Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:61-82|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pope Francis

1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 2:35:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
He seems like a really good altruistic humble fellow.

He prepared his own meals and take public transport instead of employing the usual team of drivers and cooks. In a more substantial act of modesty, he led the Argentine church in apologizing for its failure to take a more robust line against the military dictatorship.

He has urged the faithful in his native Argentina not to travel to Italy for the Mass but rather to give the money the trip would have cost to charity.

& he seems to be brilliant.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 3:21:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/13/2013 10:52:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Religion is primitive canned philosophy. It is the infancy of mankind's moral and philosophical development.

lmao this.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jerry148
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 4:09:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/17/2013 2:07:02 PM, Pwner wrote:
I don't think there's anything BS about having an abortion for financial reasons. The fact that you can pawn a kid off to an adoption agency in no way mitigates the horrendously expensive hospital bills involved with child birth and potentially consequent health problems. But, even if that's wrong, I don't think you need any particularly interesting moral justification for having an abortion (during a certain time period) because it's not a morally significant state of affairs.

Oh, so killing an unborn human isn't morally significant? Wait, that's right...that's why pro-choicers are now trying to argue that an unborn baby isn't human. Oh man, it never ends...
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 5:04:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/17/2013 4:09:22 PM, jerry148 wrote:
At 3/17/2013 2:07:02 PM, Pwner wrote:
I don't think there's anything BS about having an abortion for financial reasons. The fact that you can pawn a kid off to an adoption agency in no way mitigates the horrendously expensive hospital bills involved with child birth and potentially consequent health problems. But, even if that's wrong, I don't think you need any particularly interesting moral justification for having an abortion (during a certain time period) because it's not a morally significant state of affairs.

Oh, so killing an unborn human isn't morally significant? Wait, that's right...that's why pro-choicers are now trying to argue that an unborn baby isn't human. Oh man, it never ends...

At what stage of development? You do realize that a zygote is a cell? We kill cells all the time without a second thought, especially if they're cancer cells. There's just no good reason to elevate these cells (or group thereof) to a higher status than they are. By the time they develop into something that's uncontroversially morally significant, practically no one advocates their abortion.
jerry148
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 8:28:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At what stage of development? You do realize that a zygote is a cell? We kill cells all the time without a second thought, especially if they're cancer cells. There's just no good reason to elevate these cells (or group thereof) to a higher status than they are.

A zygote is formed by the union of the male sex cell and the female sex cell (both gametes). As the zygote travels down the Fallopian tube, it undergoes mitotic cell division, eventually (after about 4 days) forming a blastocyst (on about the 5th day). Then they are termed an "embryo" and then become a fetus.

Now, the zygote contains human DNA (as do almost all cells in our body (or maybe it is all)). However, a zygote is, biologically speaking, a human being in an early stage of development. This is similar to an infant being in an early stage of development. The zygote is not part of a causal chain that leads to a human being, but is a human being in a causal chain of development that leads to later stages of development (e.g., adulthood).

That being said, the zygote is also alive (but not conscious) and is cleaving (of course, that being how it develops). The opposite argument is that "so are the rest of our cells". The problem is, a zygote will, if not interrupted from its natural, biological task, advance through the stages of development and eventually die as an old man (or woman). The zygote, through evolution and biology, will only become another person. It won't become a giraffe, and it won't become another appendage on your body, because it is specifically designed by nature to serve one purpose: become a new person, independent of the person carrying it.

By the time they develop into something that's uncontroversially morally significant

Again, in whose morality is it morally significant? In Judeo-Christian morality, it always has, and always will be a new life and a new human. Secular morality used to agree, but, as it clearly changes with the times, now it argues that "weeeeeell....is it really a person?" (I'm not saying that secular morality is the arbitrator of science (thank God), because only science can ultimately decide if a human is a human at the moment of conception, or at some other time in the future). The thing that really pisses me off is that, for the majority of people who support abortion/choice, the designation of human/not human is purely arbitrary, and only relevant to whether or not the pregnant woman wants to keep the baby (if she wants it: "it IS a baby"; if she doesn't want it:"it's not a person"). The pro-life camp argues that whether or not you want to keep the baby, it is still a human being, whether it's a 9-day-old zygote, or a 9-month-old fetus.

practically no one advocates their abortion.

Try again. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 6:55:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
jerry148: You said it yourself, zygotes become persons. You said that. And that's exactly my point. Zygotes are not persons, they're cells. Think of my argument like this:

1. If X is not a person, then X has no right to life.
2. Zygotes are not persons.
3. Therefore, zygotes have no right to life.

The argument is logically valid meaning if its premises [(1)-(2)] are true, its conclusion [(3)] must be true.

You've conceded (2), and I don't know anyone who could rationally dispute it. All you can try and argue is they're potentially persons, but that won't do anything to undermine (2).

(1) is obviously true because rights, and duties are relationships only moral agents can stand in. Rocks, and chairs have no rights. So, it seems amply reasonable to believe that zygotes have no right to life. This means there's nothing wrong in aborting them. i.e. we're not violating anyone's rights in doing so.

As far as your remarks about Judeo-Christian morality, it's simply false to claim there is some sort of unified front against abortion. It's well known that Judaism has traditionally allowed abortions: fetuses are just appendages of mothers. Furthermore, many Christians believe abortions can be morally permissable. What you mean is that a portion of Christian theology opposes all forms of abortion. But, it doesn't appear to matter: since God doesn't exist, and Jesus never rose from the dead, their theology and the morality thereby entailed is false. Note that it doesn't help to appeal to natural law because there's no way it could justify forbidding all abortions.

Finally, your cited article in no way contradicts what I said. My claim was that by the time they develop into something uncontroversially morally significant, practically no one advocates their abortion. This obviously allows for exceptions. But your article doesn't even seem to count as an exception, because these Oxford ethicists aren't seriously proposing we kill children, they're using a reductio ad absurdum.

But, it's a terrible argument anyways. Just look at how they define person:

"We take "person" to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her."

But, aren't infants capable of doing this? Aren't adult coma patients capable? If they were, it'd be obvious that this argument was tripe, so they must be understanding 'capable' so as to rule out these obvious counter-examples. But, then their definition of person is obviously false because adult coma patients are persons! So either their definition is vulnerable to easy counter-examples, or it restricts commonsensical candidates for personhood. Either way, the argument is terrible.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 10:43:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/17/2013 1:37:51 PM, jerry148 wrote:
How does sex, that does not result in a child or illness, affect people's lives?

Are...are you serious?

No, I just thought I'd ask the question because its fun.......


So, if I started going around threatening to kill people if they did handstands, you would legislate to make handstands illegal?

No, you misread my statement. I meant that if, in a ridiculous situation, life or death of one person was decided by the success/failure of a second person's ability to do a handstand, the Church would probably debate the morality of decision-by-handstand.

Ok, so what's this got to do with anything?


Not all prostitutes hate their job, in fact some love it. It's just the ones who are forced into it through vicious circumstances that hate it.

Oh, so now you can read the minds of prostitutes?

No, but I can read and hear their words.


And even if all of them did, this is still false equivocation. We are not talking about prostitution. We are talking about people who are having sex with each other, completely of their own free will.

Which prostitutes do, but I understand your point. Being used for pleasure certainly leads to degradation and emotional issues. I'd paraphrase from [http://bit.ly...], but there's quite a lot of information.

That's anectoatal evidence from a religious organisation. It could not possible be any more biased, and any less reliable.


Not in the same way that one might use a TV remote, or a couch. But in the same way one would use their girlfriend to cuddle with, except in this case the cuddling involves a second head and lots of movement.

It is certainly in a similar fashion to how one would use a remote; as a means to an end. You wish to change a channel, so you use the remote as a tool. In the same way, you wish to achieve sexual climax, so you use another person as a tool to help you reach your climax, with no consideration for that person's needs. The giver (in this case) doesn't gain anything from giving oral sex, unlike how if you were cuddling with your girlfriend, the needs of both you and your girlfriend are satisfied (ideally). She wants to feel your presence and security, and you want to be the protector and comforter.

I simply disagree, and I doubt we will ever convince eachother that the other is correct. So I suggest we drop it.


I could argue the very same for secular morality (or lack thereof). Religious morality, as laid down in the Bible, does not change. This is with regard toward the value of human life, the dignity of human life, when (and if) it's acceptable to take another's life, etc. Religious morality isn't arbitrary, whereas secular morality changes with the zeitgeist. For example, in the past, secular morality would abhor the "right to abort a baby". Today, secular morality (as dictated by society) says that abortion should be an option offered to every woman. What today's morality says is that you're not responsible and/or patient enough to have sex inside a monogamous relationship, so you should be able to absolve yourself of the responsibility of bearing a child from a pregnancy.

Your view of secular morality is absurd, because there is no such thing. And religious morality is most certainly arbitrary. It is just as arbitrary as any morality ever.

It is not arbitrary because (at least, according to Catholics) it does not change depending on how a certain time feels about an issue such as gay sex, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

Yeah, because those slave owners in the 1800s weren't waving bibles over their heads, saying slavery is good with god. Oh wait, that's exactly what they were doing.

My view of secular morality is more or less true. Most of today's sexual encounters happen outside of monogamous relationships, and most of today's abortions are because of BS excuses such as "I'm not financially capable of having a child". There are millions of people in loving, caring homes, who wish to adopt children (often because they cannot have any), and are willing to pay for the medical bills incurred during prenatal care. "Financial issues" is not a valid excuse.

Again, secualar morality is not a thing. It does not exist. Secularism is not something that comes with a morality, or even deals with one. It doesn't even deal with moral issues in my opinion. And I would like you to go to your nearest orphanage and tell the children there, the ones who have to live off government grants because noone adopted them, that all these people exist who will adopt children.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
jerry148
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 1:18:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/18/2013 6:55:21 AM, Pwner wrote:
jerry148: You said it yourself, zygotes become persons. You said that.

No, what I actually said is that zygotes are human, but are one stage in the process of becoming a full person. They are not full persons, but they are fully human. Whether they're a clump of cells, or a geriatric in a wheelchair, they are no more and no less human. As personhood is still being hotly debated, you and I will continue to have opposing views on the subject.

And that's exactly my point. Zygotes are not persons, they're cells. Think of my argument like this:

1. If X is not a person, then X has no right to life.
2. Zygotes are not persons.
3. Therefore, zygotes have no right to life.

The argument is logically valid meaning if its premises [(1)-(2)] are true, its conclusion [(3)] must be true.

You've conceded (2), and I don't know anyone who could rationally dispute it. All you can try and argue is they're potentially persons

Right, they have the potential to be persons, but they are human.

(1) is obviously true because rights, and duties are relationships only moral agents can stand in. Rocks, and chairs have no rights. So, it seems amply reasonable to believe that zygotes have no right to life. This means there's nothing wrong in aborting them. i.e. we're not violating anyone's rights in doing so.

But, again, your logic assumes that your view of zygotes is the correct one, and your entire argument is therefore based off of your assumption.


As far as your remarks about Judeo-Christian morality, it's simply false to claim there is some sort of unified front against abortion. It's well known that Judaism has traditionally allowed abortions

I did not say that. I'm well aware that Judaism allows for abortions. What I actually stated was that Judeo-Christian morality holds that new life is human, and deserves respect. Christianity (at least Catholicism) goes further by saying that since human life deserves respect, it is immoral to support the supposed "right" to abort an unborn human.

Furthermore, many Christians believe abortions can be morally permissable.

What many Christians believe and what Christianity teaches are two very different things.

What you mean is that a portion of Christian theology opposes all forms of abortion.

To be perfectly honest, in this regard I can only speak for my Church, and my Church's theology. I can't, in good conscience, speak for 40,000+ denominations-worth of theology.

But, it doesn't appear to matter: since God doesn't exist, and Jesus never rose from the dead, their theology and the morality thereby entailed is false. Note that it doesn't help to appeal to natural law because there's no way it could justify forbidding all abortions.

I value your opinion on the existence of God, but I won't necessarily pay any attention to it.


practically no one advocates their abortion

True, you did say "practically", and I apologize for wasting your time with that article .
jerry148
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 1:58:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/18/2013 10:43:47 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/17/2013 1:37:51 PM, jerry148 wrote:
How does sex, that does not result in a child or illness, affect people's lives?

Are...are you serious?

No, I just thought I'd ask the question because its fun.......

Please, I haven't the time to go about listing information that you can get on your own. I guess I was assuming that, as a rational human being, you already knew that sexual relationships (as do any relationships and/or interactions) have very profound influences on people.



So, if I started going around threatening to kill people if they did handstands, you would legislate to make handstands illegal?

No, you misread my statement. I meant that if, in a ridiculous situation, life or death of one person was decided by the success/failure of a second person's ability to do a handstand, the Church would probably debate the morality of decision-by-handstand.

Ok, so what's this got to do with anything?

You brought up the handstand argument. Are you not following your own challenges to my statements?

Oh, so now you can read the minds of prostitutes?

No, but I can read and hear their words.

What people say and what people feel are often very different things. For example, I can say that I enjoy going to my cubicle every morning and doing paperwork, when, in reality, I am on the verge of suicide.



And even if all of them did, this is still false equivocation. We are not talking about prostitution. We are talking about people who are having sex with each other, completely of their own free will.

Which prostitutes do, but I understand your point. Being used for pleasure certainly leads to degradation and emotional issues. I'd paraphrase from [http://bit.ly...], but there's quite a lot of information.

That's anectoatal evidence from a religious organisation. It could not possible be any more biased, and any less reliable.

But does the information speak to the truth? or is it just some bullsh*t they came up with? If that source seems too biased for you, find your own non-religious/non-partisan sources that confirm what I'm asserting.



Not in the same way that one might use a TV remote, or a couch. But in the same way one would use their girlfriend to cuddle with, except in this case the cuddling involves a second head and lots of movement.

It is certainly in a similar fashion to how one would use a remote; as a means to an end. You wish to change a channel, so you use the remote as a tool. In the same way, you wish to achieve sexual climax, so you use another person as a tool to help you reach your climax, with no consideration for that person's needs. The giver (in this case) doesn't gain anything from giving oral sex, unlike how if you were cuddling with your girlfriend, the needs of both you and your girlfriend are satisfied (ideally). She wants to feel your presence and security, and you want to be the protector and comforter.

I simply disagree, and I doubt we will ever convince eachother that the other is correct. So I suggest we drop it.


I could argue the very same for secular morality (or lack thereof). Religious morality, as laid down in the Bible, does not change. This is with regard toward the value of human life, the dignity of human life, when (and if) it's acceptable to take another's life, etc. Religious morality isn't arbitrary, whereas secular morality changes with the zeitgeist. For example, in the past, secular morality would abhor the "right to abort a baby". Today, secular morality (as dictated by society) says that abortion should be an option offered to every woman. What today's morality says is that you're not responsible and/or patient enough to have sex inside a monogamous relationship, so you should be able to absolve yourself of the responsibility of bearing a child from a pregnancy.

Your view of secular morality is absurd, because there is no such thing. And religious morality is most certainly arbitrary. It is just as arbitrary as any morality ever.

It is not arbitrary because (at least, according to Catholics) it does not change depending on how a certain time feels about an issue such as gay sex, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

Yeah, because those slave owners in the 1800s weren't waving bibles over their heads, saying slavery is good with god. Oh wait, that's exactly what they were doing.

I won't defend Protestant Christian slave owners (the majority of slave owners in the American south) because their reasoning for slavery was based on an unsurprisingly distorted view of Biblical passages referring to slavery/indentured servitude.


My view of secular morality is more or less true. Most of today's sexual encounters happen outside of monogamous relationships, and most of today's abortions are because of BS excuses such as "I'm not financially capable of having a child". There are millions of people in loving, caring homes, who wish to adopt children (often because they cannot have any), and are willing to pay for the medical bills incurred during prenatal care. "Financial issues" is not a valid excuse.

Again, secualar morality is not a thing. It does not exist.

Well maybe not anymore. But all jokes aside, secular morality is unequivocally a real thing.

Secularism is not something that comes with a morality, or even deals with one. It doesn't even deal with moral issues in my opinion.

Sure it does. It is based off of philosophical arguments, rather than religious arguments.

And I would like you to go to your nearest orphanage and tell the children there, the ones who have to live off government grants because noone adopted them, that all these people exist who will adopt children.

In my opinion, the reason that more and more people are choosing in vitro and/or surrogacy (instead of simply adopting), is because many people don't want to be bothered/have the tenacity to take care of "someone else's mistake". But that's just one tenet of today's increasingly self-centered, and self-involved society. Why pick up where someone else left off, instead of starting off new?
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 2:15:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
jerry148: I proposed the following argument to show that there's nothing wrong, per se, in aborting a human zygote:

1. If X isn't a person, then X doesn't have the right to life.
2. Zygotes aren't persons.
3. Therefore, Zygotes don't have the right to life.

As I said, because this argument is logically valid, if (1) and (2) are true, then (3) has to be true. You've confirmed that you endorse premise (2) because Zygotes are potentially persons rather than actually persons.

This means, the only way to rationally avoid the conclusion is to deny premise (1). But, how do you do that? Well, you said that human zygotes are human beings. The only way I can interpret this as an objection to (1) is if you mean that a human being has a right to life, even if it isn't a person.

But, what do you mean by 'human being' if not a person with human DNA? You seem to conceive of a 'human being' as an organism--which needn't be a person--that has human DNA in a certain way. Obviously, human DNA can reside in any manner of organisms including skin cells, or other animals altogether. So, I'm not sure in what way you think human DNA needs to reside in an organism in order for it to count as a human being. Without a clearer notion of 'human being', I don't see how we can reasonably say human beings have a right to life, even if they're not persons.
Composer
Posts: 6,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 3:23:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/13/2013 10:32:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Sounds like a homo. I was hoping for Pope Jamal; it's time to bring some blackness to the Vatican.

Yes the Story book jebus was an eternal Jew and hence its Story book skin-color would have been on the darker-olive complexion side!

Certainly not white-skinned as the corrupt catholics portray it in the Pagan Graven-Images!

At 3/13/2013 10:41:29 PM, BigSky wrote:
Get the hell off my forum.

Fortunately western educated catholics are abandoning the catholic ' paedophile paradise ' in droves!

ALL catholics are in fact ' agents of their catholic Satan(Peter) ' according to their very own Story book (Mark 8:33) RSV catholic Story book 1966 edition

ALL trinitarians including catholics are wanna-be agents of a Mother Fukkr (Luke 1:35) RSV catholic Story book 1966 edition

Your vindicated mentor, 50 year successful Cult busting personal successful literal Saviour, moi!
Composer
Posts: 6,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 3:34:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2013 11:44:35 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Most of the world is Christian.

Oops!

Then according to your own catholic Story book propaganda, you catholics are in deep trouble, LOL!

cf. "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matt. 7:13-14) RSV catholic Story book 1966 edition

Your alleged ' safety in numbers ' is actually Fatal to your catholic Cult cause according to your very own propaganda!

Your vindicated mentor, 50 year successful Cult busting personal successful literal Saviour, moi!
jerry148
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 4:45:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Obviously, human DNA can reside in any manner of organisms including skin cells

As I've already pointed out...

So, I'm not sure in what way you think human DNA needs to reside in an organism in order for it to count as a human being.

Human DNA residing in a fertilized egg which, if not stopped by contraception, induced abortion, or natural abortion, will follow its biological process and only proceed to become a new being, independent of the mother.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 5:10:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/18/2013 1:58:05 PM, jerry148 wrote:
At 3/18/2013 10:43:47 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/17/2013 1:37:51 PM, jerry148 wrote:
How does sex, that does not result in a child or illness, affect people's lives?

Are...are you serious?

No, I just thought I'd ask the question because its fun.......

Please, I haven't the time to go about listing information that you can get on your own. I guess I was assuming that, as a rational human being, you already knew that sexual relationships (as do any relationships and/or interactions) have very profound influences on people.

Yes of course, how could I not automatically know this.

Either explain your point or don't bother trying to make it.




So, if I started going around threatening to kill people if they did handstands, you would legislate to make handstands illegal?

No, you misread my statement. I meant that if, in a ridiculous situation, life or death of one person was decided by the success/failure of a second person's ability to do a handstand, the Church would probably debate the morality of decision-by-handstand.

Ok, so what's this got to do with anything?

You brought up the handstand argument. Are you not following your own challenges to my statements?

Yes, I did. I said that if people can't have sex purely for pleasure, why can they do handstands purely for pleasure. Now I want to know what life or death situations has to do with that.


Oh, so now you can read the minds of prostitutes?

No, but I can read and hear their words.

What people say and what people feel are often very different things. For example, I can say that I enjoy going to my cubicle every morning and doing paperwork, when, in reality, I am on the verge of suicide.

No true Scotsman fallacy.






And even if all of them did, this is still false equivocation. We are not talking about prostitution. We are talking about people who are having sex with each other, completely of their own free will.

Which prostitutes do, but I understand your point. Being used for pleasure certainly leads to degradation and emotional issues. I'd paraphrase from [http://bit.ly...], but there's quite a lot of information.

That's anectoatal evidence from a religious organisation. It could not possible be any more biased, and any less reliable.

But does the information speak to the truth? or is it just some bullsh*t they came up with? If that source seems too biased for you, find your own non-religious/non-partisan sources that confirm what I'm asserting.

Yes, because it is my job to prove your assertions.




Not in the same way that one might use a TV remote, or a couch. But in the same way one would use their girlfriend to cuddle with, except in this case the cuddling involves a second head and lots of movement.

It is certainly in a similar fashion to how one would use a remote; as a means to an end. You wish to change a channel, so you use the remote as a tool. In the same way, you wish to achieve sexual climax, so you use another person as a tool to help you reach your climax, with no consideration for that person's needs. The giver (in this case) doesn't gain anything from giving oral sex, unlike how if you were cuddling with your girlfriend, the needs of both you and your girlfriend are satisfied (ideally). She wants to feel your presence and security, and you want to be the protector and comforter.

I simply disagree, and I doubt we will ever convince eachother that the other is correct. So I suggest we drop it.


I could argue the very same for secular morality (or lack thereof). Religious morality, as laid down in the Bible, does not change. This is with regard toward the value of human life, the dignity of human life, when (and if) it's acceptable to take another's life, etc. Religious morality isn't arbitrary, whereas secular morality changes with the zeitgeist. For example, in the past, secular morality would abhor the "right to abort a baby". Today, secular morality (as dictated by society) says that abortion should be an option offered to every woman. What today's morality says is that you're not responsible and/or patient enough to have sex inside a monogamous relationship, so you should be able to absolve yourself of the responsibility of bearing a child from a pregnancy.

Your view of secular morality is absurd, because there is no such thing. And religious morality is most certainly arbitrary. It is just as arbitrary as any morality ever.

It is not arbitrary because (at least, according to Catholics) it does not change depending on how a certain time feels about an issue such as gay sex, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

Yeah, because those slave owners in the 1800s weren't waving bibles over their heads, saying slavery is good with god. Oh wait, that's exactly what they were doing.

I won't defend Protestant Christian slave owners (the majority of slave owners in the American south) because their reasoning for slavery was based on an unsurprisingly distorted view of Biblical passages referring to slavery/indentured servitude.

Thank you for proving my point.



My view of secular morality is more or less true. Most of today's sexual encounters happen outside of monogamous relationships, and most of today's abortions are because of BS excuses such as "I'm not financially capable of having a child". There are millions of people in loving, caring homes, who wish to adopt children (often because they cannot have any), and are willing to pay for the medical bills incurred during prenatal care. "Financial issues" is not a valid excuse.

Again, secualar morality is not a thing. It does not exist.

Well maybe not anymore. But all jokes aside, secular morality is unequivocally a real thing.

No, it's really not.


Secularism is not something that comes with a morality, or even deals with one. It doesn't even deal with moral issues in my opinion.

Sure it does. It is based off of philosophical arguments, rather than religious arguments.

No, it doesn't. Secularism is the idea that religion and government should be seperate. It is not a moral source.


And I would like you to go to your nearest orphanage and tell the children there, the ones who have to live off government grants because noone adopted them, that all these people exist who will adopt children.

In my opinion, the reason that more and more people are choosing in vitro and/or surrogacy (instead of simply adopting), is because many people don't want to be bothered/have the tenacity to take care of "someone else's mistake". But that's just one tenet of today's increasingly self-centered, and self-involved society. Why pick up where someone else left off, instead of starting off new?

That is completely off topic. Either go to the nearest orphanage and tell the children about the millions of parents that are ready to adopt them, or concede that you lied. And if you want to bitch about how people don't want to care for others mistakes, then why don't you adopt a couple kids while your there.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
jerry148
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 6:30:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yes of course, how could I not automatically know this.

Either explain your point or don't bother trying to make it.

I was talking about sex, and you brought up handstands. The Church has deep-seated opinions on sex and sexuality because the two are extremely important (and in many cases, controversial) in the lives of humans.

Yes, I did. I said that if people can't have sex purely for pleasure, why can they do handstands purely for pleasure. Now I want to know what life or death situations has to do with that.

I apologize, I misread your statement. Handstands are only relative to sex in that they involve your body doing an activity. You choosing to do a handstand does not (normally) affect another person, physically or psychologically, as does sex. You choosing to do a handstand is not a choice influenced by morality (unless you adhere to a convoluted morality in which handstands are very important).

Oh, so now you can read the minds of prostitutes?

No, but I can read and hear their words.

What people say and what people feel are often very different things. For example, I can say that I enjoy going to my cubicle every morning and doing paperwork, when, in reality, I am on the verge of suicide.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

How so?

Thank you for proving my point.

What point?

No, it's really not.

Really? http://en.wikipedia.org...

No, it doesn't. Secularism is the idea that religion and government should be seperate. It is not a moral source.

True, secularism isn't a moral source. But it does espouse a morality, just one that is divorced from religious morality.

That is completely off topic. Either go to the nearest orphanage and tell the children about the millions of parents that are ready to adopt them, or concede that you lied.

http://www.care2.com... Second section. My point. I have other things to do.

And if you want to bitch about how people don't want to care for others mistakes, then why don't you adopt a couple kids while your there.

That's funny. I'm not bitching about it, I'm simply pointing out a truism [see above link]. And if I was considering starting a family, I might indeed consider adopting a child. Especially if my wife was infertile.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 7:04:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2013 6:30:41 PM, jerry148 wrote:
Yes of course, how could I not automatically know this.

Either explain your point or don't bother trying to make it.

I was talking about sex, and you brought up handstands. The Church has deep-seated opinions on sex and sexuality because the two are extremely important (and in many cases, controversial) in the lives of humans.

So they are controversial about it because it is controversial? Sex and sexuality only have the importance we bestowe upon them, all youre doing is making circular arguments. If people didn't make a big deal out of it, it wouldn't be a big deal.


Yes, I did. I said that if people can't have sex purely for pleasure, why can they do handstands purely for pleasure. Now I want to know what life or death situations has to do with that.

I apologize, I misread your statement. Handstands are only relative to sex in that they involve your body doing an activity. You choosing to do a handstand does not (normally) affect another person, physically or psychologically, as does sex. You choosing to do a handstand is not a choice influenced by morality (unless you adhere to a convoluted morality in which handstands are very important).

Sex only affects a person psychologically in certain context. If you would like, I can give you an example of a context in which handstands will affect someone in a negative psychological manner.

And sex is only a moral issue if you make it one.


Oh, so now you can read the minds of prostitutes?

No, but I can read and hear their words.

What people say and what people feel are often very different things. For example, I can say that I enjoy going to my cubicle every morning and doing paperwork, when, in reality, I am on the verge of suicide.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

How so?

You essentially said that because they could be lying, the all must be. This is a no true Scotsman fallacy.


Thank you for proving my point.

What point?

Ok let me put it this way. First you said that the Christian morality never changes, then I said that slave owners used to say that slavery was endorsed by Christianity, then you said that they were using a defunct version of the bible. This proves my point that Christian morality changes like any other. Regardless of wether you believe they were reading into it improperly, the fact is that it changed. And it will continue to do so.


No, it's really not.

Really? http://en.wikipedia.org...

Fair enough, I thought you were trying to claim the existence of some morality that applied to all secularists.


No, it doesn't. Secularism is the idea that religion and government should be seperate. It is not a moral source.

True, secularism isn't a moral source. But it does espouse a morality, just one that is divorced from religious morality.

No, moralities can be secular, but secularism doesn't have a necessary morality. You do realise that theists can be secular to, right?


That is completely off topic. Either go to the nearest orphanage and tell the children about the millions of parents that are ready to adopt them, or concede that you lied.

http://www.care2.com... Second section. My point. I have other things to do.

So, now you're changing your point from "millions of parents want to adopt kids so why abort?" to "people don't want to adopt kids so blah"?


And if you want to bitch about how people don't want to care for others mistakes, then why don't you adopt a couple kids while your there.

That's funny. I'm not bitching about it, I'm simply pointing out a truism [see above link]. And if I was considering starting a family, I might indeed consider adopting a child. Especially if my wife was infertile.

Yes, you are bitching.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
jerry148
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:48:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So they are controversial about it because it is controversial? Sex and sexuality only have the importance we bestowe upon them, all youre doing is making circular arguments. If people didn't make a big deal out of it, it wouldn't be a big deal.

People make a big deal about it because it IS a big deal.

If the Syrian rebels didn't make a big deal out of Bashar al-Assad's oppression, it wouldn't be a big deal.

Sex only affects a person psychologically in certain context.

Such as a one-night-stand with no follow up communication. Or even a sexual relationship between people who had, up until then, just been friends for a long time, and then they break up, and find it difficult and often confusing to readjust to just being friends.

And sex is only a moral issue if you make it one.

In the same way that nuclear proliferation is only an issue if you make it one.

You essentially said that because they could be lying, the all must be. This is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

I think that might be a reverse No True Scotsman. But I didn't say that. I'm trying to convey to you that prostitutes are being used for pleasure. The client is not expressing any type of love for the prostitute (not genuine or superficial). Therefore the prostitute is being degraded, since she is being used as an object, or a tool, for the client to receive pleasure.

I mean, yeah, she's receiving payment for it...but is money really a sufficient trade for your dignity? Never mind, I'd rather not get into that.

Ok let me put it this way. First you said that the Christian morality never changes, then I said that slave owners used to say that slavery was endorsed by Christianity, then you said that they were using a defunct version of the bible. This proves my point that Christian morality changes like any other. Regardless of wether you believe they were reading into it improperly, the fact is that it changed. And it will continue to do so.

Again, what I actually said was "at least, according to Catholics". Southern Protestant slave owners absolutely used the Bible to justify slavery. But I did not say they used a defunct version of the Bible, I said they interpreted whatever verses they used, as justification for slavery. Catholics have, at times in the past, okay-ed indentured servitude, but rarely slavery. Indentured servitude is still used today - it's called "a job".

Fair enough, I thought you were trying to claim the existence of some morality that applied to all secularists.

Of course not. It's the same as Catholic morality: the Church teaches A, B, and C, but half of the Church's followers practice 1, 2, and 3.

No, moralities can be secular, but secularism doesn't have a necessary morality. You do realise that theists can be secular to, right?

Absolutely they can. Read my above response.



That is completely off topic. Either go to the nearest orphanage and tell the children about the millions of parents that are ready to adopt them, or concede that you lied.

http://www.care2.com... Second section. My point. I have other things to do.

So, now you're changing your point from "millions of parents want to adopt kids so why abort?" to "people don't want to adopt kids so blah"?

Nope. I'm saying that millions want do to adopt, and are willing to pay for a pregnant girl's prenatal care, so they don't have to abort, but those who don't want to adopt do so because they want to "start off fresh".



And if you want to bitch about how people don't want to care for others mistakes, then why don't you adopt a couple kids while your there.

That's funny. I'm not bitching about it, I'm simply pointing out a truism [see above link]. And if I was considering starting a family, I might indeed consider adopting a child. Especially if my wife was infertile.

Yes, you are bitching.

You say to-may-toe, I say to-mah-to.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 4:43:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:48:58 PM, jerry148 wrote:
So they are controversial about it because it is controversial? Sex and sexuality only have the importance we bestowe upon them, all youre doing is making circular arguments. If people didn't make a big deal out of it, it wouldn't be a big deal.

People make a big deal about it because it IS a big deal.

If the Syrian rebels didn't make a big deal out of Bashar al-Assad's oppression, it wouldn't be a big deal.

False analogy. Give me one reason why sex is a big deal, that cannot be prevented with a condom.


Sex only affects a person psychologically in certain context.

Such as a one-night-stand with no follow up communication.

No, not such as that. Thousands of people regularly engage in such relationships with no psychological issues.

Or even a sexual relationship between people who had, up until then, just been friends for a long time, and then they break up, and find it difficult and often confusing to readjust to just being friends.

Yeah, awkwardness is such a huge deal........


And sex is only a moral issue if you make it one.

In the same way that nuclear proliferation is only an issue if you make it
one.

Please stop making false analogies between sex, and violations of human rights/weapons of mass destruction.......


You essentially said that because they could be lying, the all must be. This is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

I think that might be a reverse No True Scotsman. But I didn't say that. I'm trying to convey to you that prostitutes are being used for pleasure. The client is not expressing any type of love for the prostitute (not genuine or superficial). Therefore the prostitute is being degraded, since she is being used as an object, or a tool, for the client to receive pleasure.

I mean, yeah, she's receiving payment for it...but is money really a sufficient trade for your dignity? Never mind, I'd rather not get into that.

Forgetting the fact that this is 90% off topic, can you answer this simple question. Some prostitutes have come forward and said they enjoy there job. Do you believe they are all lying, yes or no?


Ok let me put it this way. First you said that the Christian morality never changes, then I said that slave owners used to say that slavery was endorsed by Christianity, then you said that they were using a defunct version of the bible. This proves my point that Christian morality changes like any other. Regardless of wether you believe they were reading into it improperly, the fact is that it changed. And it will continue to do so.

Again, what I actually said was "at least, according to Catholics". Southern Protestant slave owners absolutely used the Bible to justify slavery. But I did not say they used a defunct version of the Bible, I said they interpreted whatever verses they used, as justification for slavery. Catholics have, at times in the past, okay-ed indentured servitude, but rarely slavery. Indentured servitude is still used today - it's called "a job".

You completely avoid the point. The fact is that Christian morality changes with the times just like any other. Is it not true that Catholics started the crusades? Yet now such a thing would never happen, because it is against the church's current morality. It used to be the church advocated the imprisoning of homosexuals, and in some cases the death, now it's ok as long as they don't have sex. All moralities change with society. This is because we all have a group think mentality. And all religious folk apply their own morality to the bible and say the bible supports it. How else do you explain the mass amounts of different sects? Everybody thinks their right, and everybody else is wrong. But how can that possibly be when you have an objective source? It's because as soon as things are left open for interpretation, people will interpret it to mean what they want it to mean.


Fair enough, I thought you were trying to claim the existence of some morality that applied to all secularists.

Of course not. It's the same as Catholic morality: the Church teaches A, B, and C, but half of the Church's followers practice 1, 2, and 3.

No, it's not. Because secularism doesn't teach any morality. What your doing is like saying that atheism has a morality. Secularism has no morality, it is nothing more and nothing less then the belief that religion and government should be seperate.


No, moralities can be secular, but secularism doesn't have a necessary morality. You do realise that theists can be secular to, right?

Absolutely they can. Read my above response.



That is completely off topic. Either go to the nearest orphanage and tell the children about the millions of parents that are ready to adopt them, or concede that you lied.

http://www.care2.com... Second section. My point. I have other things to do.

So, now you're changing your point from "millions of parents want to adopt kids so why abort?" to "people don't want to adopt kids so blah"?

Nope. I'm saying that millions want do to adopt, and are willing to pay for a pregnant girl's prenatal care, so they don't have to abort,

Where do you get this number "millions"?

but those who don't want to adopt do so because they want to "start off fresh".

Not necessarily. There is also the idea of the continuation of a genetic line. And I'm sure if I actually looked, I could find many other reasons. Or there is the simple fact that they want a child that they made themselves.



And if you want to bitch about how people don't want to care for others mistakes, then why don't you adopt a couple kids while your there.

That's funny. I'm not bitching about it, I'm simply pointing out a truism [see above link]. And if I was considering starting a family, I might indeed consider adopting a child. Especially if my wife was infertile.

Yes, you are bitching.

You say to-may-toe, I say to-mah-to.

So, you agree that you are, but you would rather use a different word? How about whining?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 6,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:15:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/13/2013 10:40:27 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/13/2013 10:32:18 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Sounds like a homo. I was hoping for Pope Jamal; it's time to bring some blackness to the Vatican.

I think it'll be a long time until they do that, because they fear being unable to go back.

Zing!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Composer
Posts: 6,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:22:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2013 11:44:35 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Most of the world is Christian.

Oops!

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction , and many there be which go in thereat: {strait: or, narrow} 14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. {Because: or, How} (Matt. 7:13-14) KJV Story book

LOL!
Composer
Posts: 6,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 3:33:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/14/2013 12:14:16 PM, johnlubba wrote:
Free speech is one thing and insulting somebody's religious leader out right is something else altogether.......... I'm not even Catholic but I can respect that......Would you be so keen on free speech if I stated all atheists are homos and @holes?....ijs

Say what you will freely, but only thanks to those selfless Atheists that died & fought & still fight on the various battle-fields to give believers & non-believers that opportunity.

Coonversely your legitimate evidence for your various claims remains a total of zero as in this case here, simply by the very fact I am an Atheist and strict heterosexual, hence your statement in that regard is proven spurious; but homosexuals I agree are ass_holes that prefer other ass_holes like themselves!

Do you prefer ass_holes yourself?

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.