Total posts: 1,732
-->
@Vici
self ownership doesn't trump an individual human life which you brought into existence.
Actually it does. There is no right to use the body of another against their will because...self ownership. Absent consent, there is no circumstance where I can use your body and that applies across the board to everyone.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Your question could be interpreted many ways. You'll need to be more clear...And you need to be more original in your arguments, your not contributing anything new to this discussion.
Well, apparently you're not learning from your mistakes If someone else has pointed out science doesn't determine legal status and you're still appealing to science.
A simple "my mistake" would prevent repitious corrections.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
My good man, just ....stop. You're embarrassing your self. Personhood is a legal distiction. Science has no authority here.Why are you starting a circle here?
Your question could be interpreted many ways. You'll need to be more clear...
Created:
-->
@Vici
There is simply no good pro-choice argument
I can't imagine an argument stronger than self-ownership as it is the basis of all rights.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No legal system can define what is and isn’t a person, only science can do that, read a book.
My good man, just ....stop. You're embarrassing your self. Personhood is a legal distiction. Science has no authority here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Oh bull shit. You guys say all the time the fact that this tried to pass religion on to their children is abuse. Play that game somewhere else.
"You guys"? I dont speak for all atheists and they dont speak for me. Find one instance where I have claimed exposing children to religion is child abuse. FYI, you won't find it.
This is a distraction from the arguments presented. Either you agree or disagree. Engage and make your case or rant by yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If a religious sect is built on ignorance, intolerance, hatred, etcThat's every religion to atheists so why bother stating it? LOL.
My view of religion entertains nuance and is quite unlike your apparent view of atheists.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Argument 1: A zygote isn’t a human being.Me response: That opinion goes against the opinions of 95% of biologists.
I think the argument would be about personhood which biologists have no legitimate authority to weigh in on. Plus, person or not, a zygote has no right to use the body of another against their will.
Argument 2: A zygote is a human being, but bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.My response: If that’s what you believe, then you would have to be fine with a conjoined twin killing their twin in the name of bodily autonomy.
False analogy. Conjoined twins have equal claim the body in which their minds reside. A zygote doesn't have a mind nor does it have any claim to the body in which it resides.
Argument 3: A kid set up for adoption gets messed up so badly it’s worse than death.Response: The vast majority of foster kids get adopted within 5 years and the foster system makes sure the parents are competent and not child rapists or abusers.
That's not an argument I've ever seen. If all unwanted pregancies were sent to adoption rather than aborted, adoptions agencies would be overwhelmed (and not just by a little bit). The efficiency claim of '5 years for most kids' would be extremely unlikely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
So the separation of State and Church in the Constitution is a big lie.
No. There are groups who seek to undermine it though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
taxpaying parents have to pay for public schools while they're not allowed to receive a penny for religious private school.
A secular government paying for religious educations? You don't think that crosses a line?
quasi-public institutions, considered authoritative by the government and society alike, are waging constant psychological warfare against this country's Christian population.
That's probably not as clear as you think...
rainbow flag is flown on the grounds of American embassies.
Acknowledging an historically marginalized segment of our society is an attack on religion?
There's also a conflict of interest when the government favors ideologies that harm religion. Why don't we get rid of all conflicts of interest?
Some religious views conflict with facts of reality. Government should never be about appeasing fragile ideologies. If a religious sect is built on ignorance, intolerance, hatred, etc. that is not something government has any interest in protecting. The state has an obligation to society in general over the insular tribe within it.
State promotion of any religious view, including strong atheism, would not be neutralityI'm glad we agree. But that applies to "weak" atheism as much as it does "strong" atheism
Weak atheism is lack of belief. It is to religious view like silence is music. Silence is neutrality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Isn’t that what happened to Abortion Rights?The Supreme Court threw out Roe V Wade because the Christian Conservatives packed the court with conservative judges.
Yes, I would say so. Although I doubt Scotus would openly agree with that description.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
How is the State protected from religion when the population in the State are mostly Christians.
One of the duties of the state is to protect religious freedom. Religious freedom isn't only applicable to Christianity- it applies to all religious views. The personal views of government officials are irrelevant to their governmental obligation. Using the power of the people to advance their religion would be a betrayal of the trust the governed places in them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The separation of Church and State was to allow the church to grow unhindered by the State.
Separation protects both religion from state and state from religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
you implicitly admit you don't mind distorting the Constitution to serve your own purposesWhen did I say that I wanted this?
Do you not understand the word 'implicit'?
When atheists want the government to do their bidding specific to their position on religion, then yeah. Yeah there is.
This goes to my point above - you are suggesting because group B does X, it is acceptable for group A to do the same. That is an implicit argument for revisionism.
the absence of religion in government is to the advantage of everyoneThis very choice of wording is a malicious distortion.
Not at all. There is a conflict of interest when a government is responsible for protecting religious freedom while also favoring a religion.
What the 1st Amendment assures is religious neutrality. "Absence of religion" could be construed to mean state promotion of atheism
State promotion of any religious view, including strong atheism, would not be neutrality. It seems you are amenable to a religiously neutral government which is what I am advocating. Where is the disconnect here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
You shall have no other gods before meUm, okay. This has literally nothing to do with the topic, but okay.
Tell me you haven't read the OP without actually telling me. :-)
The Op is about Christian Nationalism - if core Christian and American values aren't relevant to this subject, nothing is.
I mean, atheists and hardcore secularists are constantly trying to coopt the government to their advantage.
Tu quoque fallacy.
Again, the OP is about Christian Nationalism. If your argument is 'someone else is doing it!', you implicitly admit you don't mind distorting the Constitution to serve your own purposes. Besides, there is no such thing as 'atheist nationalism' and our government is secular - the absence of religion in government is to the advantage of everyone...even those who see neutrality as a threat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Christian nationalism is as American as apple pie.
- 1st commandment: You shall have no other gods before me.
- 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The notion that America was founded on Christian principles runs contrary to American principles enumerated in the Constitution. Being an American Christian might be as American as apple pie, but Christian nationalism makes as much sense as America being built on contradictory values such as 1C and 1A.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Simply put, then, there is no such thing as the "Judeo-Christian tradition." It is a modern invention. There always has been a Jewish tradition and a Christian tradition ― or, more accurately, varieties of Jewish and Christian traditions. The term "Judeo-Christian tradition" continues the suppression of Jewishness by hiding the essential differences between Judaism and Christianity, one of which is that each denies the validity of the other. As Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits puts it, "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism."
Agree. Judeo-Christian is code for Christian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
So Judeo-Christian is about the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom by Jesus a Jew. It is about the humble expectations Jews and Christians have placed on Jesus.
Judaism and Christianity holds conflicting views on Jesus. This proposed definition of Judeo-Christian is incoherent. Additionally, you've provided no position on Christian Nationalism.
Created:
Posted in:
I back my arguments with scriptural evidence. We have the evidence why not use it?
Your claim was that virgin births are rare because of contraceptives, anal sex, and homosexuality. Substantiatiation is not found for this claim in the Bible or anywhere else.
Created:
-->
@Vici
TO ANYONE WHO ISN'T CONCERNED, THIS IS VERY ORWELLIAN. THE BANNING OF SPEECH IS THE RESTRICTION OF THOUGHT.
Getting banned from social media restricts the ability to think, eh? That's a bit hyperbolic.
The Constitution doesn't grant the right for someone to use Facebook's megaphone. It grants the right to not be stifled by the government. Facebook=/=government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I'm not going to help you preach under the pretense of debate. If you become interested in honest debate, let me know. :-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Jews rejected Jesus and demanded Jesus be crucified. The Romans crucified Jesus.
Without a 'sacrifice' there could be no talk of a second coming. The return of Jesus would be contigent upon his death. So, again, you've not presented evidence of anyone working to stop a 'second coming' much less any Christians doing so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The OP is in the context of epistemology, not theology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If there are Christians working to prevent Jesus from coming back, I've never seen nor heard of them.The Jews rejected Jesus and demanded Jesus be crucified. The Romans crucified Jesus. Both the Jews and Romans are still around [...]
Romans may or may not be Christian...Jews are definitely NOT Christian.
You've dropped multiple points which are damagaing to your argument. What you did address is not making any sense, my friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Virgin birth (like what's claimed in Christianity) involves pregnancy without a person ever having sex. Soooo, anal sex and gay sex wouldn't prevent parthenogenesis (if it is possible)...it might prevent pregnancy and someone being labeled a virgin though. ;-)
Secondly, birth control pre-exists Christianity (by 1000's of years). So, the fact is that virgin births have been claimed after women started using birth control. What kind of a puny god would be stopped by a pill anyway?
All that being said, every generation has its fundamentalists that anxiously wait for Jesus to return and imagine the second-coming to be within their lifetime. They interpret current events through the lense of the Bible and, if it is within their power, they steer society toward what they think the ends times should look like. If there are Christians working to prevent Jesus from coming back, I've never seen nor heard of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Virgin births are rare today because women take contraceptives to prevent that from happening. And when that fails resort to Abortion. This is why Christian men are against abortions. They believe it stops Jesus from return as promised, obviously through another virgin birth.
What?! First, birth control isn't what makes parthenogenesis rare. It is exceedingly rare with or without contraceptives. Secondly, an all-powerful, all knowing entity could never lose in a game of 'abortion whack-a-mole' unless that was his intent. Anyone who claims to be against abortion for this reason needs to either evaluate and understand their beliefs a little better or stop being dishonest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
yes but the ockams razors finds that 1 is less than 4 so.
O is less than 1. ;-)
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Nope, sorry, just us wack jobs.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No one may possess a detachable rifle magazine that can hold more than 5 rounds. For handguns, 10 rounds.
I agree with most of your suggestions. Allowing untrained civilians to 'Constitutionally carry' is a bad idea. I was curious about your reasoning for different limitations for handgun and rifle though. What's that about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If it can be shown not all religions are true, then the proposition is not unfalsifiable. It is logically impossible for all religions to be true. The proposition is logically falsifiable.
Unfalsifiable: not capable of being proved false
We agree in principle, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are all religions equally true?equally unfalsifiable
I'm going to disagree with you. It is logically impossible for all religions and their competing claims to all be true. It follows from this - not all gods are true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
are all gods equally "true" ?
Are all religions equally true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I reject any claim of truth to proposition B, so I tacitly accept claims of truth to proposition A
That strikes me as odd. Default acceptance leads to outlandish and contradictory beliefs.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
1. No
2. Yes
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
For some unknown reason, you seem to be under the impression opinion and propaganda carry equivalent weight to data and objective analysis of it. Only the latter (which I provided) qualifies as fact.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
You've provided 3 opinion pieces from questionable and strongly biased sources.
I can go on and on and on and on...
You haven't started yet, my friend.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Don’t censor yourself. Speak your mind.
I have to admit - I found this cleverly amusing. ;-)
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
If it is not supported by the evidence, then prove it. I (we) will wait. But we will NOT hold our breath.
What happened to your "Fact-based Truth"?! Just FYI, the absence of evidence against your position doesn't make it true. Someone with "two legal degrees" should understand how the burden of proof works. Also, your position is not supported by evidence which makes it dubious (at best) rather than true:
[...] the claim of anti-conservative animus is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it. No trustworthy largescale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests.On most days, right-leaning U.S. Facebook pages dominate the list of sources producing the most-engagedwith posts containing links. In particular, during the run-up to the 2020 election and its aftermath, the page of conservative commentator Dan Bongino outperformed those of most major news organizations. The pages of Donald Trump and pro-Trump evangelist Franklin Graham consistently showed up in the top 10, as did Fox News. CNN, National Public Radio, and The New York Times sometimes made the list, but Joe Biden rarely did.Using CrowdTangle, one can also generate engagement rankings for “U.S. general media.” Here, three of the top 10 spots were held by rightleaning pages during the period from January 1, 2020, through Election Day in November. Fox News was the runaway leader, with 448 million total interactions. In second place was Breitbart, with 294 million. In seventh place was The Daily Caller, also a right-leaning outlet, with 97 million. The 839 million interactions generated by these three conservative pages was more than the 821 million total produced by the seven mainstream media pages in the top 10—those of CNN, ABC News, BBC News, NBC News, NPR, Now This, and The New York Times.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
People get kicked off platforms for all kinds of reason, most of which are purely unsubstantiated leftist bullshit.Fact or opinion?Obvious fact. The internet and each platform is replete with case after case.
The fact is this notion of a social media bias against Conservatives is not supported by the evidence. Aren't you supposed to be all about "fact-based Truth"?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
People get kicked off platforms for all kinds of reason, most of which are purely unsubstantiated leftist bullshit.
Fact or opinion?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
No, I do not have any reason to lie. You will need to substantiate that claim if you're going to continue insinuating I am a liar.
Again, I gave reasons for why someone in your position might have reason to lie. You need to look at this from outside your own perspective. I don't know you or your character. Appealing to your integrity isn't helpful and doesn't change the possibility of someone in your shoes being dishonest.
So no, it's not a non sequitur fallacy.
The *reasons* behind a ban might support guilt (if there is any) not the ban itself.
For the record, I possess two legal degrees.
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back there. ;-p You might save yourself the trouble - I am unimpressed with claimed qualifications of an anonymous person on the internet. Your interactions with other people will tell me much more about you than anything else.
I do NOT cherry pick data. I do not draw broad conclusions either. And nowhere have I made any asserted claim or stated position that "dark-skinned people are inferior in some way" either. That's a false assumption on your part. Talk about drawing subjective conclusions.
You should probably go back and read what I said. I asked a question and provided a conditional statement. There's no need to get defensive there, big guy.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Again, I have no reason to lie and the fact that I was banned demonstrates a measure of their guilt.
You DO have reason to lie if you did what they said and you don't want to be condemned ir held accountable for it. Also, your ban does not speak to anyone's else's guilt. That is a non-sequitor.
Posting fact-based truth is NOT a violation of the terms of service,
Yes, but is that what you did? If you are using cherry-picked data to draw a broad conclusion that dark-skinned peoples are inferior in some way, you're not posting 'fact-based truth' and youre likely violating most TOS.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
exactly like a trial, let's focus on the individual who stands accused
Okay. Being banned from multiple distinct sites is sufficient to suspect the individual is the problem and not the sites. The individual is the common denominator. Without specifics, that probably the best we can do.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
have you considered running those same statistics specifically for "economic status" ?
Indeed. "Fact-based truth" should include all relevabt facts and not just those which confirm a preferred conclusion.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
guilty until proven innocent
That cuts both ways. OP and those who banned him are both innocent until proven guilty. It is fair to say we do not know if OP's ban from multiple sites was justified or not.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
banned for differences of opinion
The facts thus far don't support that conclusion. It could be OP was banned for good reason.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I doubt many people reject these facts - it is the conclusions drawn from them that can be problematic. If I had to guess, it is the latter that got you banned from other social media sites..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Both of your definitions use the term you're supposed to be defining (and aren't relevant to the OP's definition).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"infinite unoccupied space"
OP has defined 'nothing' as the complete lack of existence, so I believe that would exclude space.
Created: