human being and most scientists, embryologists, do not dispute this obvious fact.Likewise, citation needed
- The First International Conference on Abortion held in Washington, D.C., October 1967 brought together authorities from around the world in the fields of medicine, legal ethics and the social sciences. Here is an extract from the official report: “The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of the sperm and the egg and the birth of an infant at which point we could say that this is not human life.”
- A proclamation opposing abortion, signed by 1,300 physicians in France and written by Nobel Prize winner, Professor Jerome Lejeune, was circulated among doctors in Britain. The text reads: “From the moment of fertilization the conceptus is alive and it is essentially distinct from the mother who provides nourishment and protection. From fertilization to old age, it is the same living being that grows develops, matures and dies – for these reasons the termination of pregnancy to solve economic or eugenic problems is directly in contradiction to the role of the doctor.”
- Dr. Bernard Nathanson formerly known as “The Abortion King of America” headed a clinic in the early 1970s which performed 60,000 abortions. He is now probably the greatest defender of the unborn baby in the scientific world. At the Joe Borowski trial in May,1983, he told the court that he became pro-life when increased study of fetology convinced him that the fetus is a human being. Dr. Nathanson also testified that he was raised in the Jewish faith but is now an atheist (He recently converted to Catholicism). Becoming pro-life, he said, was “a secular decision.”
To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.
“Every human embryologist in the world knows that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. It is not belief. It is scientific fact.”
Dr. Ward Kischer, Human Embryologist, University of Arizona
Patrick A Trueman, who helped prepare a 1975 brief before the Illinois Supreme Court on the unborn child:
“We introduced an affidavit from a professor of medicine detailing 19 textbooks on the subject of embryology used in medical schools today which universally agreed that human life begins at conception… Those textbooks agree that is when human life begins. The court didn’t strike that down – the court couldn’t strike that down because there was a logical/biological basis for that law.”Television program transcript “Abortion” Chattanooga, Tennessee, the John Ankerberg Evangelistic Association, 1982, 2 in John Ankerberg The Facts on Abortion (Smashwords Edition 2011)
Bernard J Ficarra, M.D, who wrote the book Abortion Analyzed, writes about how life begins at conception: “A composite, unified, sacrosanct, unanimity of thought as to when life begins can be determined by studying embryologic physiology.
Now you cite your sources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Rubbish. Science says it is alive and a unique and individual human being at conception/fertilization.Citation needed.
“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”
Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”
Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.
“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30
From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.
Zygote is a term for a newly conceived life after the sperm and the egg cell meet but before the embryo begins to divide.
From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
The list of medical texts goes on and on describing the process of fertilization as the BEGINNING of a NEW and DISTINCT HUMAN BEING. I have used many other sites that state the same thing.
Now produce your citations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Your thoughts are seriously muddled and reveal how little you know of the subject. First, the genetic material comes from two different human beings, combining to form a new and distinct human being at FERTILIZATION. It can be nothing other than a human being. When two human beings mate and the egg is fertilized you can't get a dog or chimpanzee. What starts to form at fertilization is a distinct individual human being, period.Show me one case that shows two human beings mating with the result of anything other than a human being - go ahead.Who's making assertions now?
How am I asserting by asking you to prove your assertion?
Medical science explains that with fertilization a new and distinct human being starts to exist. It can't be any other kind of being because its parents are human beings.
I think I've made a reasonable case as to why certain prenatal stages are not/should not be considered human beings. Meanwhile, you keep asserting that what immediately comes from fertilization is immediately a human being. Is this something you can actually justify?
You've asserted so much but you have given no scientific or factual evidence that this is the case. You seem to think that just because you can state something without facts to support your claim that this then makes it so.
I have given medical quotes from embryological and medical texts that this is indeed the case, the fact, that something new, living and human separate from the woman begins to grow. Until you can give factual or logical evidence to the contrary your case is non-existence as anything other than wishful thinking.
Not only have I given you factual evidence that can be seen under a microscope, but I have also given you logical arguments that when something new begins to grow then that something is human and can be nothing but human if its donors are human.
To be clear, I don't have an issue calling what comes from fertilization a developmental stage of Homo Sapien. I have an issue calling it a human being. Do you understand the distinction I've made here and previously?
You are trying to blur or cloak and obscure what the thing that comes from fertilization is as not quite human by your labeling.
"Developing stage?"
What is developing? It is a human being that is developing.
All human beings in existence today are classed by this term - Homo Sapien. How does that make it any less a human being?
Homo Sapien -
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
How can an eternal Being come from anything?Because something can't come from nothing, that is one of the theists strongest assertions when it comes to opining on origins.
Logically speaking, explain to me how when you have nothing (not a thing, zero, zilch) something comes from this void of things.
So, I have a good case that it is impossible. What you are speaking of is self-creation, something that has no EXISTENCE creating itself out of nothing. Please demonstrate this is possible and where do you witness it happening?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
#262 Big deal. Why can't I use my body to kill others because I feel they are inconvenient?PGA2 is likened to energy black hole as they keep sucking in energy and give nothing back of any significant relevance.
Saying something is so does nothing to prove it is so. Assertions, assertions, assertions!
The fetus/baby is not and "other". It is an organism of the mother and untill PGA2 can accept this truth - fact he will keep sucking energy out of others using the same lack of rational, logical common sense.
The unborn is an individual human being with its own growing body, internal organs, developing brain and appendages, distinctly separate from the woman's. Its very nature determines what it will grow into. You are you from the moment to start to the moment you die. You can't change into some other kind of being because it is not in your nature. Just because you require nurturing from your mother during your development does not change what you are any more than your environment outside the womb changes who you are.
1} Other = independent/individual offspring that is viable and,
The newborn is not independent either. It still needs the care of others as the unborn in the woman's womb should, after all, it is her very own offspring.
2} NOT inside a woman where it is reciving all nutirents from directly from womans body.
Rubbish. You sustain nutrient from your environment also. Should society be able to kill you because of this (it would be a genocide to apply it to every human being)?
One minute before birth (i.e., inside the womb) versus one minute outside the womb (i.e., birth) does not change in any way what the being is, so should we be able to kill human beings because of what they are - human (Okay, now someone decides you are first. to die. How do you like that?)?
PGA2 is basically a immature adult acting like a two year that keeps saying no to rational, logical common sense.
Others can see right through your mascarade of words with no backing, just assertion after assertion.
A two year cannot make a distinction between this and/or that because they lack the emotion and intellectual experience.
Thus, should we be able to kill it like the woman decides to kill the unborn?
A two year old is likened to a infant and they are all ego, its all about me, and all else is excluded including rational, logical common sense.PGA2 is all about ego based mind-games the suck energy from people not give energy to people.
It is about showing how thin your basis for argumentation on the subject is for you can't reasonably and logically back what you state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
#2560-- have NOT argued the religious aspect but basic logic and reason.Yes,1} your religious extremmist and a Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzee,
Demonstrate how and where I used a religious argument.
2} you have yet to use any rational, logical common sense,
Not true. I have used many rational arguments, none of which you have adequately refuted.
3} especially when try to use analogy of a pregnant womans bodily business only, to,...3a} ....."So, if I give my consent for you to kill my dependent offspring that is okay with you?"...
I pointed out the difference between the unborn and newborn is very minimal but if you want to make a distinction on the unborns size, its level of development, its environment, or its level of dependency then when others, such as those in a coma, do not meet the standard should they be killed too? A newborn is not as big as an adult, not as developed, not as independent. Those four points are the differences between the unborn and the newborn and we can make the same case that the newborn is not meet the same level as the adult either. But it is the reasons given on why it should be killed.
And what makes it any less human one minute before birth as to one minute after birth. You have blatantly suggested that until it takes its first gulp of air it is not a human being. What nonsense.
You have not once demonstrated scientifically that the unborn is not a human being from conception/fertilizer onward. Demonstrate this point before you give the license to kill it. I have quoted a number of times the findings of science regarding the unborn.
....3b} most "dependant offspring" breath in-out on their own, a fetus/baby does not breath at all, ergo,
That does not make it any less a human being than you are. You want to deny this human being the right to experience its first breath for you don't recognize it until it is born. This is pure nonsense on your part.
.....3c} you lack even the most basic rational, logical common sense argument.
Just claiming something does not make it so. Establish your point of view with science and reason. Demonstrate that it is not human until it takes its first breath because you think it is okay to kill it before it does this.
4} Do you understand any of the above? No? I didnt think because you emotional and intellectual level is not on par with any mature adults on Earth.
How does this address my arguments? It does not. If I insult you how have I addressed the argument?
The problem is that you do not realize how many logical fallacies you make with almost every statement you make.
For me to prove you wrong in your hasty generalization I would just have to show you many others who do not have the same emotional and intellectual level of maturity, and I would state with your own statements. They are filled with hate, discrimination, degradation, and devaluation of my character or position constantly.
In that last statement underlined I will demonstrate just a few of the categories of abuse and misuse of logic you used.
1. Red herring.
1. Red herring.
It is beside the point of the abortion debate my intellectual level of development. What should be addressed is the weak points of the argument itself.
2. Ad hominem/argumentum ad hominem
How does attacking me address my arguments? It doesn't. It just demonstrates disrespect while ignoring the argument. Do you really want to go down that road because I am quite capable of throwing insults and barbs at you also but it does not prove a position is more logical than another for it neglects to argue the position?
3. Hasty Generalization
You are making this a universal proposition by suggesting my level of development is not on par with any mature person on this earth.
Image --> mirror; mirror --> image!
4. Fallacy of division
You are implying that one argument I make makes me on whole the least maturity person on this earth.
I list goes on and on and I'm not going to identify every time how fallacious your statements can be.
5} religous extremism and Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanizm blocks you from truth - facts and rational logical common sense processing Sad :--(
What religious argument have I made regarding abortion except to challenge how you know something is moral without an absolute, objective, universal, unchanging reference point?
Please demonstrate the posts you are referring to.
So once again, please take a hike from me until you become a mature adult who can even the beginnings of access to rational, logical, common sense.
I'm not following a clear reasoning or train of thought in your wording - "even the beginnings"? Do you mean "who can even begin...?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Whether communism, fascism or socialism, none of these can be shown to be desirable nor shown to work well.I'd be happy to debate that, but I wasn't arguing for or against socialism.
Did you want a formal debate or are you implying you will provide your argument here?
You wrote:God destroyed wicked humans who would not repent and who were bent on violence and evil intentions....Stalin, Hitler, Mao, were also wicked and caused a lot of death and destruction while they exploited and controlled their population through their socialist states.My point was that Stalin and Mao were not destroyed. They died of old age - Stalin was 75 and Mao was 83. Hitler was 'only' 55,but if he was destroyed by God, God certainly left it late when a heart attack before 1939 would have solved it all much more cleanly. I have no idea how many 'good people' were destroyed before God allegedly intervened, but I bet it was lots.
If you look at the context, it was in relation to the covenant He made with Israel (i.e., OT).
The NT makes it clear that when humans deny God He gives them over to their unrighteous and wicked desires to reap the consequences of those actions. It demonstrates what happens when humanity lives by its own relative standards. The reasoning here is if you want to live unrighteously and deny God and His teaching the result is evident in the inhumanity by what they do.
You point out that without god there would be no morality - there would only be power. Very well - look around you and look at history. There is only power.
Exactly! Where has humanity ever lived consistently by God's righteous standards (i.e., The Ten Commandments)? OT Israel did it briefly and God blessed them while they honored Him.
The reason slavery was abolished in America is not that slavery was evil and freedom is good - it was abolished because people with a preference for freedom won a war, wresting power from those who supported slavery. Thousands of people died in the process.
Why SHOULD slavery be abolished? If there is no absolute, objective, unchanging standard then why is one standard better than another?
Who was the most outspoken in taking up the cause? I believe two of its most candid spokesmen were William Wilberforce and John Newton. The reason was that they UNDERSTOOD that all humans are created in the image and likeness of God and deserve to be treated with kindness and compassion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The fact you think a women's body is not big deal but an unborn child's is why you are a hate filled prick.
I support a woman's right to do with her body as she pleases up to the point that it destroys or damages the life of another human being. I have stated this often. The big deal is when she selfishly and knowingly takes the life of another innocent human being and your crowd dehumanizes and gives no consideration to this matter at all because you are so brainwashed into her bodily rights to the exclusion of the most basic right of all - the right to life.
Science, reason, and logic tells you that from conception a new and uniquely different human being begins its life. You devalue that life and give excuses for murdering it because you do not see all human life as equally valuable until your own life is placed in the category of worthless by others, then you know what is done is evil. You do not apply an equal standard to all human beings but discriminate and demonize the most helpless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I usually start with one of two arguments for God because I think they are most effective, the argument for morality and the argument for prophecy as a revelation from God.Your first argument is destroyed by all of the IPSS writings you worship.0-1
Assertion without a shred of proof for your position, as usual. This is Beginners Guide to Argumentation, 101.
Your second argument loses all credibility by the prophesy and it's alleged fulfillment existing in a book filled with fiction and fantasy, a book of lies.
Again, nothing but a contentious statement.
I would also argue that the proof for the Christian or biblical God is far and superior to any other worldview, including the atheistic or naturalistic one.It is a fact of life that gods are the creation of mankind, they never existed before mankind invented them.
With all but One. And here you are, placing yourself as "god" declaring what is and is not without any reasonable or logical demonstration that what you say can be trusted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I disagree. What would you expect from a living, thinking, rational, logical Being?You would expect to find life coming from life, as living beings producing other living beings is all you ever witness.Therefore your imaginary god cannot be living, well said. From what living being did your god come?
How can an eternal Being come from anything? He always is, a necessary Being transcending time. Thus, life comes from the living! No contradiction there.
You would expect to find reasons for the creation. You find laws of nature that are expressed by mathematical formula and principles that are DISCOVERED, not put there by us thinking it.Are you serious, I mean really?
Are you? You have a universe without meaning, intention, or purpose, and you cannot explain why it is here with any certainty because you don't have what is needed for certainty, yet you pontificate your silly ideas.
The reason your mythical god created the universe is because he wanted to create the laws of the universe? Are you serious? I mean really serious? Your god indulges in meaningless tomfoolery? WOW.
He had a purpose in creating the universe. Your worldview has no purpose for the universe, thus it is you who are engaged in the tomfoolery, for ultimately what does it matter, it's meaningless, and I do not take stock in anything you say since your bias and prejudice is asserted into everything you say - everything, IMO.
I take very little stock of what you say as worthwhile. It is a philosophy of despair and despondency, IMO. I see you as offering nothing positive; you no compassion for the most helpless. You want to diminish and tear apart their lives, dispose of them at any cost on the whims of a woman's thumbs down, arena type decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
What a laugh! How misogynist because I stand up for the helpless and defend the rights of the unborn over a woman's selfish choice?You can't even mention the fetus unless you have denied the woman her bodily autonomy, that's what makes you a misogynist, your insistence that women are inferior to you. All women are inferior to you. You have no right to even know what is happening in her body so just fuck off out of it.
You dehumanize it in every post while promoting its death, thus I view your ideology as an accomplice in planning its death.
This is just a ploy that you do constantly to deflect from the issue and demonize me whereas I'm sure some can identify that it is you who are employing the intolerance.It's not a ploy it's the whole discussion, your furphies regarding unborn humans is just some new nonsense to replace your earlier unsuccessful arguments about what your pretend friend wants.
BS. This is what the left does all the time. They poison the well by suggesting it is those who oppose them who have the "unsuccessful arguments" while they always skirt around it.
BTW how do you justify the 60% of abortions performed by your invisible friend?
Whatever innocent human life God takes He restores.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
What is the unborn spoken of?Is it a human being?Is it alive?Do all human beings have intrinsic worth?Let's see how you answer these questions as to determine if the unborn is being dehumanized for the abortion stats since 1980 have resulted in over 1.5 billion unborn deaths. If you look at this in terms of human genocide it is the worst perpetrated in history to date.How do people justify killing other human beings? They devalue them, degrade them, dehumanize them, then destroy them.Have you not just downgraded a human being? Provide your proof if you say no as to what the unborn is.The unborn is simply the various developmental phases of H. Sapien. Is it a human being? Depends on the developmental phase. For example, there is a vast difference between a newly fertilized embryo and a foetus that is just about to be born. The criteria of which I outlined in my previous post.
Your thoughts are seriously muddled and reveal how little you know of the subject. First, the genetic material comes from two different human beings, combining to form a new and distinct human being at FERTILIZATION. It can be nothing other than a human being. When two human beings mate and the egg is fertilized you can't get a dog or chimpanzee. What starts to form at fertilization is a distinct individual human being, period.
Show me one case that shows two human beings mating with the result of anything other than a human being - go ahead.
Is it alive? Depends on the developmental phase again.
Rubbish. Science says it is alive and a unique and individual human being at conception/fertilization.
Do all human beings have intrinsic worth? Yes
Then killing the unborn results in the killing of a human being and most scientists, embryologists, do not dispute this obvious fact.
Or to put it succinctly, certain developmental phases of H. Sapien, while members of the H. Sapien species, are not human beings. Therefore there is nothing to downgrade.Its nature, what it is from the moment it starts to live. If a human sperm fertilizes a human egg and new DNA, new genetic information, new everything begins to grow, what is growing? If you can't argue most definitely that it is not a human being then should you not give it the benefit of the doubt? So, what scientific arguments do you have that it is not human? I am willing to discuss them with you.I mean.. it's not really a question of science. It's a question of philosophy and definition. What do you mean by human? Are all human beings humans? Are all homo sapiens human beings?
You are creating an artificial distinction. When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being. Prove otherwise, don't assert it.
The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”
Steven Ertelt”Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13
******“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
For example, in the dystopian scenario I gave out before, how would you describe such individuals? They are quite clearly homo sapiens. But are they humans? Human beings? What level of rights would you give to such beings?Does human life start at conception/fertilization? If so then you are killing a human being, regardless of how DEVELOPED it is? That is the distinction you are making - its development. You are basing killing a human being on its level of development. So why stop with the unborn human being? Why not the newborn that s not as developed as the adolescent or the adult? Where do you want to draw the line since you are treating one class or group of human beings differently from others based on its development?To be clear, we aren't killing a human being. We are extinguishing an early developmental phase of H. Sapiens. I say extinguishing, because killing implies the taking of a life. And again, the sum of experiences is where I think a reasonable line can and should be drawn.
Rubbish, that is exactly what is taking place, the killing of a human being.
Do you want to base whether we should kill other human beings on what they contribute? Should you be evaluated on what you contribute as someone else has decided? Will you not give the unborn the chance to show what they will contributeThat *is* what we base our lives on right? What is useful to us and what isn't useful to us? But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. I make no argument for killing human beings, and you equating it so does not make it true.
Whether you realize it or not that is exactly the argument you are making, that it is okay to kill some human beings (the unborn).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
What a laugh! How misogynist because I stand up for the helpless and defend the rights of the unborn over a woman's selfish choice?You continue to run away from the discussion taking place, that discussion concerns a woman's right to bodily autonomy, I don't care how misogynistic you are you have no right to deny her that right. Stick to the subject.
This is just a ploy that you do constantly to deflect from the issue and demonize me whereas I'm sure some can identify that it is you who are employing the intolerance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
How is your dehumanizing of muslims going? Tell me all about muslims
I went on a missions trip to Davao, the Philippines in 2004 where we served three Muslim communities in various ways, to improve their lives and show the love of Christ in what we did, including youth camps, health care, nutrition, and other projects since preaching the gospel was frowned upon and Christian workers were put to death a few years before our mission (for proselyting/preaching). So our love and compassion were shown strictly by community service. Other than this I have had very little contact with Muslims, other than watching a Turkish TV series set in the 12-13th-century titled Resurrection Etrugrul on Netflix, and another titled Kurt Seyit and Sura this year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why should she be allowed to not let it be born?IT'S HER BODY. IT'S HER BODY. IT'S HER BODY.
Big deal. Why can't I use my body to kill others because I feel they are inconvenient?
Why should she be able to kill the most helpless and innocent because she finds it inconvenient or simply doesn't want it because she is being selfish?
Why do you want people to kill other human beings??? Why do not people think abortion is wrong except in special circumstances, like the woman's life is threatened and if she dies the unborn will die, or if the unborn is not removed it will result in her death?
Why should she deny it the most basic of all human rights, the right to life?THERE IS NOT RIGHT TO LIFE UNTIL YOU ARE ALIVE.
Alive? Are you seriously saying the unborn are not alive???
No right to life? Says who and why are they right?
Do you realize what you are saying that makes you no different than Hitler in the sense that you are dehumanizing and advocating for the death of others?
Why should someone who is innocent die because she is being selfish?THE UNBORN ARE NOT INNOCENT THEY ARE NOT GUILTY THEY DON'T EXIST YET.
Prove to me they don't exist since science says otherwise. Give me some valid, well-reasoned proofs.
What have the unborn done that is a crime?
Do you realize that your views (they do not exist) are not commonly held?
Why is she treating some humans as different than other humans?WE ALL DO THAT YOU RANK WAY LOWER THEN MY FAMILY
Not to the point of killing them. These unborn are being treated as disposable, worthy. I do not believe either regarding your family nor would I treat them that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
The book of "WISDOM" says it all....it was not incorporated into the Bible Comic book because ....it is to intelligent...The Bible...i.e. New Testament spin garbage invented by the Roman Catholic Church psychopath child rapistsis intended for genuinely STUPID humans...the ROMAN CHURCH (what a joke...an extension of the Roman empire ! )fabricated this hoax of a glorified comic book to be used as a TOOL...A TOOL to hypnotized and further dumb down humans into servitude and slavery of the CHURCH...the CHURCHloves to play GOD......and condemn all who defy them ! the clowns in their Halloween Glory Gowns order thebeating-torture-hanging-whipping-slashing-burning-bone crushing-rape of the HERETICS....just like JESUSwould do if he hung around after he himself was beaten and nailed to a cross ! what a JOKE....
Thanks for your assertions lacking one shred of evidence!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I haven't seen this one here, and this place could use a couple of new topics. Unfortunately it seems like there are less theists here than atheists, so I'm not sure about the traffic this place will get.Here we go:Let's say we take for granted that the universe is here as it is not because of any natural reaction or coincidence, but instead that it was created by a thinking agent. There is no real rational reason for granting this,
I disagree. What would you expect from a living, thinking, rational, logical Being? You would expect to find reasons for the creation. You find laws of nature that are expressed by mathematical formula and principles that are DISCOVERED, not put there by us thinking it. You would expect to find life coming from life, not from the non-living, as living beings producing other living beings is all you ever witness. You would expect morality to originate from a moral Being. That is just the drop in the bucket.
at least none I've ever seen argued convincingly here or elsewhere, but let's skip that part, I'm saying, as an olive branch to the believer. It doesn't matter, then, if you subscribe to a big bang cosmology BUT it was started by a thinking agent, or if you think the world was created 10000 years ago. What I'm curious about is how does one justify going from "creator" to any god with a capital G. How, essentially, can you convince someone else that your version of the creator is correct, and by extension your religion is the right one, and theirs is INcorrect, and therefore the wrong one?
I usually start with one of two arguments for God because I think they are most effective, the argument for morality and the argument for prophecy as a revelation from God.
I would also argue that the proof for the Christian or biblical God is far and superior to any other worldview, including the atheistic or naturalistic one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
As you have pointed out, there have already been many cases of dehumanization. Adding that which has not been born on to the pile is hardly the beginning of a slippery slope.
What is the unborn spoken of?
Is it a human being?
Is it alive?
Do all human beings have intrinsic worth?
Let's see how you answer these questions as to determine if the unborn is being dehumanized for the abortion stats since 1980 have resulted in over 1.5 billion unborn deaths. If you look at this in terms of human genocide it is the worst perpetrated in history to date.
How do people justify killing other human beings? They devalue them, degrade them, dehumanize them, then destroy them.
Have you not just downgraded a human being? Provide your proof if you say no as to what the unborn is.
And in this case, there is a pretty simple divide. What makes a human being a human being?
Its nature, what it is from the moment it starts to live. If a human sperm fertilizes a human egg and new DNA, new genetic information, new everything begins to grow, what is growing? If you can't argue most definitely that it is not a human being then should you not give it the benefit of the doubt? So, what scientific arguments do you have that it is not human? I am willing to discuss them with you.
Not the dictionary definition, but something slightly deeper. And my answer to this is experiences. Think of dystopian stories where humans are raised as cattle, brain dead from artificial womb to adulthood and never experiencing or affecting anything for perpetuity. By definition, of species homo sapiens, but is that entirely sufficient to declare them a human being?
Does human life start at conception/fertilization? If so then you are killing a human being, regardless of how DEVELOPED it is? That is the distinction you are making - its development. You are basing killing a human being on its level of development. So why stop with the unborn human being? Why not the newborn that s not as developed as the adolescent or the adult? Where do you want to draw the line since you are treating one class or group of human beings differently from others based on its development?
And hence the difference between your counter examples and the unborn. No matter who you are and no matter how little, you have lived. We have all lived in some way, shape or form and, through living, touched someone's life in a precious and memorable way. Even the act of birth gives joy to the parents which is certainly a contribution.
The argument is based on 1) what the unborn is and 2) whether human beings have intrinsic value. Answer those two question and we will continue.
What do those unborn and unwanted contribute? And no, stoking the egos' of self-righteous and selfish meddlers doesn't count.
Do you want to base whether we should kill other human beings on what they contribute? Should you be evaluated on what you contribute as someone else has decided? Will you not give the unborn the chance to show what they will contribute?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Not letting someone to be born, which you have no right to, has nothing to do with caring for the under advantaged. The comparison is stupid and irrelevant. No one says kill the unborn because they are fragile you can terminate them because they don't exist yet. Just like grandma who is a vegetable. No quality of life yet
A woman is killing her offspring in the womb who is not as developed a HUMAN BEING as she is, more dependent than she is, smaller than she is, and in a different environment than the outside world. Why should any of these factors determine how she treats another human being and if she can treat this human being and her offspring in such a manner then why can't she do the same thing with her newborn who is also smaller than she is, less developed than she is, more dependent than she is?
Why should she be allowed to not let it be born?
Why should she deny it the most basic of all human rights, the right to life?
Why should someone who is innocent die because she is being selfish?
Why is she treating some humans as different than other humans?
Answer those questions and get back to me!
Once you determine that one human being should not live because they haven't grown or fully developed into what they are what is to stop you from justifying killing others based on the SAME criterion - i.e., dependency?
The unborn is not shutting down its human existence but just starting it yet YOU want to deny it this right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Yeah, my life is ultimately meaningless to anyone but me and my loved ones. What is the ULTIMATE SIGNIFICANCE in your life, exactly? I don't have despair because there's no ultimate point of life. It's an adventure and I'm the only being that will ever get to live this life, this way. What could be more thrilling or meaningful than that?
I see your life as valuable and important and I sincerely hope you find true meaning one day!
To know my Creator and find out what He has in store for me when I pass from this physical existence. For those who trust in Him, He has promised unspeakable joy and things we will never grow tired of.
6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written,
“Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
You do not have despair, yet what trials has life brought you? How old are you? How many are not as fortunate as you, who have been through wars and seen the brutality of humanity? How many can't enjoy or know that they will have a meal today or tomorrow? How many are facing death on a daily basis with no ultimate hope, just terror and worry?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
BIBLE STUFF DELETEDI have no reason to believe the bible is in any way a historically reliable document. Can you convince me to believe in the bible? Do you believe in a LITERAL Adam and Eve?
It is not whether you believe it to be but whether it can be demonstrated it is.
I doubt I can convince you. That is between you and God. All I can do is give you reasons why what you believe does not add up and what we, as Christians, believe does make logical and reasonable sense.
Yes, I believe in a literal Adam and Eve.
You say death is the final curtain as if it's a bad thing, like I should make an argument about it.
I say from your worldview perspective it is thought of as the final curtain.
The Bible gives reason for an absolute, objective, eternal, unchanging, final reference and measure.And yet every day, so many Christians are convicted of crimes. Crimes often against OTHER Christians, even. Vexing! In my worldview? Bad people do bad things. Your explanation?
Sure. We are fallible, just like you. Although we are called to not sin we still fall victim to our own selfish desires when we put ourselves about God or do what we know is wrong. But we have a Savior who has paid the penalty of our sins so that God does not count them against us, if we truly believe, that is. And in believing in God He promised a new nature, one that loves Him because it understands Him through His revelation and mercy to us. So we are compelled by the example of Jesus Christ to forgive others and to be merciful to them as we have received mercy ourselves.
When we submit to God's ways the fruit is good. When we ignore His ways the fruit is bad.
For the unbeliever, the meaning is fleeting and whatever they make it. Meaning holds no ultimate significance in the unbelieving worldview for the universe is meaningless and the unbeliever supposedly returns to this meaninglessness at death. So, your life, in the big picture is meaningless, yet you borrow from the Christian worldview that says there is meaning, or at least we make it, and we SHOULD treat life as meaningful (or else we have despair like so many do who question the ultimate point of life and believe there is none).How do I borrow from YOUR worldview at all? I don't say there IS meaning.
You live as if there is meaning, that some things are definitely wrong and undesirable.
What you believe goes contrary to the logical outcome of living an evolutionary and materialistic worldview. There is no way to live according to such an outlook, just whatever your genetic make-up and environment determine. You adopt Christian values and live as Christians are supposed to, sometimes to the shame of those who call themselves Christians. You display that you understand the commandments of God, that it is wrong to murder, wrong to steal, wrong to covet, wrong to lie. Living an evolutionary worldview and being more powerful than others, why not take what you can if you can get away with it? If there is no absolute standard why live according to the biblical one? Why not make your own life like Hitler and Stalin, reaping what you can from others?
I say I control what my life means, and when someday I take stock of it, I will hope I can be proud of what I'm leaving, but ultimately, it's just another of billions of lives.
Again, the idea that your life means something and is worthwhile is a Christian concept. You believe your life can leave a positive example in a meaningless universe, thus the contradiction, the confusion, the inconsistency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
According to evolutionary theory, only the strong survive and there is no rhyme nor reason for it to be this way. They survive, period, thus they are seen as the strong. So, if it is beneficial to be compassionate to others you survive, and if it is not in your interests because you will not survive then you will be ruthless, as is the witness of history way too often. I'm sure I can provide you with countless examples where compassion is not the criterion or what you call the necessary element of survival in the evolutionary process.This is another problem with language: to survive they aren't seen as STRONG. They're seen as most beneficial to reproduction. It's a far less pithy saying to say "Survival of the ones who did the best at reproducing" than it is to say "Survival of the fittest." Yes, if my survival is threatened, I'll ruthlessly defend it. I didn't call compassion THE necessary element. It's A necessary element for genetic continuation in pack animals.
Sure. Survivalists are labeled the "strong" or "fittest." The others are labeled the weak link for they can't propagate their progeny. They don't have the means. The strong or fit are those who survive. Thus, they are labeled beneficial.
As a Christian, I believe I would give my physical life for others not because I HAD to and not necessarily for genetic reasons (but I would try to protect my family from harm), but because I recognize it as a blessing of selflessness to put others first, without human reward in sight.
That does not mean that I will roll over and hide the light of the Gospel under my bed or not stand up for those who are defenseless to expose the darkness and misunderstanding of others if I see such misunderstanding and understand the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
For the sake of space, in morality terms there is almost never a 'best', and I can change "better" to "more beneficial to the species" and the argument stands.
More beneficial in whose mind? Why should it be beneficial to the species if it is preferable to those I like and hang around with? You throw around qualitative terms without anything other than preference in mind. Some people like to love their neighbors, others like to kill them. What is your preference?
I don't care if you adopt my standard for morality, until such time as it interferes with me, then we have an issue.
That is precisely the point, isn't it? Most wars, the greed, the inhumane treatment of others are all based on the subjective whims of those who think they know better, so they perpetrate hateful crimes in achieving their goals. So what happened to the do unto others? It becomes a grab for power. "Do it my way or I will make you." The history of humanity.
If you, like so many other religious people, want to argue that without GOd and his prescriptive morality we'd all be raping and killing each other, then by all means, please stay loyal to Jesus. I've raped and killed the exact number of people I have ever wanted to rape or kill. Zero. Without Jesus. Or the threat of hell, or expecting a reward.
And you do so not based on your chance happenstance, willy-nilly worldview but based on the divine principles that you recognize, "Thou shall not kill."
Romans 2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are
just before God, but the
doers of the Law will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
Again, and again, how do you get an ought from an is, a prescriptive from a descriptive?
And, what are the bases of why things are right and wrong? You demonstrate about it is based on personal preference, not on a final or ultimate reference point. You don't have one. You just want to dictate what you prefer. What you prefer does not make something good, nor right, not wrong. It just makes it was is.
How is this a question? Do you mean "How does the hope of heaven" give comfort? It relies on the testimony of One greater than us to reassure us by His word which He demonstrates is true and reasonable in various ways, such as prophecy.How does the idea that Adam ate an apple, that was put there by your god, according to the myth, and therefore your two year old has leukemia, comforting? How do you tell the grieving mother, sorry, this is justice! Be glad they're in heaven. And it only works your way if you're a christian who believes. If you find this same mother as a muslim with a dead baby, you can comfort her by saying what exactly?
Adam represented the whole of humanity. He chose the course we would go down. God warned of the consequences. Adam acted on knowing what God had commanded what not to do and God warned him of the consequences. He did it anyway, just like you or I would. Instead of walking with God and getting to know God more intimately he chose to do his own thing. From that original sin, all others followed. From that sin, God judged us, for now, we as humanity are marred by our own relativism, inherited through Adam. That is why Jesus said we must be born again, renewed by God, given a new heart and new disposition to God, no longer hateful of Him.
Human history is the example God has left us to what happens when humanity lives apart from God. Yet, His promise for a better life is there for those who will believe in His means to achieve this goal.
I would comfort her by telling her that her baby is with God in a better place and experiencing joy beyond our earthly understanding. If she was willing I and open would tell her of the hope that Christians have in Jesus to one day be with her departed offspring. But I can leave it with the comfort of my first statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
In rough mathematical terms, you have an equation with a string of like 14,000 variables all undefined, but the equals sign is followed by the number 9852349572112359. You're insisting you know each variable because you presuppose the answer, the problem is that with ONLY variables on one side of the equation, you cannot have a numerical answer, and the more you add to the equation, the more difficult it gets to arrive at an answer. Example:X + Y =35. How can you solve for X or Y without one of them ending up on the wrong side of the equals sign? How many different answers are there? How do you know if X is 30 and Y is 5, or X is 16 and Y is 19? You can't. You're insisting you do. Now, what if that equation because X + Y + Z = 100? See the problem? These cannot be solved in a way that does not ALSO move a variable to the wrong side of the equals.
Given God's existence, I have a value for X and Y (and Z). God has revealed it. You do not. In the example given even if I had the value for X, I could determine the value for Y if it equals 35. And mathematical principles are concepts of the mind. I discover specific principles for how things work. I did not put them there, as you charged a couple of posts ago. They were discovered. They have their origin outside of and apart from my mind or any human mind, but mathematics is a conceptual field that uses logic and mindful processes to prove some precise mathematical principle that is not from our minds. It existed before our minds.
You suppose (as presuppositionalists do) that not only is there a lawgiver, but that it's YOUR VERSION of that lawgiver.
We all use presupposition as our starting point, either God or chance. That is our fundamental beginning. A Lawgiver explains why we have these laws that govern our universe and things within it.
I would point you to another topic if you want to answer this: in the history of mankind, let's call it 200,000 years, folks like you are always quick to point out there have been FAR more people who believe in "something did this" than there are people like me, who say there's no reason to believe that's the case and ask why you do. Somehow, you think this supports the truth of there being something else out there. One of the many problems with this argument is plain: there have also been FAR MORE, FAR FAR MORE, people that never ever ever believed anything remotely close to what you CURRENTLY believe. Yet you are certain you're right and you use the belief in ANYTHING as support for believing in your specific thing.
I look at what makes sense in life, of what is necessary to make sense of life and I can make sense of life. You, starting from chance happenstance, have no way of making sense of anything, ultimately. If you want to live that way it is your choice. The problem is that you CONTINUALLY borrow from the Christian worldview in making sense of things, and most of the time you don't even realize it. As the Bible explains to the Jews who tried to explain things outside of God's revelation, they are in the dark, there is no light in them, no understanding. And the reason why there is so much evil, which affects both of us, is that people live according to their own relative standards, not according to the light of life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
How did we get this "singularity?"Where did it come from?Don't know, not sure that it matters. But I'm sure you're not going to say Jesus put it there, otherwise why leave it out of the bible?
You don't know yet you eliminate the biblical God as a reasonable and logical explanation while you can offer none?
Why do we have gravity and gravitational pull?Why does the earth revolve around the sun at the precise distance?These are easily answered scientific questions. Appealing to the supernatural to explain them is your job, not the job of someone who just says "The math works out that way."
It works out that way for no inherent reason, it just happens, according to your worldview, yet you continually give reasons for everything you believe without considering that God is reasoning with you by what is made.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
The Christian explanation, and it is a reasonable one, is that we discover these laws because there is a Lawgiver that has crafted the universe. Mathematics is a conceptual science. We are able to explain how things in the universe work because there is a Mind behind the universe, not just random chance happenstance.This last bit proves you don't care about any of the other bits at all, gravity, the big bang, etc. No matter what the scientific explanation is, you just move god one step further back: well, gravity exists because of matter's density in relation to spacetime, and gravity behaves in such and such a way that comports with these models, but that is just how God set it up! And he WANTED us to discover it eventually! It's special pleading (uncaused cause) + god of the gaps. I'll give you that it IS difficult to penetrate using reason and logic, but the flaws in it are glaring.
It is no more special pleading that you are doing via your scientific method. We start with one presupposition or the other, but which can make sense of anything?
You are saying that the present is the key to the past because we in the present are looking at the past and only have the present as the means to judge the past. You are saying that what we witness in the present is what happened in the past yet you do not know all the variables since none of us were there. Thus you INTERPRET the data according to your starting point.
A Christian, on the other hand, looks at the universe and uses science to discover things about God's creation. When he/she correctly thinks God's thoughts after Him the Christian discovers another truth about how God did something. He/she discovers a unique mathematical formula that explains the principle or law. So we, through our minds and reason discover principles that are reasonable and logical. We don't PUT them there, as you mentioned in a previous post, we discover these principles.
If the universe began to exist, then it had a cause. That cause = God. What caused God to exist? Oh, he always existed! Well then why can't the universe in one form or another have always existed?
If the universe always existed how do we ever get to the present? What is your evidence for discredited theories of an eternal universe (Such as the Steady State Theory)?
Something that is eternal does not have a cause. Something that is outside this space/time continuum would not necessarily need a beginning. How can Someone who is TIMELESS have a beginning? But science continues to express that the universe has a beginning and science gives many credible pieces of evidence for its beginning.
You're starting with an end answer and trying to make the problem fit, rather than look at the problem and find the answer.
You are doing the same with your presuppositional starting point and you CAN'T make sense of it. The Christian worldview can.
Starting from where you are you work yourself back to origins. It is exactly what you do. You use the chance-happenstance method of analysis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
First, the universe is unreasoning. Agreed?I can't see any reason to disagree with this.
Yay!
We are reasoning beings, so somehow reason is derived from the unreasoning (from something that is not reasoning). Is that reasonable to believe?I think "has resulted from" is more accurate than "is derived from."
It has its derivative either in God (and through creation) or by chance happenstance - correct? IOW's, it results through either of these two options as the most reasonable choices (we can discuss others if you want to bring them up).
Third, the universe is unreasoning, yet through our reason, we find meaning IN the universe, in what exists. Why should we expect to find reasons in a universe that is devoid of reason, just events of happenstance?We don't find it there. We PUT it there. We assign it. This is where we differ. And I think you're mixing meanings again. Can you give me a reason, for example, for all these exoplanets we keep finding? Can you give me a reason in the Bootes Void? I can give you reasons FOR both, but reason IN neither.
We do find reason displayed in the universe for why things are the way they are. We find laws of nature, laws of gravity, laws of thermodynamics, laws of physics, not invented by us, for why things act in the way they do. Without mindful being creating the meaning and reason please explain why we find reasons. We did not put the laws of nature, the laws of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics,etc., there. We discover them. This garbage that we PUT them there is not so. There are reasons there that we extrapolate upon. Things happen in a particular manner, not willy-nilly. The question is why do we find UNIFORMITY in nature? Why is the same thing (laws) repeated indefinitely, in a willy-nilly, chance happenstance universe?
What we would expect to see in such a universe is chaos and no reason for things continuing is the same manner they do. If I toss a coin once there is a 50/50 chance of head or tails flipping. If I roll it one billion times I do not expect it to toss every time a head unless the coin is fixed to flip this way.
If I roll a dice one million times what is the chance of six being repeated every time by chance? You nor I have the time on earth to create such an experiment but the actual is not the same as the theoretical. Theoretically, we can express an infinity of numbers. In actuality, we can't demonstrate it in time. That is impossible.
So, my question to you is how chance happenstance is capable of producing the same thing (like gravity or other laws) repeatedly with no intent involved???
We find a reason for our existence in everything we examine, like the distance from us to the sun being right to support life on our planet. These anthropic principles are everywhere around us. What is your explanation for them, and why can you explain the reason for them if there is nothing but chance happenstance as the result of our reasoning and finding reason in them?
Fourth, if there is no reason for the universe there is no way of explaining why it is here. There is no "why." As you say, it just is and just came to be. Is that logical to believe?Yup, because there's nothing so far that points us in any direction otherwise. And it doesn't matter any further than because it's here, we're here.
So, your worldview cannot explain why we are here, why anything exists, other than through the tautology that it's here, therefore we are here.
It makes no sense because your worldview is incapable of making sense of the universe. Mine can and does. You CLAIM you just don't know and that makes sense of nothing, ultimately. It gives us no reason for our existence, for why we SHOULD act a particular way. You constantly borrow from the Christian worldview in making sense of things. You can't explain why the universe came into being, how life results from non-life, how morality is meaningful other than by asserting your preferences by political or military power, which makes nothing good or right - just preferable to those in power.
If it came to be then what is the cause? Logically, it can't self-create, can it? Surely, for something to create itself it would first have to be, or else you have something coming from nothing. Something from nothing is not something you witness, is it? It is a logical impossibility, is it not? How can you derive something from nothing?Don't go down the "everything that exists has a cause" CALAM stuff, because you know that just leads to well what created whatever you think created the universe? I don't know what caused it. I don't know if something can come from nothing, but we certainly haven't witnessed that process. I don't know how it happened, but neither do you. I'm just stopping at I don't know. You're taking an unearned step (two, at least): well I don't know, so it must be someone! This is an argument from ignorance.
I am not going down that road. I'm going down the road that everything that BEGINS to exist must have a cause. If you think not then explain otherwise. Kalam, or Calam?
I don't know how it happened, only if God does not exist and has not revealed Himself. That is your presupposition, not mine.
Also, without God, there is no ultimate sense to be made of existence or the universe. Yet we keep finding meaning and purpose in what we see and understand. We are beings we seek MEANING and purpose. Why? Why if existence is ultimately pointless?
Why did the Big Bang happen (if that is your mode of the start of the universe), or what caused it?Don't know and makes no difference. It happened.
It makes a difference if you did not get here the way you suppose you did.
Again, your answer can't make sense of existence. Mine can!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You are so ignorant. Tell me what a woman is thinking before during and after an abortion, truly ignorant and yet prepared to spout that ignorance from the highest mountain and not feel any cognitive dissonance about it. The abortion doctor is given permission to perform a medical procedure on her body the same as you would need to give permission to a doctor to perform a medical procedure on your body. Being indoctrinated to reject individual thought is one of the saddest things I see in godists.
As usual, you demonstrate a variety of fallacious reasoning including an animosity towards me personally.
I have no idea what specific post or reference of mine you are referring to. Are you just trying to paint my whole argument as ignorant?
Permission? The medical doctor is complicit in the killing of the unborn. If the unborn is a human being, and I have given reasonable and scientific arguments that it is, then the one gives the consent to murder, the other commits the murder. The "medical procedure" is the killing of a human being. Until you can give compelling evidence that it is not your arguments that are the ones showing cognitive dissonance, not mine, we will keep coming back to this point.
I have laid out a non-religious case for life in most of my posts that have not been addressed by anything other than assertions. You have not proven the unborn is not a human being and from conception onwards. Until you can do that we cannot progress to other topics for they all come back to whether or not the unborn is a human being and whether there is any intrinsic value of being human. If there is not then your life is no more valuable than the life of the unborn and it would be open for the taking by those who deem it unfit also, as they decree into law and make it legal for your death (all a matter of choice for those in power, and as they decree, unless we as humans are all intrinsically valuable).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Here you go with your charges and maligning of my character again. It is a typical ploy of a leftist liberal who doesn't have a sufficient answer so they vindictively attack the character of the person rather than the argument. It is done by Democrats in your country every day and it is pathetic.You are really pitiable.
Thank you for your ad hom and highly significant opinion of me!
The below is an absolute LIE.You deceive yourself by thinking a woman should have the right to kill another human being.Calling out your lies is not a personal attack it is a service to you, it gives you the chance to reevaluate your life choices and improve as a human being. Lying is required by god belief and I'm trying to get you to be honest.
So you are condoning the killing of human beings! Nice! How about you first?
So far, you have offered zilch, zero, nothing to back up your assertions that all the unborn is would be a blob of tissue or something not human. Before you call me a liar establish this scientifically.
You fail to understand the change in covenants and the purpose of the Old CovenantDoes your bible order that non virgin wives be stoned to death? YesIs that a biblical standard? Yes
Since you are making these charges, give your Scriptural references so we can examine the passages. If you want to align my view support your charges.
Are you claiming that that standard has changed? Yes.
The standard of the OT is different than that of the NT. The OT is a covenant of works of what a person does to obtain and it also showcases God's holiness and purity. The NT is a covenant of grace based not on what you do but on what Another has done in your stead to justify you before God as holy and righteous. A transaction has taken place in which God judges the life of Another and punishes the Other instead of you because He has agreed to take that punishment so we may have life!
Do you claim that the standard for your morality (biblical standard) is unchanging? Yes
Yes, my standard is the Lord Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Word. My standard is God.
Some of the standards God put in place in the OT were in place to point us to Christ. They show how hard it is to live a holy life before God, and they show His provision in meeting that standard in the NT.
Do you understand ANE culture and what were the standards of that time in which God was dealing with a specific Mosaic Covenant people? Do you understand that they apply to a MOSAIC Covenant people and were put in place for a purpose? Do you understand that they could not live by those holy standards and they were judged for not meeting the agreement they had sworn to meet? (Exodus 24:3, 7)
Without any personal attack I've proven conclusively that you lie.
You have done no such thing, except convince yourself as if that makes it so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
#235----The abortionist doctor does a very good job of taking control of her body,Pregnant woman gives her consent. Read my lips/text, pregnant woman gives her consent.
So, if I give my consent for you to kill my dependent offspring that is okay with you?
Repeat after me until you get it ...pregnant woman gives her consent.....
Repeat after me, Big Bloody Deal! Why should she be allowed to give consent to kill another human being? Where is the compassion there for this helpless human being? Where is there any selflessness demonstrated by the woman?
Duhh, you still do not get it ---in the dark--- unenligtended--- and immoral.
So it seems according to you who is myopic in your view. How many books have you read on this subject? How many years have you studied this topic?
Repeat after me until you get it,...pregnant women gives her consent aka pro-choice aka privacy rights aka get your freggin nose *v* out of pregnant womans bodily business unless she gives you her consetn.
It is a matter of human decency. If not all human beings should have the basic right to life would you be the first to volunteer your right to life?
You are a practicing religious xtremeist and Orange-Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzee LINK
I have NOT argued the religious aspect but basic logic and reason.
And you all need to be Locked Away! from moral civilized society.
Yeah, right. You want to lock away those who defend the most helpless and innocent of society and promote those who kill them! That is how PATHETIC your silly argument is (and yes, the last statgement is an ad hom in response to your countless ad homs).
As I type I am watching the Whitaker hearings on Fox News and how the Democrats do EXACTLY what you do all day long. That is a fallacious emotional appeal to pity and a fallacious ad hom attack on the character instead of presenting valid facts, then they drown Whitaker out by shouting him down in hearing his response. What a biased and unfair hearing by people who do not want to listen but want to craft everything to further their own biased narrative and propaganda smear.
Repeat after me...pregnant woman gives her consent and Lock Immoral Trumpanzees Away!
Repeat after me, the pregnant woman gives her consent to MURDER another human being, for that is what it is and you have not demonstrated otherwise in all your bull and fluster.
Are you on prescription medications? For what specifically? Have you gone off them against your doctors advice?
For borderline high-blood pressure and acid reflux, and no, I take them every day according to his instruction. NOW, what does this have to do with the argument? Nothing. You are trying to slur my character again with false and unrelated innuendo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Why does something unborn and unthinking deserve rights?
Because of the nature of what it is, a human being, however undeveloped. Once you degrade and dehumanize one class of humanity what is to stop you from doing it to another class or group. That is the witness of history. For example, slavery in the USA was a devaluation of a class or group of human beings, to the point that they were treated as property, dehumanized, and yes, in many cases legally murdered, like the unborn is murdered.
It hasn't achieved anything, experienced anything or contributed anything. It's a net drain on the woman and will be a net drain on society for years to come.
So what? Can I kill you if you are less developed than I am, or because of what you have done - your lack of productivity? Should we be able to kill anyone who we see as being unproductive or lacking contribution, especially those who have not even been given the opportunity or chance to grow and demonstrate these qualities? How is that just?
If the newborn or two-year-old is a net drain and will be for years to come on the woman/mother, should she be able to kill it too? That is the kind of reasoning you are using. So justify to me on the standards you have set down here why she should not be able to kill her newborn or two-year-old based on the criterion. Or should society be able to kill those of the woman's offspring that she deems will be a net drain?
If you do not contribute to society or they don't see what you do as achieving anything as they believe you should, then should they be able to kill you too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I checked the link... you didn't quote the summary line:• Fascism is the opposite of Socialism.I am very aware of what 'nazi' means. Names are, however, oft misleading! North Korea is officially the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".
Whether communism, fascism or socialism, none of these can be shown to be desirable nor shown to work well. They want everything to be for the collective good, as seen or thought those select few in power who decide what will be. All three are a loss of individual freedom, and this socialism is the path many in your country are pursuing at the expense of the greater good of the many, all the while offering their poisonous panacea (if you can picture such a thing) that, IMO, will bankrupt your country.
Fascism has many similarities to socialism, one of which is a big/massive government that dictates what the life of its people will be using economic means, as a starter. It usually evolves into more hideous methods of control that could be considered fascist. There is little or no free enterprise with socialism, very little initiative, little motivation, just whatever is decreed by the government.
Fascism is also a big government that dictates and is controlled by a dictator and military in which every aspect of the life of the people is controlled by the government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
[3] There is a reason for cancer, for death and decay. It is called sin, rebellion from God. It is the consequence of humans rejecting God and His guidance. It is humanity thinking they know better than God (and what a mess). And the inhumanity of human against human, how do you explain this moral evil if it is just our biological make-up working in whatever way they are programmed to work? What makes that evil or bad or wrong? Nothing. What makes the genocide of Stalin, or Mao wrong? What makes the suppression of Kim Jong-un on his people wrong? He is doing what he deems necessary for his survival and for a luxurious survival at that.What death does is it makes us think about our temporary existence and the MEANING of life. Since the Fall we have thought about this meaning. We see meaning in everything we do and all that is around us yet you refuse to acknowledge why there is this meaning that our consciousness seeks out.Ultimate, your worldview has no meaning to life. You are just a biological accident, and you just make up something because you like it, then you are gone, and no one cares (two generations down the line) about you.[3] So when a mother is cradling the body of her dead six month old after succumbing to pediatric leukemia, your "comfort" to this person is "Too bad Adam and Eve ate that apple, that's why your baby is dead."
Death is explained by the one sin, for that is when death entered into the world, a separation from God for the unbeliever. But the hope is explained by the One Person - Jesus Christ. For those not yet accountable for their actions, those who have not done sin, I am thoroughly convinced that Jesus died for that person, the six-month-old. So, there is a comfort for those who survive the death of their loved ones and comfort for the survivors if they put their hope and trust in Jesus for rejoicing with their loved ones. In your worldview, death is the final curtain.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
He WILL save His people, all those He died for; all those who are accountable to God and who put their faith and trust in Him and His merit, not their own.
This is not difficult: if you are violating a thinking being's free will (or illusion thereof), if you are causing bodily harm for the exercise of your own power, if you are without reason infringing on the life or wellbeing of the people around you, it's wrong. Now, there are tons and tons of conditions and issues and nuances there, but this is boiling it down to the very simple: huriting others when it's not necessary for your own survival or for the continue flourishing of our society and species is wrong, and knowing that doesn't require any thinking agent lving in another dimension to be real.
Well then explain that to others who do not live by these principles, and there are countless examples every day in our world. So, you again borrow and share from the Christian worldview that says it is wrong. The problem with your worldview is that it does not explain why they should be wrong with anything other than by someone's preference. If preference made things good or bad, right or wrong, then Hitler's Germany or Kim Jong-un's North Korea could be justified as good or better than your current thinking. Either way, it is based on shifting standards. The Bible gives reason for an absolute, objective, eternal, unchanging, final reference and measure.
Since you have such a sure handle on it, what IS the meaning of this life? Specifically, what's the meaning of this life for a non-Christian?
The meaning of life is to know and love God and to enjoy Him forever in His unceasing revelation and wonders in store for the Christian.
For the unbeliever, the meaning is fleeting and whatever they make it. Meaning holds no ultimate significance in the unbelieving worldview for the universe is meaningless and the unbeliever supposedly returns to this meaninglessness at death.
You're almost right about meaning in my worldview. It's not there is NO meaning. It's there's no INHERENT, PREDETERMINED meaning. I have to make that on my own, and live with the consequences until I'm dead and eventually, yes, forgotten like the thousands of generations before me. I don't need to tell myself I'm anything more inherently special than anyone else, that something different is going to happen to me when I die than is going to happen to my friend Ibrahim or Sanjay, and unless I do something REALLY SUPER with my life, yeah, I'm just going to be forgotten. I don't know why that's so awful, I won't be around to care, I'll be dead.
So, your life, in the big picture is meaningless, yet you borrow from the Christian worldview that says there is meaning, or at least we make it, and we SHOULD treat life as meaningful (or else we have despair like so many do who question the ultimate point of life and believe there is none).
Why SHOULD I treat life as meaningful if there is no ultimate point to it?
We find meaning and the source of all meaning when we find God, the true God. Other than that, you live a delusion of meaning for why what you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
No, I have hope and I can offer it. I am being honest. What is your standard for honesty? Your worldview can't offer hope for someone dying of cancer without lying to them. You borrow from the Christian standard to comfort them. There is no compassion in an evolutionary process.You admit you cannot offer such a person hope. It just shows the grim reality of hopelessness and despair from your worldview.How does "Got cancer?
What does this mean? It is not framed in a way I can understand it.
Aw, well at least you're probably going to heaven" in any way offer honest comfort?
How is this a question? Do you mean "How does the hope of heaven" give comfort? It relies on the testimony of One greater than us to reassure us by His word which He demonstrates is true and reasonable in various ways, such as prophecy.
It's a pacifier for a baby. Yeah, reality can be grim. Hiding from it doesn't change it. Compassion is an necessary element in the evolution of successful pack species: the ability to consider the consequences and how they effect the other pack members. If you don't have it, you act inappropriately and eventually your genetic material is weeded out. I don't feel hopeless and I don't walk around in despair. I just had a cousin lose his dad to cancer, should I have told hmi "Well, God did that, you should feel great?" or should I say "I'm so so sorry that you lost your dad. What can I do to help you get through this difficult time?" Should I say "I have an idea, let's sit here and think about why this was really a great thing in the grand scheme of things. You know, thank Jesus that your son never got to know his grandfather"? Sorry man, but the world can be a grim place, it's our responsibility to make it better.
According to evolutionary theory, only the strong survive and there is no rhyme nor reason for it to be this way. They survive, period, thus they are seen as the strong. So, if it is beneficial to be compassionate to others you survive, and if it is not in your interests because you will not survive then you will be ruthless, as is the witness of history way too often. I'm sure I can provide you with countless examples where compassion is not the criterion or what you call the necessary element of survival in the evolutionary process.
Death, and back to the meaninglessness of the universe is your worldview outcome, not mine. That is not my hope, but yours, and it is not hopeful but despairing. Your whole existence is for nothing in the grand scheme. You borrow from the Christian worldview when you make it count.
Again, you use a qualitative term - better - in relation to what? What is the standard that you measure better by and why SHOULD it be mine? Is it personal preference unless you can establish a fixed and best reference point, a final measure that others are compared to. If you can't do that you violate the laws of logic, the Law of Identity and the Law of Noncontradiction. The value "A" can mean anything depending on who holds it unless the value is fixed, absolute, unchanging. Can you demonstrate you have such a value that you use to define and compare "better" by? If not I do not accept your OPINION, because that would be all it is, a preference held by you.
Also, don't you only offer hope for Christians? Like if you met a Muslim, a devout Muslim, as sure as you are about your faith, dying of cancer, would you tell him he was going to hell for not accepting Jesus? Want to guess what an atheist would tell a Muslim? It's not hard. It's the same as what I'd tell my cousin.
Where he goes is not determined by me but I can offer him hope for the future and explain to him why it is the necessary hope.
If you examine world religions they are based on what the person does to achieve their salvation. It is based on their merit. Christianity is based on what Another has done on our behalf. So, granted that God is holy, pure, and just, without sin, how do you or how does anyone else measure up to His perfect standard and His commandments such as the Ten Commandments? If you have stolen, lied, murdered, coveted, committed adultery, worshiped false idols crafted by your hands or your mind, or not given God the worship He deserves, you have not met His standard, which means separation from His holy presence. Thus, the Muslim is in as much need of the Savior and faith in what He has done on behalf of those who will believe as the atheist or Christian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
And how do you get a "best" without an absolute, unchanging, objective standard or reference point? Why is your relative standard any better than any other relative standard?Not this tired canard. Please. I didn't say there was a 'best,' nor did I say there needed to be. My standard is based entirely on how my actions affect the rest of my species, and my surroundings, just like yours.
Here is the rest of the context and it is to do with morality:
Morality has been answered repeatedly, it's evolutionarily hard wired into any social creature.It is not explained. If we are just biological functions and our "behavior" is governed by our genetics and the environment, then why should what I do be good or bad? It is just what has been determined by my genetic make-up and when a person murders another person all that is happening is a response to the specific genetic make-up. Why is the good or bad? Where is the free will here?And how do you get a "best" without an absolute, unchanging, objective standard or reference point? Why is your relative standard any better than any other relative standard?
So, it is in relation to morality.
No, I'm speaking of a qualitative best, not a quantitative best. How do you measure a qualitative good or better without a fixed standard (a best) that can be appealed to and measured against? My standard for a value is based on a necessary being who has revealed what is good. As you expressed above, how do you get prescriptive from a descriptive, or Humes dilemma?
If my actions were repeatedly and demonstrably detrimental to society, I'd be removed from it in one way or another, and it's much, much harder to function and reproduce that way, when you're cast out.
What is wrong with that? It is just a preference unless you can supply a suitable standard that is fixed. With quantitative measures, there is a fixed measure. What is the measure you use with qualitative values?
Natural selection takes over from there, and whatever it is in my genetic makeup that caused me to act that way, that is not continued into the next generation. It's really simple, it's how every successful species of pack animal develops. I am not sure there is free will, but in your scenario, there isn't free will either (unless you think god can be surprised somehow).
Again, somehow you are deriving the prescriptive from the descriptive. How do you get prescriptive from the descriptive? And, what makes your values any better than anyone else? If values are changing, with no fixed reference, nothing, or can you explain how?
There is no intent to natural selection. Things just happen. What makes that good or bad, better or best? Again, nothing.
If there is no volition to choose by us, nothing but what is determined by your genetic make-up and environment, how can anything be wrong? It is just what you do or I do or what happens. If your body, your genetic structure has an inclination to kill someone, then what is wrong with that? Things happen.
Your 'best' standard has pronouncements in its books about stoning gay people, right?
What makes you think it was best? Practicing homosexuality, like adultery, was decreed by God as a wrong, not best but a sin. God told Adam and Eve to procreate. Homosexuality does not allow procreation. God also gave Adam and Eve the mandate to marry and unite, an intimate relationship with two people for life - male and female. Humans failed to follow this command. Thus, cheating, sexual immorality, unwanted pregnancies, incest, rape, and adultery, homosexuality, and everything is dishonoring this commandment and also a spouse as defined by the Bible.
About genocides endorsed by an all powerful god who would be able to simply delete any offending individuals, right? About plundering neighboring tribes and raping women, right? Honestly though, if you're going to go with "Why should I be good if there's not Jesus? Without him, I'd be out pillaging til the cows come home," then please, by all means, continue believing whatever is keeping you from doing so.Do you believe you'd be able to convince a Hindu that your standard is better than theirs?
Probably not.
Have you ever?
A Hindu? No. Not to my knowledge.
I have found that you can't convince someone who does not want to believe you, no matter how reasonable and logical an argument is. Their worldview presuppositional core beliefs that everything else rests on (or they would not believe what they do) get in the way. Those core beliefs are hard to jettison. People have invested their life on them.
Or even closer: do you think you could convince Mopac that what he believes is wrong and he's therefore likely bound to hell, or that he could convince you of the same?
I do not decide who goes to hell. I could only reason from the Bible with him if I believed what he did was wrong. What he or you believe are between the individual and God. All I can do is try to show you the reasonableness of the Christian worldview and answer objections and teachings I believe go against that revelation with reference to that revelation.
Both of you think you're right, and the other one's wrong, and yet both believe in the same deity. If the answer is "It doesn't matter," then why do people choose denominations?
There are essential beliefs that if either one of us were to deny we would not be a follower of Jesus Christ. It is that simple. The rest are in-house debates that do not invalidate our salvation to my reasoning at least. The Bible is the standard that we use to make our case. If either of us makes an argument that can be proven to go against biblical teaching, it should not be believed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Truth value requires conscious, reasoning beings and yet you keep finding truths about the supposed chance universe. As many have pointed out, it is almost like we are thinking Someone else's thoughts after Him!Truth does not require conscious, reasoning beings at all. If, for example, humanity was wiped off the face of the planet tomorrow by some horrible disease or cataclysm, that the sun would still rise in the east the next day would still be true.
What is "truth value" since you used the phrase in Post # 19 first, to my recollection?
Is it the state of how things actually are? I don't think so. That would be true but not necessarily truth value as I understand it.
Truth value must be a qualitative value that we conceive and it requires consciousness for it to have meaning, just not your consciousness for its existence. But without consciousness, it MEANS nothing. Truth value is a mindful thing, a concept of the mind because any value is a mindful weighing. A rock does not know the truth value about anything. There is no meaning of what is true to a rock. So, even though it does not require your mind nor my mind it still requires Mind for the existence of a truth value.
How do you know that the sun would still rise the next day if there was no mind to perceive it? I can do it three ways that the sun will most likely, through deduction and through scientific discovery and by the revelation of a greater Being. I can conclude based on previous experience of not only me but other before me. I can also refer to science. Then is God has revealed I can have the surest way on knowing.
BUT, how do I know something is good or better or best in regards to values and morals? Only if there is a necessary Being who has revealed this to humanity, otherwise I'm in your boat, just making it up based on my preference. BUT, how does preference make anything good or better or best? It just makes it desirable, thus Hitler's Germany is no better than Obama's USA. They just have different preferences regards particular classes of human beings, and they can even degrade one class to the point of dehumanizing them and destroying them. What makes that bad if morals are relative and shifting? Nothing. Thus, you cross over to my worldview in making sense of morality.
But the question is how do reasoning beings come from chance happenstance?Questions answered by evolution, and, I might point out, even if for no reason other than an abundance of magnanimity, I granted that your assertion here, the answer "Super Being" would not in any way mean it was the god described in the bible.
Evolution answers nothing. Humans with presuppositions (God or materialism) and a bent to one or the other worldview answer questions. They carry bias that tends to funnel everything through that bias in answering the question.
Which god is God can be narrowed down later. One makes sense since they are all contradictory if you listen to their adherents.
It seems you think as humans we have the market cornered on reasoning by way of your version of god endowing us with the same. Would it be reasonable to say we understand the laws of gravity through reasoning? If so, can dogs also reason? Because they understand that gravity exists without any semblance of scientific theory.
Yes, it is reasonable to say we understand them through reason and logic.
Our thinking and reasoning are so much more advanced than a dog or chimpanzee. I do not believe they contemplate gravity whereas we do.
Laws? How do we have laws if there is no lawgiver? If the universe is a chance happenstance then why should things remain constant? There is no reason they would or should, yet they do. What should that tell you? So why do you have these laws of nature without conscious agency and intent is not logical, is it? It does not compute.The laws of nature a descriptive, not prescriptive. You know that this word, laws, also has numerous meanings and connotations. They describe and quantify what we observe. Again, you're trying to imbue purpose by calling it REASON. You're mixing the meanings. Can you demonstrate the conscious agency that said "And I'm going to make a hole in the universe so large that the people who observe it literally will not be able to accurately imagine how big it is? (Bootes void)" If not, then why appeal to it as it comes to the laws of nature?
Yes, they are descriptive - so what? The question is why they operate as they do, why they remain constant that we can predict and calculate.
Sure, laws of nature describe in principle how nature works. Why would there be any rhyme or reason to discover in a random chance happenstance universe. The fact remains that we can explain these principles through mathematical formulas. These principles or laws are used to describe something that is, not something we invent. Why would we be able to express them in a mathematical formula which is a logical process?
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Chance cannot reason yet if reason does not originate from a necessary Being it must originate through random (chance) processes. Demonstrate how.I'm not the one making a supernatural claim. But it looks like you're a presuppositionalist, is that fair?
Sure, I use both a presuppositional approach and an evidential one. The presuppositional approach gets to the heart of a worldview and questions its starting or foundational thoughts (what everything else rests up, or the cornerstones of the belief).
Also, since there is no reason for the universe (reason requires reasoning being) why do we constantly find reason in the universe, precise reasoning that we use mathematical equations to explain? If there is no sense to the universe because it was not created by an omnipotent, reasoning, and logical Being, then why do we keep finding reason in everything we analyze?This is using the same word to mean different things. Reason FOR and reason IN are not the same. Reason FOR the first portion means something more akin to cause, but still is inexact, in that I'm not sure there needs to be a REASON for the universe. It just seems to be here, that's about all we know about it. Reason IN something. I think you're using that more like 'purpose.' There is no reason IN the universe, no purpose inherent. I mean unless you can demonstrate otherwise, right? I don't understand your assertion that we keep finding reason in everything we analyze. Let's demonstrate: what's the REASON (cause version) for the insurmountable distance between our sun and the next star? Gravitational attraction / particle mass distribution / initial dispersal of matter / couple of comet collisions, etc. Any of those is a feasible answer, because they obey the laws of nature and work with all known models. Now, what's the PURPOSE of the distance?
Okay.
First, the universe is unreasoning. Agreed?
Second, we are reasoning beings, so somehow reason is derived from the unreasoning (from something that is not reasoning). Is that reasonable to believe?
Third, the universe is unreasoning, yet through our reason, we find meaning IN the universe, in what exists. Why should we expect to find reasons in a universe that is devoid of reason, just events of happenstance? We DISCOVER laws of nature, laws that apply in describing things that are orderly or constant. These laws are so defined that we have precise mathematical formulas to express these laws and describing what happens.
Fourth, if there is no reason for the universe there is no way of explaining why it is here. There is no "why." As you say, it just is and just came to be. Is that logical to believe? If it came to be then what is the cause? Logically, it can't self-create, can it? Surely, for something to create itself it would first have to be, or else you have something coming from nothing. Something from nothing is not something you witness, is it? It is a logical impossibility, is it not? How can you derive something from nothing?
Why did the Big Bang happen (if that is your mode of the start of the universe), or what caused it?
Here is a simple explanation. It seems to be a non-answer.
At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
How did we get this "singularity?"
Where did it come from?
Why do we have gravity and gravitational pull?
Why does the earth revolve around the sun at the precise distance?
We have reasons for these things taking place, a reason we can sometimes express in mathematical formulas. We don't invent them, we discover them. Why would we find reasons for/in them? These laws are independent of you thinking them, yet we are able to reason them out from the universe.
The Christian explanation, and it is a reasonable one, is that we discover these laws because there is a Lawgiver that has crafted the universe. Mathematics is a conceptual science. We are able to explain how things in the universe work because there is a Mind behind the universe, not just random chance happenstance.
***
***
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You firmly believe that you have more right to every woman's body than they have, you do realise that that is insanity.You misrepresent me. Where have I ever stated I have a right to a woman's body?Here:What I have argued is that the woman's rights should not exceed the rights of the unborn by causing its death. What is discomfort for nine months as weighed or contrasted to death?In order to get to the fetus you need to take control of the woman's body from her, you are obviously well short of comprehending that very simple FACT. And don't ever inject that misogynist canard about 9mths of discomfort again, you know you are lying you are a man and have no right to discuss every woman's body as if you own it. Go and pray to your infanticidal, genocidal god and pray for nuclear Armageddon (Trump Style) so billions of real humans can be killed.
The abortionist doctor does a very good job of taking control of her body, but not only that, abortion clinics do a very good job of indoctrinating the woman into thinking of the unborn as nothing more than a blob of tissue or devaluing its worth, the very thing a woman who chooses to kill her offspring is doing. She devalues it and treats it a piece of garbage instead of what it is a human being. WHAT ABOUT ITS RIGHTS? The woman selfishly ignores its rights because they are not important or inconvenient to her.
You go and continue to put yourself in the place of God and worship yourself, you, the Great I Am, full of wisdom and self-appointed knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
In your worldview, death is the final curtain. There is no fear of death for those who trust God. As I get older though I realize how fleeting life on earth is. It goes by quickly.Yes 3.5 billion years of precedent proves that death is the final curtain. You fear death so much that you try desperately believe that it doesn't exist and the fantasy of a god is your support mechanism. Fantasies aren't real you know. And that life you have spent believing in fantasies to pacify your fears has been a waste, because it's all we get.
No, 3.5 billion years doesn't prove death is the final curtain. That is what you BELIEVE that it proves.
That is what you are gambling on, that your small, limited, finite mind knows God does not exist, yet throughout human history, the vast, vast majority of humanity has believed in a greater Being, a necessary Being. You think it is your small minority that has the right view. Go ahead. Live your ultimately meaningless life in the grand scheme then. I'm not here to convince you, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies of a worldview that denies God. It can't make sense of the universe, life, morality, truth, without borrowing from the Christian perspective (and it doesn't even realize it does this).
Then enjoy yourself. From an evolutionary perspective, nothing really/ultimately matters but you can make it matter for a while and deceive yourself. You continually borrow from my Christian worldview when you make it matter.Giving life meaning is all we have, it's you who deceives himself. Evolution is a fact and pretending to yourself that it's not for the sole purpose of pacifying your abject fear of death is the behaviour of a child. You have absolutely nothing that I could possibly wish to borrow and that's just something else that frightens you.
Giving it meaning for what ultimate purpose? Macro-evolution is a paradigm, a way of looking at life on earth. It has many flaws to it.
Whether or not I have anything you could wish to borrow is not the point. The point is that your worldview is self-destructive and can't make sense of itself. If you wish to live by it that is your choice. But when you come on a debate forum and start spewing forth this stuff I'm going to point out the flaws in your thinking.
What you call good is not so with abortion. It's all based on feelings and preference for you can draw no reference to an absolute or ultimate standard. As you say, you make it up, and when your idea conflicts with someone else there is war, greed, strife as the greater imposes their "good" on the weaker. So, your standards are no better than Hitler's.I am the ultimate arbiter for what is good and your ultimate standard is a fictional character invented a couple of thousand years ago by IPSS, it just doesn't match up to mine. Now you need to cite how many wars I've started. Hitlers standards were your god's standards they both practiced genocide, your god was allegedly better at it. You have no authority over any woman's body.
No, you are not the ultimate arbiter for what is good, not even for yourself. If you were everyone would be living according to your agenda. I do not live according to your standards. IMO, they are extremely foolish shifting, relative, subjective standards.
No, Hitler's standards were what he imposed on others that did not match the biblical standards. Many people claim they are Christians but do not live according to the biblical standard.
determining this without a necessary Being since standards shift and change.The IPSS that you claim are an unchanging standard most definitely do change or you would be stoning non virgin wives.
You fail to understand the change in covenants and the purpose of the Old Covenant that showcased the holiness and purity of God and what living in relationship required. The Old Covenant showed how impossible it was for sinful humanity to live up to God's holiness. Thus Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and provided a better one.
You deceive yourself by thinking a woman should have the right to kill another human being. What is good about that? It is a selfish thing to kill your own offspring. What if that human being were you, would you still feel the same?All this time and you still lie about my argument, godists can't exist without habitual lying it's no wonder you're a dying breed. When you can start telling the truth come back, I'm sick of dealing with your pathetic lies.
Here you go with your charges and maligning of my character again. It is a typical ploy of a leftist liberal who doesn't have a sufficient answer so they vindictively attack the character of the person rather than the argument. It is done by Democrats in your country every day and it is pathetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It just shows the grim reality of hopelessness and despair from your worldview.The grim reality is that is no up-side to a someone dieing of cancer. The hope of an atheist is that one day cancer will be curable so everyone can live a full and happy life.
Not if your worldview that denies God were true. But there is in the Christian worldview, if true, which I contend it most definitely is.
Yes, that is your hope, yet you will die anyway. I understand that Israel is claiming a cure for cancer, which is a good thing. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
What, one asks, is the role of childhood leukemia in the theist worldview?
It is a consequence and curse of the Fall. Adam was barred from the Garden and eating the fruit from the tree of life and living forever. Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, came to give the option for eternal life once again and accomplished that with His life, death, and resurrection (for those who believe).
Thus, even with leukemia, there is hope and the promise of a better life for those trusting in Jesus Christ. But you have to ask the question why do more people not believe? I believe the answer is because they don't want to. They prefer a life of sin and unrighteousness which is the cause of evil in this world. They think they know better than God and they put themselves in His place, declaring what is and what should be, all in a relativistic perspective.
Why do you think God allows disease? There is a purpose in it, just like there is a purpose in limiting of physical existence. It lets us know life is fragile and for some who seek out God, they find Him and find this hope and a new life.
Created: