Total posts: 1,740
-->
@949havoc
Which is it, a restricted right, which is otherwise known as a privilege, and not a right, or does it maintain its universal application, and Biden has committed another unconstitutional act? It's either, or; there's no middle ground.
All rights are necessarily restricted because absolute rights for absolutely everyone is absolutely impossible. You have asked a loaded question.
Also, there is a difference between making personal decision and a societal decision. The first is a right (bodily autonomy) - the second ...not so much.
Created:
Posted in:
Depends on what god it is I supposeWell my hypothetical does not suppose any particular God described, just that God does exist.
That's pretty vague and my following answers will reflect this.
but, in general, I don't think it would have any great impact to my life.But what are some of the implications you believe would transpire due to God's existence? it doesn't change your life yet I'm assuming you understand the difference between materialism/atheism and theism?
Sure. I understand atheism and materialism are not the same thing (so that part is hinting at a non sequitor), but, of course one cannot be an atheist if a god were demonstrated. So, I'd have a different label.
if God exists, what are some things you believe follow that reality on your behalf?
The existence of a god wouldn't change my identity or any core principles. I would still critically evaluate claims, I would still strive to know whats actually true, I would still hold to humanism. There would be no practical difference between SkepticalOne in a world where an undefined god exists and one where gods are a question mark.
Are you telling me that there is no difference to you between being the product of nature compared to being a product of an eternal God?
No. I'm saying the existence of something undefined may or may not make any difference. How is being a product of nature or being the product of something called god important?
For the record, you have added an attribute to "god" which is not a given - eternal. Is this part of your hypothetical...god is eternal?
If not, your hypothetical can include gods such as a very mortal little Johnny programmer who created humanity for a class project and has long since traveled into oblivion.
your origins don't matter to you?
Nope. How humanity came to be doesn't have any effect on my day to day life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If it could be proven, shown and demonstrated that a God exists, what implications would arise for you personally? What would you want out of discovering this knowledge?
Depends on what god it is I suppose, but, in general, I don't think it would have any great impact to my life.
I don't get the last question. I mean, what more (besides having a better understanding of existence) would someone want from this?
Created:
-->
@janesix
How do you show something to be true?
Evidence and reason.
Created:
-->
@janesix
If we can't test someone's knowledge for veracity, is it really knowledge?That's hard to figure out.
Knowledge is "justified true belief". If someone can not show their belief is true, then it is not justified or knowledge.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Won't it be a hoot when it is discovered [it will be] that the real insurrectionists of Jan 6 were agents of the FBI and Capitol Police.
First, it was Antifa posing as Maga...now its FBI and Capitol Police?! Hold on - let me get my popcorn before you tell this tale!
You're giving the novellas a run for their money...
Created:
-->
@janesix
I suppose some people could have superior knowledge to mine, yet you have no idea if your knowledge is truly correct. How could you?
If we can't test someone's knowledge for veracity, is it really knowledge?
BTW: I'm glad you are feeling better!
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Why aren't the vaccines I suggested viable alternatives?
I asked if the vaccines you listed were completely free of fetal lines in - not just development, but also - testing and production. If fetal cells were used in no part of the process then they would be viable alternatives. I don't know if this is something you considered.
I disagree that we are in the socio-political position to make such demands on nurses.
Maybe - I don't have enough info to weigh in on that
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I have 2 thoughts.
First, you suggest there are vaccines which were not developed with fetal cells that might be used to satisfy those with a religious objection. However, unless we also discount vaccines which use fetal cells for testing or production, I submit we are not really providing a legitimate alternative. How many vaccines meet this limitation?
First, you suggest there are vaccines which were not developed with fetal cells that might be used to satisfy those with a religious objection. However, unless we also discount vaccines which use fetal cells for testing or production, I submit we are not really providing a legitimate alternative. How many vaccines meet this limitation?
Secondly, we don't have a viable alternative currently. If one were available to meet the objectors demands, I would agree - give them what they want so we can keep qualified staff. In the absense of a valid alternative, the only option is to ask them to leave. We should not lower our standards of expertise in the name of keeping 'qualified' individuals. If they do not recognize best practices and/or take seriously their oath to 'do no harm' they are not qualified.
Created:
A regional medical center in Arkansas is requiring all staff to be vaccinated by Oct 8. About 5% of staff are using religious exemptions to avoid getting vaccinated because they were developed with fetal cells lines (from an abortion in 1973).
Interestingly, a number of OTC medications were also developed with this same cell line. Hospital administrators, in an effort to ensure sincere belief and perhaps inform those unaware of the scope of their convictions, are requiring objectors to sign a form stating they will cease using these drugs as well. These include Tylenol, Ibuprofen, Motrin, Tums, Pepto Bismol, aspirin, Benadryl, etc.
[LINK]
Suffice to say, I am of the opinion there is nothing immoral with using any of these drugs/vaccines. Even if someone were opposed to abortion, the abortion from which these cells are derived has already occurred. No amount of conscientious objection will change that. Might it be that from a prolife position utilizing these cells is the best way to honor the fetus from which they came?
I dont know - food for thought.
Created:
-->
@thett3
True, but when no argument is provided by OP it doesn't really matter.
Created:
-->
@thett3
I'm not attacking the opinions of the author. I showed the self-admitted bias of the source.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
From your source:"That being said, we exist within the online community of people which has become the alt-right, we know many people who run notable alt-right sites, and our ideology exists within the alt-right if one has a “big tent” conception of the movement."Yeah and you using this (if it even came from any of the sources) is just you ad homming LOL.
It is not an insult to quote a source - if you view someone's own words as impugning their character, you should probably find a better source for your information. Also, you did not make an argument (not even one) - you posted a bunch of links. They can be dismissed in the absence of argumentation - no dodge is needed. If you posted this in a formal debate, you would be eaten alive.
Again, you don't understand ad hom (or debate).
Created:
You don't understand ad hom very well.You've failed to demonstrate this at all.1. What argument has been avoided? (Note: assertions aren't arguments).2. What insult has been directed at your person?"they admit to a bias (alt-right)" -- This is Ad Hominem. It attacks the nature of the people making the argument (who are apparently "alt-right"), as opposed to the argument itself (that the shitlib narratives are wrong).
From your source:
"That being said, we exist within the online community of people which has become the alt-right, we know many people who run notable alt-right sites, and our ideology exists within the alt-right if one has a “big tent” conception of the movement."
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
You don't understand ad hom very well.
1. What argument has been avoided? (Note: assertions aren't arguments).
2. What insult has been directed at your person?
Have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
I stated facts about the inadequacies of your source. Do you find that insulting?
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
Your source leaves a lot to be desired. In short, they admit to a bias (alt-right) and avoid the methodology (science/peer review) which would filter it out. Using this to 'substantiate' your position doesn't do a lot for you...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
there's good evidence for God. atheism is irrational because they pretend there's no evidence or at least there's enough evidence to be at least agnostic.
'There's enough evidence for god to hold the view that god is not known (agnosticism)'.
Agreed.
BTW- atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. So, you're undermining your own argument...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody is required to federally register, prove, and carry a certificate for covid vaccinations either.This is the proposal under discussion.
Is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
If you start out with a bad premise, I don't see how youre going to end with a valid premise. Surely, you wouldn't waste your time on something obviously dubious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
We know with absolute and omniscient scientific certainty that...
Someone doesn't understand how science works: Absolute certainty is not a science thing.
You lost me with the first statement.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
NOBODY IS REQUIRED TO FEDERALLY REGISTER AND PROVE AND CARRY A CERTIFICATE FOR SEATBELT AND OR HARNESS COMPLIANCE.
Nobody is required to federally register, prove, and carry a certificate for covid vaccinations either.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
ILLEGAL DRUG TESTING IS NOT FEDERALLY MANDATED.
Drug testing illegal? Nah. Why you screaming, bud? You okay?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Buckling a seatbelt is not a medical procedure.
So? Besides, companies require drug tests on a regular basis. Some jobs might require a physical...
Your employer does not require you to present a certificate declaring your "100% seatbelt compliance" as a condition of your employment.
If you have a driving job, your employer can certainly require you to wear a seatbelt. If you drive a cherry picker, you will 100% lose that job if found not wearing your harness.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
It's not illegal - there is precedent. Eg. Seatbelts in our vehicles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeadFire27
I play on Chess.com - user name Cgibbson11. I prefer a 3 day limit. My rating is in the 1300's.
Anyone interested is welcome to set up a challenge there.
Created:
I think more dead kids is exactly the image Biden needs right now.
With Republican governors literally working against schools (and local governments) trying to protect children (and society in general), Republicans have absolutely no room to criticize....
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
LOL NOW YOU GIVE ANY SHITT ABOUT DRONE STRIKES AS SOOOOOOOON AS BIDEN IS ELECTED YOUR HILARIOUS!
Of course. The Orange Manchild could do no wrong...Biden can do nothing right - or so the narrative goes.
If Trump were in office, Parrot would be defending this because, for him (or so it seems), his objections are purely political.
Created:
More criticism absent context. It is thought secondary explosions (which are responsible for unexpected deaths) were caused by explosive materials in car. If that is the case, then a strike to prevent 'an imminent ISIS-K threat' appears justified.
That being said, my heart goes out to those dealing with the loss of their innocent loved ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Question to the Bible: Should foreigners be treated the same way as native born people?Bible: Yes"The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”" Exodus 12:49Bible: No“At the end of seven years, you shall have a release of debts … Of a foreigner you may require it; but you shall give up your claim to what is owed by your brother” (Deuteronomy 15:1-3)
Contradiction created by translation.
Exodus 12:49 foreigner = guest
Deuteronomy 15:3 foreigner = stranger
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Margaret Taylor Greene for president?!
Eek.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Any brains cells within a teratoma can be very much alive.How? Wouldn't the cells have died outside the human body (maybe like not getting enough oxygen)?
Teratomas exist within the human body.
[Link]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think those brain cells are dead when they are displayed on a human.
Any brains cells within a teratoma can be very much alive.
I assure you a teratoma meets your standard of personhood: human DNA and specialized cells (including brain cells). I encourage you to re-think this standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
My bad; I thought teratomas were a type of animal for a second.
Glad we were able to clear the confusion.
But teratomas don't have brain cells so if someone wanted to get a teratoma removed, it would be like getting a haircut.
Teratomas can have brain cells.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Human DNA has very little in common with Teratomas.
Yah, no joke.
I'm not comparing teratomas to human DNA - I'm saying they have human DNA and specialized cells exactly like a fetus. If this is your standard for personhood, then teratomas are people. Are you good with that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If having brain cells is your line, then teratomas can be human beings too.Teratomas don't have the DNA to be a human. You need both the DNA and specialized cells to be human.
Teratomas have human DNA and specialized cells...
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Reality has a well known liberal bias - Stephen Colbert
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
No doubt, if no equipment were left in support and the Taliban took control, some would be arguing we left Afghanistan defenseless.
...and how can you say we've left anyone behind when we are still in the process of evacuating?
Listen, if you want to say the process could have been done better - fine, Ill agree, but if you just want to nitpick because politics I can't really take the objection seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
Let's compare one situation absent of context to another absent of truth...so dishonest.
For the record Obama didn't give 17 billion worth of taxpayer funds to Iran, and US equipment was left to Afghan forces - not the Taliban. Plus 85B is a gross overestimate for the equipment - try less than $10B.
Parrot boy still has me blocked so this is for informational purposes for anyone interested in reality.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
it's considered a fact of science that damaged retinas to the point of blindness cannot be repaired.
Ahh, so now its not just damaged retinas, but retinas damaged to the point of blindness. Moving the goalposts....
Without specifics its difficult to address your example, but I do have questions. Was the damaged retina properly diagnosed? Was there a surgery before the 'miracle'? I suspect a misdiagnosis, self-diagnosis (no diagnosis) and/or a surgery. I look forward to more info from you.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I am a protestant.. This does not mean I reject all of Catholicism. I personally don't go for the RC definition of Saint either. But one assumes that even in the RC they must have some standard definition of a miracle and also a standard of proof that needs to be met in order to make a person a saint. After all, if there were no definite standards then there would be more saints - and not too much difficulty to become one.For the gate to be managed effectively, there must be a standard of proof - for a miracle. That is my point.
Best I can tell, the Vatican has the same philosophy on miracles you do. They deem unexplained healings/events as miracles. What's worse, is that they have also deemed what CAN be explained as miracles too. Its not about a consistent standard of proof, but a hurdle to sainthood which can be adjusted as necessary.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
retinas dont just heal themselves.
You equate retinas being healed without treatment as supernatural because you wrongly assume retinas cannot heal without treatment.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
but the examples are just never reported. for me, if someone prays and then something supernatural looking occurs, i see no reason to assume similar things happen to atheists too.
"Super natural looking"
I went to a magic show and saw what appeared to be magic...but it wasn't. Likewise, someone who sees something "supernatural looking" hasn't necessarily seen the supernatural. That being said, it shouldn't come as any surprise super natural looking stuff can happen to atheists too.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I suppose you could also go the Vatican's homepage in relation to Saints. Apparently in their denomination - a Saint can only be made a Saint, having done 3 verifiable miracles.
I thought you were a protestant. I seem to remember you distancing yourself from Catholicism. Did you change your mind?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I will consistently reject the unexplained when submitted as knowledge.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
By the definition you pushed, my 14 year old son doing his homework before attempting to play Xbox would be a miracle. Its a very low bar, and clearly not what most people mean when they *seriously* claim miracles. It is quite clear miracle are thought to be the work of the claimants preferred god-concept more often than not. My definition is accurate.
Re fraud - it is a significant argument against miracles when known fraudulent accounts are still counted among the body of evidence for miracles by believers [link]. That fraud exists amongst those claiming 'miracle' isn't the problem - its that people choose to believe what has been admitted as fraud because there is no critical evaluation whatsoever (unlike science).
If people were claiming ignorance (the unexplained) was a demonstration of florb - skeptics would not be out of place saying there had been no demonstration thus calling into question the existence of florb. Florb believers might cry about skeptics pointing that out, but until claimants can establish and share knowledge of florbs (or miracles) skeptics aren't wrong.
Tl;dr? It is appropriate for skeptics to disbelieve miracles exists while the evidence/argumentation for them is literally ignorance.
Created: