May the bridges I burn light the way!
This oversight was not the best decision, and "security" was probably not the focus to be so obvious, but all that glory goes to God for getting the word out and the message across to those that NEED to hear it and get this discussion going. Thanks Ray for the "mistake" *wink. Moving on.
This needs to be discussed, ad nauseum. Until that glorious day that this will be a thing of America's past. Its quite hypocritical that we invade countries in the name of "freedom" when we trample on the freedoms, endowed by our Creator, of some 53 million US citizens. I digress.
The current, daily, American Holocaust is some five times WORSE then anything Hitler has done in his Holocaust (by shear magnitude of the number of legal murders). Also, far worse then what was considered the first American Holocaust with the elimination, conservative estimates, of 19 million Indigenous People. Though, technically, we were not a United Nation as we are NOW. No excuses for this Holocaust. These are brute facts that we MUST own up to. Its shameful to be a part of a country that is part of such EVIL!!!! We can see how Germany must feel about their past. The only exception is that its not our past, its America's PRESENT!!!!
Of course I will want to put a presuppositional emphasis on things because that is what we do here.
Here is the thrust of the point to be made.
Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that is NOT a person in the woman's belly?
If so, how can you be certain? If not, then wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution until we KNOW with certainty? Our friend, Chad Williams, lays it out with a Navy Seal, sniper like, perfection within this video:
Now, if we are not sure if people are in the building, which there are, WHY would we want to proceed? Its absolutely ludicrous! ASSUMING there are no people, is completely reckless and CRIMINAL.
"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain
Stop paying lip service, and try to be intellectually honest here enough to consider the points in these two videos.
Its time people take a stand, and say NO MORE!!!
Hitler, because of the law makers, was not breaking any laws. Same with the USA. Because of our laws, we now have an actual lawful Holocaust under our belt. Does that make it right?! Its time to STAND and say, ENOUGH!!
bit.ly/USAHolocaust
Great video and logic used against the prochoicer...sadly too many prochoice are willfully ignorant&know the fetus is a human being but don't care :(
ReplyDeleteDan, if the Bible/God said abortion was okay, would you still say it was wrong?
ReplyDeleteRight back 'atcha Dan.
ReplyDeleteAre you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it IS a person in the woman's belly?
If so, how can you be certain?
Cue cries of "REVELATION!"
Which of course is simply Dan's code word for "Because I say so".
How is it that you can have no problem with genocide, the killing of babies outside of the womb, and their pregnant mothers yet pretend to care about fetuses? That seems to be a common case of double-minded morality among christians.
ReplyDeleteDan said...
ReplyDelete53 million US citizens
Except that citizenship is only conferred at the moment of birth (14th amendment - and that only since 1868). So, in actual fact, no US citizens have had their freedom's trampled on, as you claim.
You digress indeed.
"Its time people take a stand, and say NO MORE!!!
ReplyDeleteIf they would of just done that in Germany, Hitler would never have been able to come to power. Hitler, because of the law makers, was not breaking any laws."
Now you've changed the topic slightly. Here you are talking about preventing Hitler from coming to power, so the holocaust and all other events that happen after he came to power are no longer relevant, because nobody at the time could know that was going to happen.
You make it seem as though if people just didn't support Hitler everything would have been fine in Germany. In reality the Reichstag was full of several different extremist parties. The real choice was, which totalitarian party do you want to control the government. Its like choosing between Democrats and Republicans, only worse, if you can imagine that. Many people, especially corporations, feared a communist take over, and for good reason since communist party was one of the more powerful in the Reichstag, so they supported the Nazis as the best chance to prevent a Communist take over.
You are right that people could have prevented Hitler from ever taking power but the questions are:
1. What makes you think the other extremist parties would be any better than the Nazis?
2. Having no knowledge of future events like the holocaust, on what criteria would they choose another party over the Nazis?
Rufus,
ReplyDelete>>Dan, if the Bible/God said abortion was okay, would you still say it was wrong?
That is like saying if water is not wet, would water be without wetness. Its illogical.
God cannot contradict His own character, as then He would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course).
It’s also important to note that the ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition.
>>Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it IS a person in the woman's belly?
ReplyDeleteYes.
>>If so, how can you be certain?
Same way I can be certain of anything R E V E L A T I O N.
>>Which of course is simply Dan's code word for "Because I say so".
Wrong. Because God revealed it. bit.ly/abortionwrong
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>How is it that you can have no problem with genocide, the killing of babies outside of the womb, and their pregnant mothers yet pretend to care about fetuses? That seems to be a common case of double-minded morality among christians.
Wait a minute, are you taking the Bible as authoritative? If so, Praise God and we can talk about it. If not, I don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative.
Freddies_dead,
ReplyDelete>>Except that citizenship is only conferred at the moment of birth (14th amendment - and that only since 1868). So, in actual fact, no US citizens have had their freedom's trampled on, as you claim.
Wait a minute, you rip a baby out with a vacuum, tearing it apart, and proclaim it was NOT born? Really?
Even still births are births. They CERTAINLY ARE U.S. citizens. We should be proud to defend their rights.
Your "justification" though, is disgusting! Be ashamed.
Max,
ReplyDeleteOK, I get your point, but as in this American Holocaust, once they KNEW what Hitler was doing it was too late.
Its too late to right that wrong, granted. We can only move forward and make the Nazi salute (Baby vacuum's) illegal, and make minatory classes that reveal that, THIS!, stain on history KNOWN, and never forgotten.
Way to chicken out of answering the question, Dan.
ReplyDeleteAnd tell me, please, how many "unborn babies" were murdered in the Flood?
Also Max,
ReplyDelete>>You are right that people could have prevented Hitler from ever taking power but the questions are...
No, those are not the questions. The question is what took so long, or where was the revolution? I can ask the same for us.
"Revolution is not what is scary, Tyranny is. And tyranny unopposed is downright terrifying. And that's all I'd like to say at this time. :7)"
You want a revolution?
Rufus,
ReplyDelete>>And tell me, please, how many "unborn babies" were murdered in the Flood?
How would I know how many people murdered their babies just before, or during, the flood happened. I am not God after all.
My reply from SMRT.
ReplyDeleteYou're still attempting to make a joke, Dan, because you can't admit that, if abortion is murder, then killing a bunch of women who were pregnant with a flood is also the murder of the unborn. But you say because it was "God" it wasn't murder. Which is why I don't care what a Christian has to say about morality and ethics in general and about abortion in particular. I just like to see what kind of bullshit they come up with to justify it. It's always entertaining.
Rufus,
ReplyDelete>>But you say because it was "God" it wasn't murder.
OK I will get a bit personal and "ruthless" myself. What if that guy, who did those horrible things to your family, was sentenced to death.
Would that be 'murder' to you, if "We the people" followed through with it?
No, it wouldn't.
ReplyDeleteAnd now. . .
Dan, did the pregnant women on this planet die in the Flood?
See Dan, I don't care if you believe abortion is wrong. It's why you believe it's wrong and why you believe other things are not wrong.
ReplyDeleteIf you believed that the man who murdered my niece and her son was acting on "God's" orders you wouldn't think it was wrong. You wouldn't have a problem with it. You wouldn't call it murder because "God" was behind it. Frankly, fuck that.
Rufus,
ReplyDelete>>If you believed that the man who murdered my niece and her son was acting on "God's" orders you wouldn't think it was wrong. You wouldn't have a problem with it.
With all due respect, you're illogical here. I just explained to you how that is illogical thinking.
>>You wouldn't call it murder because "God" was behind it.
No I would not. That Straw man of yours is standing proud though.
Rufus,
ReplyDeleteWould that be 'murder' to you, if "We the people" followed through with it?
>>No, it wouldn't.
You see, that is why I respect you. No matter how hard it is to admit, truth and intellectual honesty are wonderful goals.
So with that news, we understand your retraction of your comment...
>>"But you say because it was "God" it wasn't murder."
Again, to stay intellectually honest, you must admit that capital punishment is NOT murder. The flood was punishment for the wicked as you well know.
So if a pregnant women murders people, is killing her okay as punishment, even if it kills the fetus?
ReplyDeleteThe flood was punishment for the "unborn babies" that died because of it? They were being punished, but the aborted "unborn babies", that's a holocaust. What's the difference between the "unborn babies" killed directly by God in the flood, and the aborted "unborn babies"?
ReplyDeleteIn your mind, what is the difference between my nephew and those little Midianite boys that the Israelis slaughtered?
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteD.A.N to Reynold: Wait a minute, are you taking the Bible as authoritative? If so, Praise God and we can talk about it. If not, I don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative.
This is another way you decided to use to avoid answering the question.
Besides, you use the bible towards those who don’t hold it as an authorative when is convenient for you. Since some people who comment on your blog don’t follow the bible and don’t believe in your god it’s completely pointless quoting passages from it and using your god as justification on why abortion should be abolished (just like you did just now by saying “God revealed it and giving a link to Exodus 21:22-23; Matthew 18:10; Psalm 139:13-16; Psalm 22:9-10; Isaiah 44:2; Isaiah 44:24; Psalm 58:3; Isaiah 49:5; Romans 8:1 to justify why you are certain that is a person inside the woman’s belly).
Since some people who comment here don’t hold your bible and your god as an authorative, why should we listen to you when you come quoting passages from your bible and saying such things as “god revealed it”?
Dipshit Dan:
ReplyDeleteRufus is talking about how many babies your god allegedly killed during the flood? What the fuck makes it no problem when your god supposedly does it, but it's "evil" when people do it?
How the fuck is that moral?
And YES, Dipshit Dan, you DID dodge my question earlier:
Dan quoting me:
How is it that you can have no problem with genocide, the killing of babies outside of the womb, and their pregnant mothers yet pretend to care about fetuses? That seems to be a common case of double-minded morality among christians.
Wait a minute, are you taking the Bible as authoritative?
Fuck no! I'm using your belief and your acceptance of the butcheries attributed to the orders of biblegod to show how you are a moral hypocrite. And you're dodging that fact.
If so, Praise God and we can talk about it.
We will talk about it anyway! Odd that you care less about those babies that in your wordview, your god had killed, than you do about me supposedly "accepting" this lunatic god of yours!
If not, I don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative.
Your dodge is noted, coward. Fuck, you discuss biblebabble a lot on this blog. Why stop now. You throw verses at us a lot in your replies to us, why pretend to "not discuss" the bible with me now?
Unless it shows your god in a less than moral light, of course.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteNow D.A.N is using Sye’s argument for not discussing the scriptures with those who don’t hold it as an authorative in a way to avoid answering the questions we ask him.
But as I pointed out to D.A.N many times, he discusses his scriptures to those who don't hold it as an authorative when is convenient for him; you know…for religious preaching, the usual.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>What ...makes it no problem when your god supposedly does it, but it's "evil" when people do it?
I am still going to have to stand on capital punishment is NOT murder thingy. If you disagree, then say so. It will not change my stance, or resolve, but we will understand each others position a little better.
>>And you're dodging that fact.
I am not dodging anything here. You know my mantra by now, 'A move towards truth is a move towards God.'
I am just so surprised that we, as humans and citizens, are even having a discussion about murdering babies, and it being OK for some reasons. Its beyond me. I will have to stand, on the things I do not completely understand like this, with 'God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists.'
>>Your dodge is noted, coward.
I know I am being a tad reflective here, just let me run a bit. I said earlier to Max, "You want a revolution?" to reveal a bit of my anger and frustration for this subject. The reality, and I am showing my cards here, is that because of my faith, I will do nothing violent about it. I do not depend on myself for "moral action". I may have at one point in my life believed it was right to do so but not now, not ever. I will have to be idle, not as a coward but as a Christian, and let God handle such things. Romans 12:19
I point to verses to reveal my resolve, but you're right I will not discuss (read dissect or mutilate) the verses with non-believers. I should add "anymore" to that claim, as you pointed out things in my past that I have done mistakenly. Chalk it up to education, here I thought you were a huge fan of it.
I know this angers you but its not meant to be incitive. Its just my hand are tied for good reason. Wow Scripture is leaping out at me today. Hebrews 10:30-35
Besides I am a reverse moral hypocrite. I want to not be moral and rip the flesh off those who murder babies, or considers them "Meat" like your friend PZ Myers, but must resolve not to because my obedience to God. My prayers may be "put me in coach" but I must honor His decision not to allow me to "play". He says,"Vengeance is mine; I will repay." and I trust and honor Him for that.
I wish I can do more for this subject. I wish I can "convince everyone" but I am not allowed to as that is out of my hands. I cannot enact what I perceive as "God's will" without being just as evil as the people murdering babies. I can vote and talk about it, ad nauseum, but not much else.
The greatest thing I can hang onto is that, even the mothers that do abort their babies will be united with them, someday, with repentance and faith. Romans 8:1 That is where I will reside tonight. Knowing that great day will come soon. Its a peaceful night because of it. I am not worried about those babies that were murdered, even Caylee Anthony. They all are in good, gentle, and loving Hands. I cannot wait to meet them. I hope you will be there with me to do so.
Correction: I meant Romans 12:14-21 instead of just 19. It was good food for my soul.
ReplyDeleteDone. Fucking done.
ReplyDeleteDan
ReplyDeleteI am still going to have to stand on capital punishment is NOT murder thingy. If you disagree, then say so. It will not change my stance, or resolve, but we will understand each others position a little better.
And you still say then, that even those ancient children somehow fucking GOT what was coming to them? Care to justify that?
Dan
ReplyDeleteBesides I am a reverse moral hypocrite. I want to not be moral and rip the flesh off those who murder babies, or considers them "Meat" like your friend PZ Myers, but must resolve not to because my obedience to God. My prayers may be "put me in coach" but I must honor His decision not to allow me to "play". He says,"Vengeance is mine; I will repay." and I trust and honor Him for that.
Right...Myers refers to fetuses that haven't yet been fully developed as "meat" and you want to "rip his flesh"?! But, when your god is portrayed as ordering the deaths of fully born babies and pregnant women in the OT, you "trust" and "honor" him?
Holy fuck. Just....holy fuck.
There is NOTHING "reverse" about your, nor any other fundy's moral hypocrisy!
I wish I can do more for this subject. I wish I can "convince everyone" but I am not allowed to as that is out of my hands. I cannot enact what I perceive as "God's will" without being just as evil as the people murdering babies. I can vote and talk about it, ad nauseum, but not much else.
I wish that people with your mental disorder could be put away.
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> I am not dodging anything here. You know my mantra by now, 'A move towards truth is a move towards God.'
Yes, you are dodging. It’s a tactic you always use. Every time we ask you something, especially in the morality department you come with that “how something can be valid in your worldview?” in order to avoid answering; now when we ask you a question criticizing your bible you come with “I don’t discuss the scriptures with those who don’t hold it as an authorative” instead of answering the question. Those two sentences are your mantra.
>> It’s also beyond me you being against abortion because - according to your worldview – it’s the murder of babies while you are ok with the killing of the unborn children when it’s commanded by your god and that makes you a hypocrite.
>> I do not depend on myself for "moral action".
You depend on a violent psychopath god for moral action. You consider everything your god does to be morally correct and justifiable, including all the genocide and mass murder done in his name or commanded by him (supposing your god exists)
>> I may have at one point in my life believed it was right to do so but not now, not ever. I will have to be idle, not as a coward but as a Christian, and let God handle such things. Romans 12:19
Again using the bible for religious preaching towards those who don’t use your book as a guide for anything. See how convenient you are?
>> I point to verses to reveal my resolve, but you're right I will not discuss (read dissect or mutilate) the verses with non-believers.
So why are you still doing it? If you don’t want to discuss the verses with non believers then stop putting them in every single discussion with us. It’s not that hard.
>> I am not worried about those babies that were murdered, even Caylee Anthony. They all are in good, gentle, and loving Hands. I cannot wait to meet them.
So why you are against abortion? If - in the end of the day - those “babies murdered in the women’s womb are in god, gentle and loving hands” you should be ok with abortion. But since you are a moral hypocrite, the only reason you consider abortion wrong is because is not done in your god’s name.
Since you saw fit to post at SMRT, I'll ask my questions again.
ReplyDeleteThe flood was punishment for the "unborn babies" that died because of it? They were being punished, but the aborted "unborn babies", that's a holocaust. What's the difference between the "unborn babies" killed directly by God in the flood, and the aborted "unborn babies"?
In your mind, what is the difference between my nephew and those little Midianite boys that the Israelis slaughtered?
It seems that Reynold (A/K/A "Screech Monkey") has a problem with the Great Flood wiping out everyone in the world. Reynold characteristically fixates on the ancient children in order to maximize his appeal to emotionalism in this rather amusing little canard of his.
ReplyDeleteReynold, I know you didnt do anything mind-numblingly/predictably stupid like presuppose that it is not possible that a society can come to a point in which there is no cure and there is no turning back on engrained, abject and widespread moral depravity. You are afterall, an enlighted free thinker and such buffoonery is clearly beneath you.
So please us what your thoughts were when you considered this very real possibility.
Cue more Screeching/appeals to emotionalism/self-righteous preening/nothing amounting to an actual response from Reynold in 3..2..1..
Ok, Dan...look at what you wrote here:
ReplyDeleteI cannot enact what I perceive as "God's will" without being just as evil as the people murdering babies. I can vote and talk about it, ad nauseum, but not much else.
Dan, if you do what you think is "god's will" and that makes you as "evil as the people murdering babies" then shouldn't that tell you something about how evil your "god" actually is??
JD Curtis,
ReplyDelete>> It seems that Reynold (A/K/A "Screech Monkey") has a problem with the Great Flood wiping out everyone in the world. Reynold characteristically fixates on the ancient children in order to maximize his appeal to emotionalism in this rather amusing little canard of his.
It’s not an appeal to emotionalism. The point Reynold is making it’s about Dan’s moral hypocrisy. Dan has this thing when he considers the slaughter of pregnant women and the killing of newborns and children to be ok and justifiable when it’s done in his god’s name or commanded by his god and – in the same time - being against abortion because it’s done by men.
Dan even sugar coats the killing of the Canaanites (including pregnant women, newborns and children) committed by the Israelite soldiers saying it was capital punishment and not genocide only because it was commanded by his god.
According to Dan’s morality its murder when women interrupt their pregnancy by their own choice but when his god kills all the pregnant women in the world during the flood and orders the killing of the Canaanites, including the pregnant women (therefore interrupting their pregnancy) is not murder.
The thing is: Dan considers his god to be righteous and just even when he does evil actions like mass murder (in the case of the flood) and ordering genocides; meaning: Dan is connivent with atrocities only when is incited by his god because in his delusional mind his god knows best and his will should never be questioned.
You say Reynold is appealing to emotionalism when – in fact – Dan is the one doing it in this post:
1- “Until that glorious day that this will be a thing of America's past. Its quite hypocritical that we invade countries in the name of "freedom" when we trample on the freedoms, endowed by our Creator, of some 53 million US citizens.”
2 – “These are brute facts that we MUST own up to. Its shameful to be a part of a country that is part of such EVIL!!!! We can see how Germany must feel about their past. The only exception is that its not our past, its America's PRESENT!!!!”
You know why Christians like JD Curtis so adamant about making excuses for the genocide they believe was ordered and carried out by their God? They like the idea of doing it themselves someday, when the society is so morally depraved and can't be cured. When they have the power. Which they won't, as long as I can do anything to stop it.
ReplyDeleteHm...I didn't notice that an idiot had commented just before me. Well, may as well reply:
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Reynold (A/K/A "Screech Monkey") has a problem with the Great Flood wiping out everyone in the world. Reynold characteristically fixates on the ancient children in order to maximize his appeal to emotionalism in this rather amusing little canard of his.
Reynold, I know you didnt do anything mind-numblingly/predictably stupid like presuppose that it is not possible that a society can come to a point in which there is no cure and there is no turning back on engrained, abject and widespread moral depravity.
The society, sure. The babies within that society who could have been taken in and given a proper raising (after all, the virgin Midianite women of that "depraved" society were kept alive for the soldiers!) so "god" has no problem with "rescuing" people from those societies...
You are afterall, an enlightened...
Well, compared with you, almost anyone would be, except for people like William Craig and Robert Turkel who use those same excuses for genocide that you do.
...free thinker and such buffoonery is clearly beneath you.
You should try moving beyond buffoonery yourself sometime. Maybe you'll get some respect for a change?
You are the one who, while defending genocide, says that I'm emotional and then resorts to name-calling.
I'm just calling for some moral consistency...something that I do not see from you "pro-lifers" when you whine, wail and yes, "screech" about the "holocaust" that is going on today through abortion, yet you see no problem with your god killing kids, either in the OT or (presumably) through miscarriages in modern times.
So please us what your thoughts were when you considered this very real possibility.
Just did above...there is biblical precedent (assuming for the sake of argument that that shit is true) for god ordering the sparing of people from such societies.
Cue more Screeching/appeals to emotionalism/self-righteous preening/nothing amounting to an actual response from Reynold in 3..2..1..
I'll leave that to the so-called "pro-lifers" who pretend to care about babies today while having no problem with your god ordering babies being killed in the past.
Every time you "pro-lifers" rant on and on about the modern "holocaust" that is exactly what you people do...a bunch of "Screeching/appeals to emotionalism/self-righteous preening/nothing"
Are you going to chicken out back to your own blog again?
By the way, since JD has decided to act like a complete prick, I went over to his blog and decided to post a challenge...he likes Coulter's book "Godless" so much, I figured I'd post a link over on JD's blog of a recent post by PZ Myers where he has a challenge:
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the Coulter challenge is still open, and has been for five years. All anyone has to do is pick one paragraph, any paragraph, from her evolution chapters in Godless, and post it with a defense of its accuracy. That shouldn’t be so hard, should it? She wrote this whole book, I’m letting you pick the very best, most solid, strongest argument against evolution from it and present it here to stump us all. It’s strange that no one has managed to do that in all this time.
I'm sure that JD, that towering intellectual will have no problem in doing just that.
So I guess the answer is No then Reynold.
ReplyDeleteAs in No, youre not going to provide a scintilla of evidence that you did not presuppose "that it is not possible that a society can come to a point in which there is no cure and there is no turning back on engrained, abject and widespread moral depravity."
Notice the pattern of regression utilized by Reynold during his Appeal to Emotion Fallacy moving from "ancient children" earlier-->to now "babies" as argued by Reynold . If this regress contines to it's logical conclusion, can we expect Reynold will soon start defending the unborn?
Anyway Reyn, a half-hearted attempt was made to explain your position and you said, quote..
"The babies within that society who could have been taken in and given a proper raising"
But by whom may I ask? It would appear that the adults were totally depraved people and were wiped out.
Are you arguing that a long slow death by exposure, starvation or eaten by wild animals would have been highly preferable for these babies?
Or do you wish to engage in a bit of fantasy here and would argue for something akin to Romulus and Remus writ large and these babies were raised by (perhaps) wolves?
JD didn't even bother to read what I said. Big surprise.
ReplyDeleteHe said: As in No, youre not going to provide a scintilla of evidence that you did not presuppose "that it is not possible that a society can come to a point in which there is no cure and there is no turning back on ingrained, abject and widespread moral depravity."
I had actually agreed with him that such a thing was possible; that a society could be completely depraved.
Notice the pattern of regression utilized by Reynold during his Appeal to Emotion Fallacy moving from "ancient children" earlier-->to now "babies" as argued by Reynold . If this regress contines to it's logical conclusion, can we expect Reynold will soon start defending the unborn?
"Pattern of regression"? I'm pointing out just another instance where your god is (supposedly) killing babies, yet you people don't give a fuck.
And again, it's not an "appeal to emotion" that I'm doing, it's a call for moral consistency on the part of you people who call yourselves "pro-life".
You want an "appeal to emotion"? Look at the title of this post! Only it's Dan who made that appeal, not me.
Why is it NOT an "appeal to emotion" when you people rail against abortion today?
And again JD doesn't seem to bother reading what I said. Let me repeat it:
The society, sure. The babies within that society who could have been taken in and given a proper raising (after all, the virgin Midianite women of that "depraved" society were kept alive for the soldiers!) so "god" has no problem with "rescuing" people from those societies...
Obviously biblegod had no problem with finding a way for the ancient Israelites to take care of those women (I didn't think that I had to make a point of mentioning that fact) yet for some odd reason, Curtis, like Turkel before him when we argued about this same topic on Theology Web years ago, goes on this same old bullshit:
Are you arguing that a long slow death by exposure, starvation or eaten by wild animals would have been highly preferable for these babies?
No, biblegod could have taken care of them the same way he took care of the Israelites in the desert with that fantasy about the "manna from heaven", with the Israelites to raise the kids, NOT the adults of the tribe that just got wiped out.
"The babies within that society who could have been taken in and given a proper raising"
But by whom may I ask? It would appear that the adults were totally depraved people and were wiped out.
Isn't it obvious that since the children's "depraved" tribe was wiped out, that it's be the Israelites who'd be left to raise those kids?
Try again, without distracting yourself by activities that take up one of your hands while you're typing.
Romulus and Remus is fantasy, but if that story was in the Bible you'd believe it without hesitation.
ReplyDeleteYou've posted at SMRT again, Dan, without answering my questions.
ReplyDeleteThe flood was punishment for the "unborn babies" that died because of it? They were being punished, but the aborted "unborn babies", that's a holocaust. What's the difference between the "unborn babies" killed directly by God in the flood, and the aborted "unborn babies"?
In your mind, what is the difference between my nephew and those little Midianite boys that the Israelis slaughtered?
Rufus,
ReplyDeleteAccording to Dan's dubious morality, the difference between the "unborn babies" who died in the flood x the aborted "unborn babies" and between your nephew x midianite boys it's just one: his god.
For Dan flood killing all the humans and "the unborn babies" is not murder because it was sent by his god. The murder of the midianite boys wasn't murder because it was done in his god's name.
If the person who killed your nephew did it in god's orders (let's suppose that his god exists for the sake of argument) Dan wouldn't consider to be murder. In his deluded mind he would say that it was ok about your nephew's death and that god ordered a man to kill your nephew in order to bring him back home into his god's good, gentle, and loving hands.
What a bunch of baloney! Those christian pro-lifers are such moral hypocrites!
>>Romulus and Remus is fantasy, but if that story was in the Bible you'd believe it without hesitation.
ReplyDeleteIs Romulus and Remus written as a Historical narrative, as the Bible? Otherwise, non sequitur. Silly Atheist.
Rufus,
ReplyDelete>>What's the difference between the "unborn babies" killed directly by God in the flood, and the aborted "unborn babies"?
One is murder. I should not have to tell you which one, but I will assume you will assert the wrong one.
>>In your mind, what is the difference between my nephew and those little Midianite boys that the Israelis slaughtered?
Not much if they are both with God at this very moment. Thank the Lord for that. Exigo
"Is Romulus and Remus written as a Historical narrative, as the Bible?"
ReplyDeleteYes it was., Take not of the last paragraph, It was recorded by a Roman historian, Livy, and regarded as history by the Romans.
The babies within that society who could have been taken in and given a proper raising (after all, the virgin Midianite women of that "depraved" society were kept alive for the soldiers!) so "god" has no problem with "rescuing" people from those societies
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry Reynold but do we have any indication that these women you mentioned were actually infants?
Isn't it obvious that since the children's "depraved" tribe was wiped out, that it's be the Israelites who'd be left to raise those kids?
But it was my understanding that we were discussing the Great Flood at this time. For instance..
"Rufus is talking about how many babies your god allegedly killed during the flood? What the fuck makes it no problem when your god supposedly does it, but it's "evil" when people do it?
How the fuck is that moral?" Reynold @ 9:19
And again, I posted at 8:30 "It seems that Reynold (A/K/A "Screech Monkey") has a problem with the Great Flood wiping out everyone in the world".
Is there any way possible that you could contain and channel your Screechyness in one direction in order that we might address your glaring, multiple fallacies one at a time?
Might you consider buying a game program in order that you might actually follow along in the conversation?
Again, I will reiterate and t-y-p-e v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, In reference to the Great Flood, by who, may I ask, would these babies be taken care of? "It would appear that the adults were totally depraved people and were wiped out."
Are you arguing that a long slow death by exposure, starvation or eaten by wild animals would have been highly preferable for these babies?"
I'm pointing out just another instance where your god is (supposedly) killing babies, yet you people don't give a fuck.
And again, it's not an "appeal to emotion" that I'm doing, it's a call for moral consistency on the part of you people who call yourselves "pro-life"
Reynold, are you familiar with such Sesame Street terms like 'same' and 'different'?
Are you really so ignorant that you freely equivocate between a delicate, human lifeform that has a thin membrane of it's mother's womb seperating it from the outside world and hasn't even been born into the world yet and members of a completely depraved society which you agree could theoretically exist?
Can I now expect Ashton Kutcher to come busting out of my closet, camcorder in hand exclaiming, JD Curtis! You've been Punk'd!
I like you JD Curtis. You're a blessing. I am sick at the moment and you just cheared me up. Hilarious! Thank you for that.
ReplyDeleteYes, you are sick, Dan. Not just at "this moment". But sick to your very core. Just like your new butt buddy, JD Curtis.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDelete>> Rufus: “Romulus and Remus is fantasy, but if that story was in the Bible you'd believe it without hesitation.”
Dan: “Is Romulus and Remus written as a Historical narrative, as the Bible?”
Rufus just said Romulus and Remus is a fantasy, just like your bible. According to your bible the world has to 6.000-10.000 years old; it has talking snakes, man originating from a puddle of mud, woman originating from this man’s rib; the moon emitting its own light, a flat earth with 4 corners standing still over pillars in the center of the solar system while the sun orbits around it, Jonah being swallowed by a whale and staying there for 3 days and 3 nights (you know…just like that another fairy tale where a puppet made of wood is swallowed by a whale); transubstantiation water into wine, etc; all of those things are myths.
I saw an interesting definition of historical narrative: “The narrator is content to present the events without worrying about the causes, the results or the actual truth. It also does not employ any process methodology. (emphasis mine)
As MaxFF pointed out the myth of Romulus and Remus was written as a historical narrative by a roman historian. According to your line of reasoning, if the bible is true because is a historical narrative so the story of Romulus and Remus is true since it was also written as a historical narrative, isn’t?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIf you consider abortion to be murder, it’s also murder when your god says he will slay the fruit if the woman whom he gave a miscarrying womb if happens she gets pregnant; it’s also murder of the “unborn babies” if god wipes out from the planet all the pregnant women. You can’t have both ways: or you agree with abortion 100% regardless if it’s man made or god made (supposing your god exists) or you consider abortion to be wrong, even when it’s done by your god.
You can’t consider abortion to be murder and not to be murder/being unjustifiable and justifiable at the same time depending on who does it.
It’s like me saying stealing is wrong/unjustifiable when other people do it, but when my father does it then it’s right/justifiable using as a lame excuse “because my father is my authority whom knows best and which his actions should never be questioned by anyone.”
"One is murder."
ReplyDeleteAnd, presumably the other is fictional. Both are murder insofar as they are real.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteScrew it, later. Rufus, where did Dan post on your forums?
ReplyDeleteAs far as the flood goes, Pvlivs, I presume that biblegod could just "rapture" the babies and fetusi to heaven or something, since that's something many xians believe that god will do for them and the babies etc. at some point in our future anyway.
ReplyDeleteNo point for them to get "starved, or exposed, or eaten by animals" during some flood. Mind you, how one could get eaten by an animal during a world wide flood as implied by JD Curtis's last reply to me, I don't know.
The point is, that there's no reason for those kids to actually be painfully killed.
Reynold: this one. It's been around for awhile.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=6424
And this one;
http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6905&p=86679#p86679
Ah, right. I started that first thread. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to follow your logic to it's eventual conclusion Ren and I think I can see where this is leading.
ReplyDeleteSuperbabies.
God should have raised up a generation of Superbabies that could tread water for 40 days and 40 nights, with the ablity to fight off shark attacks and fend for themselves once the waters receded.
Do I have this about right? Or am I somehow misinterpreting your position on this matter?
No, you're not even close. Do you read nothing of what I say? Please re-read. Let me help you:
ReplyDeleteAs far as the flood goes, Pvlivs, I presume that biblegod could just "rapture" the babies and fetusi to heaven or something, since that's something many xians believe that god will do for them and the babies etc. at some point in our future anyway.
"Somehow misinterpreting" my position? If by "somehow misinterpreting" you mean being so far off it'd be like showing up at a football game dressed for a sumo match.
I presume that biblegod could just "rapture" the babies and fetusi to heaven or something
ReplyDeleteThe Superbabies Hypothesis falls under your "or something" clause. Why is your 'rapture' so much superior than Superbaby? Why Reynold? Why?!
Holy fuck, you're stupid. At least you know how to take advantage of a throw-away word or two...
ReplyDeleteSo you go and and find two words in order to pull out this fucked up fantasy of yours? Fuck, why not just deal with the rapture question? At least that's biblical (at least according to most fundies I know)
Jesus, I think you just got caught grasping at straws here and now you're trying to dodge the fact that you got called on it and push it back on me.
Now, you're "screeching": Why is your 'rapture' so much superior than Superbaby? Why Reynold? Why?!? Easy. Most xians I've met actually believe in that retarded fantasy. In their minds, god is capable and will eventually do that.
It's simple, it's quick, and to most xians, it's something that god will eventually do. Your rube-goldberg fantasy is the opposite in every way.
That is why it's superior to your non-biblical, non-sensical "superbaby" idea.
Why didn't you deal with the rapture idea when you first saw it?
It's not my logic, JD, but your stupid strawmen that is leading to your "superbabies" bullshit.
ReplyDeletewhy not just deal with the rapture question?
ReplyDeleteWhy can't you deal with the concept of granting someone super human strength for awhile? If God was willingly to grant it to Samson for one brief moment at the end of his life, then why not for Superbabies till they were more fully formed and didnt require it anymore?
It's not my logic, JD, but your stupid strawmen that is leading to your "superbabies" bullshit
Actually, your logic is,
God caused a catastrophic event to occur, killing everyone.
There were most certainly ancient children/babies involved in this catastrophic event.
Why couldn't God preserve the ancient children/babies from the catastophic flood event through X?
Your X involves a rapture. Mine, superhuman strength for a time.
Again, why is your hypothesis so much better than mine?
Are you trying to say that belief in God granting super abilities to people is outside mainstream orthodoxy?
I notice that you are now up to 5 question that you refuse to answer, one on my blog and 4 on Vox Day's.
ReplyDeleteShall we just accept that you are a complete coward and intellictual wuss before moving on?
If not, why?
I think you're getting sidetracked Reynold, nor do I understand your opposition to his super baby idea. This is God we're talking about, he has many different means at his disposal for killing all the adults without harming them, he could rapture them to heaven, or grant them super powers.
ReplyDeleteI thought the point was that God did a terrible thing by killing all the babies rather than spare them the suffering. The way in which he would spare them seems to be irrelevant, he has many possible ways he could have done it.
What in hell are you dithering about, JD? I'm answering Vox's questions as I get to them. Unlike YOU, who have yet to answer even ONE.
ReplyDeleteAnd I did answer your question, but it's not good enough for you.
Whatever. Laters all.
Uh, JD. Your idea is outside religous orthodoxy. Mine is not. Many xians do believe in a rapture. If god is going to do it in the future to save people's lives and take them right to heaven, why not in the past?
ReplyDeleteAfter this you'll probably still claim that I still never answered your question about why your "hypothesis" is worse than mine.
I think I see why PZ won't deal with people like you. Give the answer: You dismiss it and repeat the question. In other words, the same old shit over and over again.
Fuck that.
Uh, JD. Your idea is outside religous orthodoxy
ReplyDeleteIt is? In reference to Deuteronomy 11:8, 1 Samuel 30:6, Psalm 46:1, Isaiah 40:29 and 41:10, Ezekiel 34:16, Philippians 4:13 and 2nd Timothy 4:17, when were these verses stricken from the Bible?
Either admit that you are a complete Biblical ignoramus or retract your statement.
And no, you didn't answer either the question on my blog or the other four on Day's as he has just pointed out your own dodge in answering and reposited them.
It would appear that VD has given you a place of honor in which the direct questions you are repeatedly dodging have now been placed on their own thread. Link
ReplyDeleteAny day now would be just fine Reyn.
Welcome to the Big Leagues, Lipperschitz.
Fuck, when are YOU going to deal with Myer's challenge?
ReplyDeleteHeh. Vox's blog, the "big leagues"? Holy fuck. You must be joking.
Besides, I HAVE answered his questions. He either ignores them, like you and only waits like 3 hours before starting to badger me.
As I told him, I'll get to his questions when I have time. I've dealt with at least some of the main ones on his blog, though it's been buried by the other comments.
Whatever. Maybe tomorrow or whenever the fuck I feel like it; maybe the same time that you take Myers up on his challenge, perhaps?
when are YOU going to deal with Myer's challenge
ReplyDeleteConveniently enough, that's question #1 over at VD's blog. Just hop on over and answer it Einstein.
when are YOU going to deal with Myer's challenge?
ReplyDeleteHow convenient! That's question #1 on VD's blog that you are currently evading. Hop to it Screech.
What? Are you ChickenReyn? Bock-bock-bock-BWAAAAK!
If it is SOOOOO not "big time", then this should be a snap.
Coward.
JD,
ReplyDeleteIf you consider Coulter’s arguments against evolution to be accurate, if you are familiar to the arguments presented in her book Godless (assuming you read her book; did you?) you are capable of debating Myers and proving to him that the arguments against evolution presented in the paragraph you chose is 100% true. It’s not going to hurt if you accept the challenge.
Reynold, if I may...
ReplyDeleteJD:
Reynold presented the rapture option as something considered viable from a christian standpoint. You presented the "superhuman bablies" as suitible for ridicule. As you, yourself, have deemed the rapture hypothesis not suitible for ridicule, evidenced by the fact that you will not address it preferring instead to ridicule your own strawman, it is infinitely superior to your strawman.
Ah, Mhich...having fun over at Vox's too, eh? God, I can take anything over there but that damned commenting system...No matter what browser I use, it keeps mangling my comments. I have to repost and repost...Sod it!
ReplyDeleteStill, I think my points got across.
I'll post maybe once more sometime and that'll be it...I've answered that guy's questions and asked some of my own.
Hey, JD I've answered his questions..even though that lying fuck claims I didn't...now when are you going to (finally) deal with PZ's challenge?
ReplyDeletePut up or shut the fuck up.
Oddly enough, I've dealt with the rapture question on another forum...at least the guy she linked to didn't do any weird "superbaby" bullshit.
ReplyDeleteReynold,
ReplyDeleteYes...I've answered VD in his blog a few times today.
You got your point across in VD's blog :)
Good, I don't feel like posting again until tomorrow when I imagine that they'll actually be something for me to reply to.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like the issue of marital rape is sure taking off there.
Good. At least people are looking at that, if nothing else.
Ok, JD. Let's look at those verses.
ReplyDeleteWhich ones mention your "superbabies" again? None of them. That was your idea, wasn't it? One or two verses talk about the lord giving people strength, but that was it.
I thought that you were trying to refer to the verses about the "giants" that were allegedly in the "promised land" that the ancient Jews had to drive out. Or the offspring of the "sons of god" and the daughter of man before the flood.
That kind of tinkering was apparently forbidden by god..that's why it's unbiblical. Not only did biblegod not make any "superbabies" himself, but he didn't like it when others did.
Anyway, this looks like another "where's the birth certificate" issue with JD and friends. No matter how many times it's shown, he'll keep asking for it. Whatever.
Anything to keep dodging I guess. I'd make chicken sound like JD did to try to shame him into dealing with PZ, but as JD recently showed, that just looks fucking stupid.
I've dealt with Vox in that link JD gave (just do a search for my name there), and that's pretty much it. He may disagree with my answers but if he keeps saying that I haven't answered, he's just lying.
By the way, in that Vox post he linked to, Mhich, JD says that he's never even read Coulter's book.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMhich: When you get tired of beating your head against the wall at Vox's place and here, you may want to cool off at a this forum.
ReplyDeleteReynold,
ReplyDeleteI've just answered JD about what he said on never read any of Coulter's books.
I registered in WeAreSMRT forum, now I just have to wait for the confirmation. But it will be good to have a conversation with smart people for a change.
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDelete>>Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it IS a person in the woman's belly?
Yes.
Lol, as expected.
>>If so, how can you be certain?
Same way I can be certain of anything R E V E L A T I O N.
2 for 2.
>>Which of course is simply Dan's code word for "Because I say so".
Wrong. Because God revealed it. bit.ly/abortionwrong
ROFL, God revealed that he was God and also revealed that you could trust everything He says because He's God and He said so. From now on people should refer to you as 'Viciously Circular Dan'.
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies_dead,
>>Except that citizenship is only conferred at the moment of birth (14th amendment - and that only since 1868). So, in actual fact, no US citizens have had their freedom's trampled on, as you claim.
Wait a minute, you rip a baby out with a vacuum, tearing it apart, and proclaim it was NOT born? Really?
No Dan, that's not a birth. Abortion is the removal of a fetus or embryo before birth. So, either they aren't born in which case no rights are conferred or breached, or you're railing against something you don't believe actually exists - abortion - which one is it?
Even still births are births.
And by definition they aren't abortions. If you're counting still births as abortions then you're being dishonest.
They CERTAINLY ARE U.S. citizens.
No, they are not. The U.S. citizens are the women who chose to excercise their reproductive rights.
We should be proud to defend their rights.
You should be, but for some reason you're more intent on taking them away.
Your "justification" though, is disgusting! Be ashamed.
To what "justification" are you referring? I merely highlighted a factual inaccuracy in your original post.
My little brother was born premature by 4 months several years back. Was he not a person? Or just because they cut him out of the womb to prevent my mothers death is he actually a person? Should there not have been a funeral with his subsequent death 8 days later? Why give a funeral to nothing but a dead fetus?
ReplyDeleteI suggest you all do a bit of soul searching and maybe some study on psychology...sounds like a lot of you don't understand your issues
Freddies Dead >>God revealed that he was God and also revealed that you could trust everything He says because He's God and He said so. From now on people should refer to you as 'Viciously Circular Dan'.
ReplyDeleteYou couldn't even make sense of the term "trust" without God. Go ahead and try. You trust people because your reasoning tells you your reasoning is valid about standards in a changing universe, such as trust.
Wow Michael. Sorry about your loss.
ReplyDeleteAtheists have no explanation for Dignity. They know you're right, but denial is a powerful tool in their arsenal.
They're forcing their moral rights, rights that are "self-evident" by our Creator, on people when they claim its OK to abort babies. They're trying to deny the "self-evident" source of morals, therefore saying murder is perfectly acceptable. Cognitive dissonance indeed. Well played.
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteMy little brother was born premature by 4 months several years back. Was he not a person?
The concept of personhood is, of course, different to that of citizenship. By simply being born alive your brother would have been a US citizen. Personhood, while generally considered to be automatic at birth is far more complicated, although in this case I would have said that he was.
Or just because they cut him out of the womb to prevent my mothers death is he actually a person?
A live birth is a live birth whether it's by 'normal' or surgical means. This is, however, distinct from abortion. Technically, abortion could refer to any pregnancy which did not end with a live birth, but, for the purposes of this discussion, it would be prudent to restrict the term to mean the deliberate termination of the pregnancy i.e. exclude miscarriage - unless, of course, you want to explain your God's reasoning behind the 'abortion' of approximately 3/5's of all pregnancies?
Should there not have been a funeral with his subsequent death 8 days later?
There are certain legal requirements following a death (registration and certification of the death plus either a burial or cremation), however, a funeral is not one of them. It is simply a ceremony. Whether you have one or not is up to you. I'm also unaware of any legal barriers to people having funerals for the aborted.
Why give a funeral to nothing but a dead fetus?
Why give a funeral to anyone? The dead do not care. Funerals are for the living.
I suggest you all do a bit of soul searching and maybe some study on psychology...sounds like a lot of you don't understand your issues
I'm wondering which ideas you think I hold which you believe are conflicting and causing me discomfort? Maybe you could give us your qualifications in psychology and dazzle us with your expert opinion?
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead >>God revealed that he was God and also revealed that you could trust everything He says because He's God and He said so. From now on people should refer to you as 'Viciously Circular Dan'.
You couldn't even make sense of the term "trust" without God.
Anything to demonstrate this baseless assertion?
Go ahead and try.
Thought not, just the usual shifting of the burden of proof...
You trust people because your reasoning tells you your reasoning is valid about standards in a changing universe, such as trust.
It is my experience which confirms my reasoning Dan ... it works, therefore I'm validated in trusting it.
D.A.N. said... (to Michael)
ReplyDeleteAtheists have no explanation for Dignity.
Except zilch (an atheist) gave you an explanation for dignity on the thread you linked too. Doh!
They know you're right,
About what? So far I'm struggling to think of anything you've been right about.
but denial is a powerful tool in their arsenal.
and now you're projecting. Finding flaws in your reasoning isn't denial Dan ... although your continued claim that the flaws don't exist, is.
They're forcing their moral rights, rights that are "self-evident" by our Creator, on people when they claim its OK to abort babies.
OK, then maybe you can explain why it's OK for your God to 'abort' 3/5s of all pregnancies, but it's not OK for humans (allegedly made in His image) to do the same? This will be that absolute morality you claim to have which, despite being absolute, somehow just doesn't apply to your God - you gotta love random redefinitions of the meaning of 'absolute'.
They're trying to deny the "self-evident" source of morals,
And yet when our morals tell us that, the God you claim is 'love', happens to be an amoral asshole you change the rules to give God a free pass.
therefore saying murder is perfectly acceptable.
No Dan, the only one saying murder is perfectly acceptable is you - when you give God the thumbs up for multiple instances of genocide.
Cognitive dissonance indeed.
Well yes, but not for the people you'd like it to apply to.
Well played.
Maybe you'd care to stop playing and actually come up with something worthwhile?
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDeleteFor clarity I should of said:
You trust people because your reasoning tells you your reasoning is valid about standards, such as trust, in a changing universe.
Moving on.
>>It is my experience which confirms my reasoning Dan ... it works, therefore I'm validated in trusting it.
And how is that NOT Viciously Circular? Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMichelle,
ReplyDeleteYou are so lucky you came to you senses and deleted that last comment. You know full well what my next question was going to be and you would be cornered with no out.
How do you know that?
Atheists have no explanation for Dignity.
ReplyDelete>>Except zilch (an atheist) gave you an explanation for dignity on the thread you linked too. Doh!
Apparently you do not understand the difference between and explanation and an (bare) assertion. Doh!
They're forcing their moral rights, rights that are "self-evident" by our Creator, on people when they claim its OK to abort babies.
>>OK, then maybe you can explain why it's OK for your God to 'abort' 3/5s of all pregnancies, but it's not OK for humans (allegedly made in His image) to do the same?
Apparently you do not understand the meaning of "self-evident" Doh! Deflection was noted though.
>> So far I'm struggling to think of anything you've been right about.
Refusal to believe, or understand, from an Atheist? No way!
but denial is a powerful tool in their arsenal.
>>and now you're projecting.
Hardly. Its in your religion's origins.
"1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea)." Doh!
>>Finding flaws in your reasoning isn't denial Dan ... although your continued claim that the flaws don't exist, is.
Where is that mirror for this guy? Pot doth not know what one looks like. Searching for, and creating flaws, without an account for your own, is certainly denial.
They're trying to deny the "self-evident" source of morals,
>>And yet when our morals tell us that, the God you claim is 'love', happens to be an amoral asshole you change the rules to give God a free pass.
Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. You have just invoked a moral law, or standard, in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.
Hitler's morals told him that killing Jews were perfectly fine. I guess you claim he was right too? If not, on what grounds?
BTW, thanks for addressing the accusation of Atheists denying the "self-evident" source of morals, with an affirmative.
therefore saying murder is perfectly acceptable.
>>No Dan, the only one saying murder is perfectly acceptable is you - when you give God the thumbs up for multiple instances of genocide.
And here I thought you were complaining about projecting. Who is projecting now? Once question to clear things up for your point. Is capital punishment, itself, a genocidal act?
Hitler "rationalized" that Jews were not people either, as you are doing with babies, was he right also? Silly bias. Reductio ad absurdum.
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
For clarity I should of said:
You trust people because your reasoning tells you your reasoning is valid about standards, such as trust, in a changing universe.
Moving on.
There was no need, I got the gist just fine first time round.
>>It is my experience which confirms my reasoning Dan ... it works, therefore I'm validated in trusting it.
And how is that NOT Viciously Circular?
Erm, because it's not.
Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning?
The outcome of an instance of reasoning is an experience. If the experience is 'bad' you adapt your reasoning before trying again, if it's 'good' you can conclude that your reasoning was probably sound. This is a constant thing Dan, you're constantly experiencing, testing and refining your reasoning ability bit by bit. My worldview doesn't require perfect reasoning.
Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular.
Not really. In your worldview, however, you cannot trust your own reasoning at all. You can never be absolutely certain of the source and veracity of the revelation you claim to have received - unless you're omniscient yourself - and yet you rely on that revelation to validate your own reasoning. You're simply left assuming your reasoning is valid because you feel like you've been told that it is.
Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on,
As usual you have assumed too much.
begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
Go back, revise your assumptions and try again. Oh, but you're having to reason about the claimed revelation before you can trust your reasoning about the claimed revelation. Never mind....
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteAtheists have no explanation for Dignity.
>>Except zilch (an atheist) gave you an explanation for dignity on the thread you linked too. Doh!
Apparently you do not understand the difference between and explanation and an (bare) assertion. Doh!
Evolution is explanatory Dan.
They're forcing their moral rights, rights that are "self-evident" by our Creator, on people when they claim its OK to abort babies.
>>OK, then maybe you can explain why it's OK for your God to 'abort' 3/5s of all pregnancies, but it's not OK for humans (allegedly made in His image) to do the same?
Apparently you do not understand the meaning of "self-evident" Doh! Deflection was noted though.
The only deflection here is your refusal to answer the question. It's seemingly OK for God to abort babies but you baulk when humans, made in His image and endowed with apparently 'self evident' rights (like self governance and freewill), aren't allowed to do the same thing - but of course your morality is absolute and doesn't employ any double standards at all /sarcasm.
>> So far I'm struggling to think of anything you've been right about.
Refusal to believe, or understand, from an Atheist? No way!
Refusal to believe what? Your presupp crap? There's no reason why I should, maybe you'd care to present one?
but denial is a powerful tool in their arsenal.
>>and now you're projecting.
Hardly. Its in your religion's origins.
"1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea)." Doh!
Doh! indeed, I do not have a religion, I lack the belief required in a deity. And I do not deny God(s) exist, I simply do not believe that they do - your attempt to force a definition that doesn't fit me - when there is a perfectly good one that I already accept - makes a double fail on your part.
>>Finding flaws in your reasoning isn't denial Dan ... although your continued claim that the flaws don't exist, is.
Where is that mirror for this guy? Pot doth not know what one looks like.
I can see you're trying to be funny, but just like your presupp rubbish, you're failing.
Searching for, and creating flaws, without an account for your own, is certainly denial.
You are trying to push your worldview as the 'correct' one. My finding flaws (there's no need to create what is already there) in your supposedly correct worldview simply suggests it's not as correct as you'd like people to believe irrespective of whether there may be flaws in my own worldview.
They're trying to deny the "self-evident" source of morals,
>>And yet when our morals tell us that, the God you claim is 'love', happens to be an amoral asshole you change the rules to give God a free pass.
Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. You have just invoked a moral law, or standard, in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.
You invoked the moral law - I simply used it to show how your God has transgressed it - at which point you change it to be a set of guidelines which don't apply to everyone.
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDeleteHitler's morals told him that killing Jews were perfectly fine. I guess you claim he was right too? If not, on what grounds?
No, I belive he was wrong, because he caused harm. You cannot claim the same, as, for all you know, he may have been doing it in response to a revelation from your God.
BTW, thanks for addressing the accusation of Atheists denying the "self-evident" source of morals, with an affirmative.
I did no such thing. I merely used your "self-evident" source of morals to demonstrate the relativism inherent in your supposed absolute morality.
therefore saying murder is perfectly acceptable.
>>No Dan, the only one saying murder is perfectly acceptable is you - when you give God the thumbs up for multiple instances of genocide.
And here I thought you were complaining about projecting.
I did not complain about it. I merely pointed out that you were doing it.
Who is projecting now?
Well, no-one at this presice moment...
Once question to clear things up for your point. Is capital punishment, itself, a genocidal act?
No Dan, capital punishment =/= genocide. Of course this is just your way of redefining the extermination of every living thing on earth as simply multiple acts of capital punishment based on the doctrine that "everyone is guilty and deserves to be punished". So I ask (as Reynold has done on several occasions) just what are the babies "in utero" guilty of? What crime did they commit that warranted spears through their mothers bellies killing parent and child? I'd also like to point out the ridiculous standpoint you're taking when you support corporal punishment but oppose abortion - especially when you think that everyone is guilty.
Hitler "rationalized" that Jews were not people either, as you are doing with babies, was he right also?
I have not "rationalized" that babies aren't people. I have pointed out that your constitution doesn't consider them so until they are born. But to answer your question, no, Hitler was not right concerning the Jews.
Silly bias. Reductio ad absurdum.
In order to have reduced my argument to absurdity you would have had to respond to my argument instead of the strawman you chose to concoct instead.
Freddies Dead
ReplyDelete>>In your worldview, however, you cannot trust your own reasoning at all. You can never be absolutely certain of the source and veracity of the revelation you claim to have received - unless you're omniscient yourself - and yet you rely on that revelation to validate your own reasoning.
Dude! If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about what can be known for certain. I used the senses memory and reasoning which have been validated through God’s revelation to determine things I know. QED
It is you that has no avenue to knowledge. Go ahead, give it a try. How do you know your reasoning is valid?
>> indeed, I do not have a religion, I lack the belief required in a deity.
Rocks lack the belief required in a deity. Are rocks Atheists? Your denial is silly and sad.
>>I do not deny God(s) exist, I simply do not believe that they do
So its possible that you're wrong about this and EVERYTHING that you believe you know?
>>You invoked the moral law - I simply used it to show how your God has transgressed it - at which point you change it to be a set of guidelines which don't apply to everyone.
So you deny there is a moral law and that all morality is merely subjective? Everyone is right to have any morals they wish. Harming others COULD be moral you feel?
Hitler's morals told him that killing Jews were perfectly fine. I guess you claim he was right too? If not, on what grounds?
>>No, I belive he was wrong, because he caused harm.
Then, ONCE AGAIN, before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. You have just invoked a moral law, or standard, in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.
>> So I ask (as Reynold has done on several occasions) just what are the babies "in utero" guilty of?
I have no clue. In order to make such a judgment ONE would have to be some sort of omniscient, omnipotent being. That being would have to already KNOW what that baby will be in the future and what evil will happen if allowed to live. I only know of ONE with those abilities, God. That is even assuming that the baby would indeed be evil.
That being said, how can you possible judge such a being? If you DO NOT hold such knowledge yourself, then how could you chastise the God you know exists for something that you are uncertain about? Its a Non sequitur
"Hitler's morals told him that killing Jews were perfectly fine. I guess you claim he was right too? If not, on what grounds?"
ReplyDeleteOkay Dan, I know you might have a hard time wrapping your brain around this, but just read the following quote, and maybe you'll figure something out.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
If you tolerate the death of something else it sets a precedent which can lead to your own death, its in everyone's best interests to protect the right to life.
[OK last time]
ReplyDeleteMax,
>>If you tolerate the death of something else it sets a precedent which can lead to your own death, its in everyone's best interests to protect the right to life.
My irony meter just exploded with nuclear force. You do understand what post you just commented with this on, don't you?
I can address this in so many ways. I can point out that you believe that not wanting harm on someone is purely a selfish act as to your own self interest. This is setting aside the murdering of babies in these abortions. So you would probably not risk your own life to save a baby in a burning building because it violates the "self preservation" core of your beliefs of not wanting harm.
If love is before self preservation then you would risk your life to save others and would NOT abort babies. Trumped by God, again.
OR I could go this way...
So is self preservation universal?
The point is that the necessary elements of morals (i.e. universality, immateriality, and invariance) comport with my worldview, and not with yours. You are, once again, borrowing from my worldview to account for yours. Please try again.
"So is self preservation universal?"
ReplyDeleteAlmost. There are some things, like religious indoctrination, which can override a person's natural self preservation instincts. A person who no longer cares about their own life can be extremely dangerous to those around them. Suicide bombers, for example, care more for their religious beliefs, than for their own life.
Aside from extraordinary circumstances, people will act to preserve their own life.
...unless they have compassion and love for others.
ReplyDeleteIt must be frightening to believe this life is all you have. I can see you getting all skittish merging into traffic, or never eating out, or going out, for fear of food poisoning, or getting hit by a bus, or the millions of other ways you can die. Christianity was quite liberating for me. I would not hesitate to pull a baby out of burning building and that helps me live with myself. How could you even live with yourself knowing you would consider pausing to help a baby, to weigh the "self preservation" factor?
BTW, the men at Enron, Goldman Sacs, and the rest of the criminals over at Wall Street had "Self Preservation" as factor number one in their thoughts. Be proud you have much in common with them.
Really? That's your example of "self preservation"? Enron stock dropped like a rock and they went bankrupt. If they were interested Self Preservation they were doing it wrong. Goldman Sachs has been sued and paid settlements and agreed to change business practices, and are under investigation for more charges, so there will likely be further consequences for them.
ReplyDeletePlease list some more criminals. It's really funny when you try to pass of shortsighted actions, as though it's for self preservation.
"It must be frightening to believe this life is all you have. I can see you getting all skittish merging into traffic, or never eating out, or going out, for fear of food poisoning, or getting hit by a bus, or the millions of other ways you can die. Christianity was quite liberating for me. I would not hesitate to pull a baby out of burning building and that helps me live with myself. How could you even live with yourself knowing you would consider pausing to help a baby, to weigh the "self preservation" factor? "
ReplyDeleteWho is braver? Someone who accepts that this life is all there is and risks that life to help another? Or someone who has deluded themselves into believing that there is an after life and casually throws their life away because of the delusion?
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead
>>In your worldview, however, you cannot trust your own reasoning at all. You can never be absolutely certain of the source and veracity of the revelation you claim to have received - unless you're omniscient yourself - and yet you rely on that revelation to validate your own reasoning.
Dude! If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about what can be known for certain. I used the senses memory and reasoning which have been validated through God’s revelation to determine things I know. QED
Dude! It's the "If God has revealed to me" bit that counts. Unless you're omniscient you can't be absolutely certain that the revelation is a) from God or b) true. Go ahead, demonstrate how you can be absolutely certain, without being omniscient? This isn't the first, or indeed even the 10th time I've asked you to do this and every time you've dodged and weaved and avoided answering. I believe that you recognise the flaw in the presupp argument - that of requiring omniscience to have certainty - but that you're unwilling or unable to admit it.
It is you that has no avenue to knowledge. Go ahead, give it a try. How do you know your reasoning is valid?
Because of the continued experience of the outcome of instances of reasoning. Successful outcomes validate reasoning while unsuccessful outcomes help me to eliminate instances of invalid reasoning.
>> indeed, I do not have a religion, I lack the belief required in a deity.
Rocks lack the belief required in a deity. Are rocks Atheists?
Go ask a rock Dan. We weren't discussing what rocks believe, we were discussing what you and I believe and, as the definition of atheism can include those who "lack belief", I self identify as an atheist.
Your denial is silly and sad.
There is no denial so what's silly and sad is your continued insistence on there being any.
>>I do not deny God(s) exist, I simply do not believe that they do
So its possible that you're wrong about this and EVERYTHING that you believe you know?
Of course it is Dan, all you've got to do is show that what you're espousing isn't wrong and I'd be happy to accept it. Care to try anytime?
>>You invoked the moral law - I simply used it to show how your God has transgressed it - at which point you change it to be a set of guidelines which don't apply to everyone.
So you deny there is a moral law and that all morality is merely subjective?
No Dan, unlike you I don't believe that morality is subjective - note that your insistence on the primacy of conciousness makes your morality inherently subjective.
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDeleteEveryone is right to have any morals they wish. Harming others COULD be moral you feel?
There are instances where harming others is moral Dan i.e. when a surgeon has to cut open a patient in order to perform surgery. I never claimed ethical questions weren't difficult but as long as the overall outcome isn't negative then an action could be considered moral.
Hitler's morals told him that killing Jews were perfectly fine. I guess you claim he was right too? If not, on what grounds?
>>No, I belive he was wrong, because he caused harm.
Then, ONCE AGAIN, before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. You have just invoked a moral law, or standard, in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.
So say you. Please demonstrate the truth of your claim by showing how, "in principle", my worldvies cannot account for morality.
>> So I ask (as Reynold has done on several occasions) just what are the babies "in utero" guilty of?
I have no clue. In order to make such a judgment ONE would have to be some sort of omniscient, omnipotent being. That being would have to already KNOW what that baby will be in the future and what evil will happen if allowed to live. I only know of ONE with those abilities, God. That is even assuming that the baby would indeed be evil.
Lol, brilliant. You've no idea what they're guilty of or even if they're guilty but, if God judged them, they must have been because God wouldn't get it wrong as He's perfect ... and you know God is perfect because God told you He was God, He told you He was perfect and assured you that he wouldn't lie about it. Of course, not being omniscient yourself, you can't actually be absolutely certain that God was the one doing the revealing, or even if what was revealed was true, but hell, you agree with these thoughts that suddenly appeared in your head - completely bypassing your senses - so they must be true?
That being said, how can you possible judge such a being? If you DO NOT hold such knowledge yourself, then how could you chastise the God you know exists for something that you are uncertain about? Its a Non sequitur
Using the absolute moral standard you claim exists. Either the standard is absolute and God (and His actions) can be judged based on it, or it simply isn't an absolute standard. Which is it Dan?
"I would not hesitate to pull a baby out of burning building and that helps me live with myself. How could you even live with yourself knowing you would consider pausing to help a baby, to weigh the "self preservation" factor?"
ReplyDeleteIf I pass out from smoke inhalation, before reaching the baby, guess what, the baby still dies, and I have accomplished nothing. Taking a moment to judge the severity of the fire, before leaping in makes sense.
Dan
ReplyDeleteI have no clue. In order to make such a judgment ONE would have to be some sort of omniscient, omnipotent being. That being would have to already KNOW what that baby will be in the future and what evil will happen if allowed to live. I only know of ONE with those abilities, God. That is even assuming that the baby would indeed be evil.
So then why did God let Hitler live? Did got not know that he would turn out evil?
Rufus,
ReplyDelete>>Who is braver? Someone who accepts that this life is all there is and risks that life to help another? Or someone who has deluded themselves into believing that there is an after life and casually throws their life away because of the delusion?
False dilemma fallacy.
Granted, it would take more courage to risk one's life with the knowledge of their chosen afterlife for the Atheist, Hell. But, in that same breath really, jumping into a fire is a bit wishful thinking anyway, for the Atheist, its expected. They wish to go to hell after all. Fire is what Hell is all about. Its the warm embrace the Atheists are demanding
I wonder how many Atheists skydivers are there? According to a quick internet research, not vast amounts. Hmm, that might be a good point to talk about in a post. I digress.
I wonder how many skydivers there are? A quick internet search shows not vast amounts. Based on data from skydiving organizations, estimated 80,000 worldwide. So out of a population of billions only mere thousands actually skydive. It's not even 100th of one percent of the world's population.
ReplyDeleteYour probably right that there aren't very many atheist skydivers. There aren't many skydivers in general. If you take a subset of an already small group, its usually a really small group.
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDelete>>Unless you're omniscient you can't be absolutely certain that the revelation is a) from God or b) true. Go ahead, demonstrate how you can be absolutely certain, without being omniscient?
The funny, read sad, part is that when you KEEP asking this you KEEP leaving out the most important part. First, are you CERTAIN that I must be omniscient to know something? If so, how? If not your argument falls apart. Second, its a False Dilemma fallacy because I do NOT require omniscience to be absolutely certain.
What is required is an omnipotent God. Its that "power" that allows us to know things with absolute certainty, like His existence. You keep associating the power to the person which is quite telling because you believe in your god of "self"
Do you deny this?
It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that the omnipotent God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain.
Are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this? I do not need to go further then this. Somehow I doubt that will suffice for you though.
How do you know your reasoning is valid?
>>Because of the continued experience of the outcome of instances of reasoning. Successful outcomes validate reasoning while unsuccessful outcomes help me to eliminate instances of invalid reasoning.
You have no such rescuing device for your circularity. As in, you use your reasoning to test your past "successes" of your reasoning, which is viciously circular.
With that logic, you have just proven that I am immortal. You see FD, every day that I’ve been alive, I haven’t died, therefore I will never die. You are begging the question.
"Successful outcomes [living] validate reasoning [immortal] while unsuccessful outcomes [death] help me to eliminate instances of invalid reasoning."
So you will admit you were wrong after you're dead. Got it. :7)
>>We weren't discussing what rocks believe, we were discussing what you and I believe and, as the definition of atheism can include those who "lack belief", I self identify as an atheist.
My point is the tree, my cat and dogs, are all Atheists...according to your reasoning. Also, don't think I noticed you just added the "can include" in your new definition. In poker we would consider that a "tell". Nice to see your conscious working...still.
So its possible that you're wrong about this and EVERYTHING that you believe you know?
Of course it is Dan, all you've got to do is show that what you're espousing isn't wrong and I'd be happy to accept it.
Great!
>>Care to try anytime?
Are you certain I have not already? Is it possible for you be wrong about that too? "Of course it is Dan"
[to be cont'd]
[cont'd]
ReplyDelete>>No Dan, unlike you I don't believe that morality is subjective
Wait...what? So morality is absolute? *snicker
Didn't you JUST say "Unless you're omniscient you can't be absolutely certain that ..."
Not that I am arguing against your new position here at all but...how are you absolutely certain that morality is absolute? Please explain Objective, Absolute, and Universal Truths? Pretty please!!!
>>There are instances where harming others is moral Dan
Wait..what? Erm...you're wrong.
>>i.e. when a surgeon has to cut open a patient in order to perform surgery.
Have you ever been diagnosed with ADHD because you are running all over the place in the class room. Come and sit down with the rest of the class for the lessons of the day. :7)
Your equivocation fallacy is obvious here. That is not harming someone that is HEALING. Howard Huge difference.
Harming
2. Damage the health of- smoking when pregnant can harm your baby
Synonyms: damage, injure, hurt, wound
Antonyms: doctor, fix, mend, patch, rebuild, recondition, reconstruct, renovate, repair, revamp
>>Please demonstrate the truth of your claim by showing how, "in principle", my worldvies cannot account for morality.
Because your atheistic worldviews cannot account for Objective, Absolute, and Universal Truths. You profess worldviews that simply do not comport with universal, abstract, invariant entities. You are doing something, which, if your worldview were true, would be impossible for you to do, and THAT is the contradiction.
>>Lol, brilliant. You've no idea what they're guilty of or even if they're guilty but, if God judged them, they must have been because God wouldn't get it wrong as He's perfect
Yes God is brilliant. As for omnibenevolence, ‘good’ is that which comports with the absolute character and nature of God. Since God is the very standard of ‘good’, He cannot do evil, as this would require Him to contradict His character, which, again, is not possible.
God cannot contradict His own character, as then He would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnibenevolence and not omnibenevolence as well (which is absurd, of course).
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>So then why did God let Hitler live? Did got not know that he would turn out evil?
He certainly did. He allowed it. We live in a fallen creation because of Adams fall. It was perfect before Adam defied God's Command. You want to blame Hitler's evil on someone, blame Adam.
God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists today. His plan will be, and is, just.
"He certainly did. He allowed it. We live in a fallen creation because of Adams fall. It was perfect before Adam defied God's Command. You want to blame Hitler's evil on someone, blame Adam."
ReplyDelete(For the sake of argument) you blame Adam for what he did. You blame Hitler for what he did. But what you believe and have no problem with, is your god punishing people for what Adam did. Can't get any more fair than that.
D.A.N
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, my comment wasn't towards you; it was to Michael. I decided to delete because this talk of abortion already got old; I have my own opinions about abortion, I'm not going to change them; so it's pointless to even discuss this subject with people who tries to make me change my mind.
And I really have no idea what would be your next question, but can I assume there will be some religious preaching, bible passages, the mention of your god or some argument you took from Ray Comfort or anything similar? If your answer is yes, so don't even bother to ask me. From now on I don't discuss abortion with religious people anymore, since logic and reason don't work with them.
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
>>Unless you're omniscient you can't be absolutely certain that the revelation is a) from God or b) true. Go ahead, demonstrate how you can be absolutely certain, without being omniscient?
The funny, read sad, part is that when you KEEP asking this you KEEP leaving out the most important part. First, are you CERTAIN that I must be omniscient to know something? If so, how? If not your argument falls apart. Second, its a False Dilemma fallacy because I do NOT require omniscience to be absolutely certain.
Great, so now we don't need omniscience to be absolutely certain then I'm absolutely certain you're wrong. Thanks for that Dan.
What is required is an omnipotent God.
One you've failed to show exists. But of course He must exist because you're absolutely certain that He does. You can't explain how you know you're just absolutely certain that He's told you, err, somehow. Yup, real convincing.
Its that "power" that allows us to know things with absolute certainty, like His existence.
How so? I've asked you before but you say you've no idea. So you've no idea how God would do it but you're absolutely certain that He has, lol.
You keep associating the power to the person which is quite telling because you believe in your god of "self"
No Dan, you keep ignoring the logical implications of your own claims. If absolute certainty requires omniscience then you need to be omniscient yourself in order to be absolutely certain that what someone else has told you is true. If you don't need omniscience to be absolutely certain then you don't actually need a god at all.
Do you deny this?
There's nothing for me to deny. I don't believe in any gods ... that includes this god of "self" you've made up.
It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that the omnipotent God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain.
Which is why I haven't. God could grant you omniscience so you could be absolutely certain. If you have some other way God could grant you absolute certainty, please, describe it.
Are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this? I do not need to go further then this. Somehow I doubt that will suffice for you though.
Of course silly semantics won't suffice Dan, why did you think they would?
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDeleteHow do you know your reasoning is valid?
>>Because of the continued experience of the outcome of instances of reasoning. Successful outcomes validate reasoning while unsuccessful outcomes help me to eliminate instances of invalid reasoning.
You have no such rescuing device for your circularity.
Lolwut. You just pasted it into your reply. If it's invalid just show where it's wrong. Have you never changed your opinion based on new experience Dan? Never? Are you a robot perhaps?
As in, you use your reasoning to test your past "successes" of your reasoning, which is viciously circular.
More semantics. I think we're going to have to get what definition of reasoning you're using here and how you think this is working.
With that logic, you have just proven that I am immortal.
No, I haven't.
You see FD, every day that I’ve been alive, I haven’t died, therefore I will never die.
Until the day that you do and your reasoning error is corrected.
You are begging the question.
Which question?
>>"Successful outcomes [living] validate reasoning [immortal] while unsuccessful outcomes [death] help me to eliminate instances of invalid reasoning."
So you will admit you were wrong after you're dead. Got it. :7)
If I held the belief that I would never die then yes, but I don't so there's no need. You see, my experience has shown that people die, it appears that everyone dies, so it would be somewhat strange to ignore those experiences when reasoning as to my own mortality.
>>We weren't discussing what rocks believe, we were discussing what you and I believe and, as the definition of atheism can include those who "lack belief", I self identify as an atheist.
My point is the tree, my cat and dogs, are all Atheists...according to your reasoning.
Except that they aren't. My reasoning goes: "there is a definition of atheism that includes the lack of belief in Gods, I lack belief in Gods, therefore I identify as an atheist". That's it, that's as far as my reasoning goes here, yet you have tried to extend that to: "there is a definition of atheism that includes the lack of belief in Gods, I lack belief in Gods, therefore I identify as an atheist and anyone or anything that lacks belief must also be an atheist" which is of course ridiculous. People are free to choose whether they think a description applies to them or not.
Also, don't think I noticed you just added the "can include" in your new definition.
I added it because it's relevant Dan - can include NOT must include - definitions of words are descriptions of their usage. I do not HAVE to identify as an atheist (as Pvblivs has pointed out I could choose another label that also covers lack of belief) but I am comfortable in doing so.
In poker we would consider that a "tell". Nice to see your conscious working...still.
I assume you meant "conscience" rather than "concious". Not that that makes your comment any more sensible. My use of 'can' related to the nature of the word - it has several definitions. I can choose to identify with any of them, all of them or none of them.
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDeleteSo its possible that you're wrong about this and EVERYTHING that you believe you know?
>>Of course it is Dan, all you've got to do is show that what you're espousing isn't wrong and I'd be happy to accept it.
Great!
>>Care to try anytime?
Are you certain I have not already?
Certain as I need to be.
Is it possible for you be wrong about that too? "Of course it is Dan"
Just link to where you think you have and I'll take another look. Of course, if I find the same presupp crap with the same flaws and you failing to address any of the criticisms it will only serve to further increase my certainty that you haven't shown your worldview to be correct.
>>No Dan, unlike you I don't believe that morality is subjective
Wait...what? So morality is absolute? *snicker
Since when has absolute been the opposite of subjective? *snicker
Didn't you JUST say "Unless you're omniscient you can't be absolutely certain that ..."
It's a logical implication of your claim, yes.
Not that I am arguing against your new position here at all but...
You're not arguing against it but you don't seem happy whenever I point out the logical implication of your claims.
how are you absolutely certain that morality is absolute?
Lol, I'm not, that's why I keep asking you to demonstrate your claim that it is.
Please explain Objective, Absolute, and Universal Truths? Pretty please!!!
Please show that absolute and universal truth's exist. Pretty please!!! (Not the first time I've asked you to do that either).
>>There are instances where harming others is moral Dan
Wait..what? Erm...you're wrong.
I'm not...
>>i.e. when a surgeon has to cut open a patient in order to perform surgery.
Have you ever been diagnosed with ADHD because you are running all over the place in the class room. Come and sit down with the rest of the class for the lessons of the day. :7)
Did you type that accidentally during one of your homeschool sessions? If you think your children have ADHD you should get them checked.
Your equivocation fallacy is obvious here. That is not harming someone that is HEALING. Howard Huge difference.
So cutting into someone is healing them then? Great, all those people accused of stabbing people will be glad to get you as a judge ... oh, wait, you mean the overall outcome is to heal them ... exactly as I said in the very next sentence, which you seem to have overlooked. Maybe you should get yourself checked for ADHD while you're getting your children tested.
Harming
2. Damage the health of- smoking when pregnant can harm your baby
Synonyms: damage, injure, hurt, wound
Antonyms: doctor, fix, mend, patch, rebuild, recondition, reconstruct, renovate, repair, revamp
I notice you ignored the first definition of harming which is "to physically injure" which is exactly what cutting into someone amounts too. Overall outcome - healing - is a moral action but sticking a scalpel into someone causes harm Dan.
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDelete>>Please demonstrate the truth of your claim by showing how, "in principle", my worldvies cannot account for morality.
Because your atheistic worldviews cannot account for Objective, Absolute, and Universal Truths.
Show not tell Dan, I'm pretty sure you know the difference.
However, objective is no problem - Primacy of existence sees to that.
As for Absolute and Universal, well, as soon as you demonstrate that they exist so I need to account for them, I'll get right on it.
You profess worldviews that simply do not comport with universal, abstract, invariant entities.
You haven't shown such entities need to be comported with.
You are doing something, which, if your worldview were true, would be impossible for you to do, and THAT is the contradiction.
Not according to your explanation so far I'm not.
>>Lol, brilliant. You've no idea what they're guilty of or even if they're guilty but, if God judged them, they must have been because God wouldn't get it wrong as He's perfect
Yes God is brilliant. As for omnibenevolence, ‘good’ is that which comports with the absolute character and nature of God. Since God is the very standard of ‘good’, He cannot do evil, as this would require Him to contradict His character, which, again, is not possible.
Is God's nature good because it conforms to an objective standard of good or is it good simply because it's God's nature? Moving Euthyphro's dilemma back a level doesn't make it disappear.
God cannot contradict His own character, as then He would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnibenevolence and not omnibenevolence as well (which is absurd, of course).
But of course it's perfectly sensible for Him to be wholly God, wholly man and wholly spirit, at the same time and in the same way, lol. I agree it's absurd Dan, that's why I don't believe that the Christian God exists.
freddies_dead,
ReplyDelete>> You just pasted it into your reply. If it's invalid just show where it's wrong. Have you never changed your opinion based on new experience Dan? Never? Are you a robot perhaps?
You know that sentence about insanity is when you do the same things over and over again expecting a different result? Maybe Dan fits that definition.
WTF happened to my last post? Damnit, I knew I should have saved it.
ReplyDeleteD.A.N. said...
Reynold,
>>So then why did God let Hitler live? Did got not know that he would turn out evil?
He certainly did. He allowed it. We live in a fallen creation because of Adams fall. It was perfect before Adam defied God's Command. You want to blame Hitler's evil on someone, blame Adam.
Think about it...why didn't your god just sterilize or kill adam when he and eve screwed up, then just start over?
Instead your god allegedly arranged it so that this so-called "sin nature" got passed down. God just said that they would "die" if they disobeyed him. God said nothing to adam about cursing all of his descendants for fuck ever, did he?
Again, you didn't really deal with the problem of why god kills some babies because they may grow up evil, yet god allowed Hitler to survive.
God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists today. His plan will be, and is, just.
How can you be certain? Does that imply that the fucking Holocaust was part of biblegod's plan? That's what fatboy Hagee seems to think...
By the way, for those interested in JD's little hissy fit about how I don't answer his and Vox's questions, I've posted my replies so far with the link to Vox's blog so you can see my original replies along with Vox's "justifications" for refusing them and then pretending that I haven't actually answered anything.
ReplyDeleteYou can also compare my reply there with how they appear on Vox's blog. I may need to use a different browser for his site.
Just so that no one can claim that I'm refusing to answer their questions. JD censors all of my remarks on his page so I'm forced to post here for now. I'll likely try again on Vox's page in a day or two.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that there is a morally sufficient reason. In fact, I don't think you can imagine a reason that would qualify as morally sufficient. That would explain why you hand wave what the alleged reason really is and just say "morally sufficient reason." I also note that you hand-wave with "in such a way that we can be certain."
For those who are interested, here is where my original answers to his questions are stored. You can read them and then look at Day's "justifications" for dismissing them as answers on his blog.
ReplyDeleteAs I say: It's not honest to just dismiss a person's answer and then claim that they haven't bothered to answer the question. I may try again in a day or two to deal with Day. I'll be posting my answers in the same forum thread at that link. I'll just post the URL to Day's blog.
Since he'll likely not even post my new comment, at least there'll be a backup copy on the web somewhere.
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDeleteIts that "power" that allows us to know things with absolute certainty, like His existence.
>>How so? I've asked you before but you say you've no idea. So you've no idea how God would do it but you're absolutely certain that He has, lol.
No idea? Are you talking to me still? God has revealed Himself in many ways. Revelations is "how". God has revealed Himself with the stars of the heavens, power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has reveled Himself in the intricacy of the human body. God has reveled Himself in the course of history. God has reveled Himself in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has reveled Himself in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has reveled Himself in the way He judges nations. God has reveled Himself in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God reveled Himself when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has reveled Himself in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has reveled Himself in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on.
>> If it's invalid just show where it's wrong. Have you never changed your opinion based on new experience Dan?
So you are saying that if new information is REVEALED to you, your mind changes. Erm...we agree then.
...this feels like a Déjà vu for some reason, like I answered the questions already. Are we in the Matrix and the program has changed, or do I need a break?
God has reveled Himself in the course of history. God has reveled Himself in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has reveled Himself in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection
ReplyDeleteEvidence for this "resurrection" please? Evidence for "this work" that he did in the "lives of the Israelites", please. You do know, because I've mentioned it before, that the biblical accounts of various so-called "historical" events are not all that accurate, right?
Out of the Desert by Steibing, The View from Nebo and The Bible Unearthed by I forget who and am too lazy to look it up.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteDan:
I did a post, several months back, in which I gave an example of the type of revelation in the stars that would convince me that your god is real. Obviously, your god is either unaware of my writings, unable to perform the feat, or just lacks the desire to have me believe. (Or, of course, he's not there.) The stars as they are are no revelation.
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteNow you know full well that would not convince you. You would take that as a man made event and would NEVER be convinced that it was indeed God. That is like saying if God would take something like bacteria and make it so complex that it looks and acts just like a little motor, and THAT would convince you. Whoa re you kidding here? Its certainly not me.
Dan, you'd damn well better be able to back up that statement...after all, bacterial chromosomes don't have any actual human words in them spelled out to form those words, now do they?
ReplyDeleteInstead, this "design" you speak of, even if one were to believe was done by an intelligence, gives no hint as to who that "intelligence" was, does it?
Your charge against Pvb is fucking baseless and is arrogant as hell to boot.
No bacterial chromosomes are arranged in that pattern, are they?
A pattern like that in the stars would indeed be convincing.
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
Its that "power" that allows us to know things with absolute certainty, like His existence.
>>How so? I've asked you before but you say you've no idea. So you've no idea how God would do it but you're absolutely certain that He has, lol.
No idea?
Yes.
Are you talking to me still?
You are still Dan I presume? In which case, yes.
God has revealed Himself in many ways.
The question is "how"?.
Revelations is "how".
Lolwut. I ask you how you get these revelations and you reply "revelations"? Is that supposed to be an answer?
God has revealed Himself with the stars of the heavens, power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest.
Ambiguities...
God has reveled Himself in the intricacy of the human body.
Ambiguities...
God has reveled Himself in the course of history.
Ambiguities...
God has reveled Himself in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has reveled Himself in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has reveled Himself in the way He judges nations. God has reveled Himself in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God reveled Himself when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has reveled Himself in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has reveled Himself in the life transforming power of the Bible.
Ambiguities... sheesh this is tiresome. How did you get these revelations Dan? How you could trust the senses and reasoning you used to read and comprehend the Bible? How could you trust the senses and reasoning you used to comprehend the majesty of the universe? How could you trust the senses and reasoning you used to comprehend the awesomeness of nature?
We can go on and on.
You already have and not once did you describe how it was revealed to you that your senses and reasoning were valid. Not really a surprise.
>> If it's invalid just show where it's wrong. Have you never changed your opinion based on new experience Dan?
So you are saying that if new information is REVEALED to you, your mind changes. Erm...we agree then.
What revelation are you talking about Dan? I don't suddenly have information I can't explain the source of. Any new information is first perceived through the senses. It can then be examined and reasoned about. Your "revelation" is claimed to bypass the senses meaning you can trust it because it's straight from God. I'm asking how that happens. Just how do you get information without perceiving it through the senses? And how do the things you describe above count as revelations when each and every one of them can only be perceived through the use of your senses (reading the Bible, viewing the stars, seas and forests etc...).
...this feels like a Déjà vu for some reason, like I answered the questions already. Are we in the Matrix and the program has changed, or do I need a break?
Well, people keep offering you the choice Dan. Red pill or blue pill? It seems you keep choosing the blue as you prefer to avoid reality.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteWhat I said would convince me would do so. You see, I don't expect to see it because I don't believe your god is there and humans can't pull off the feat. More to the point, it would tend to suggest a response to a direct challenge that I have made. No, I'm not kidding you. You are kidding yourself. You only thought up your example after it was found. If you had predicted it (as an example of your god's handiwork) that would have been impressive though not as compelling as the example I gave.
Freddie:
You may be making a bad analogy. In The Matrix, the red pill awakens one to a reality that is bizarre and may even seem ridiculous to outsiders. Dan is arguing for the bizarre. We are arguing for the mundane. If reality is indeed masked by such an illusion, then we are the "blue-pillers." Fair is fair.
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDelete>>You already have and not once did you describe how it was revealed to you that your senses and reasoning were valid. Not really a surprise.
A simple syllogism should suffice. Its your turn next.
True premises, valid deductive form, valid conclusion = sound proof
QED.
P1: If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about past events such as conversations with Freddies Dead.
P2: God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make the determination that I was online having conversations with Freddies Dead.
P3. I used the senses memory and reasoning which have been validated through God’s revelation to determine that I was online having conversations with Freddies Dead.
C. Therefore I was online having conversations with Freddies Dead.
QED
>> I don't suddenly have information I can't explain the source of.
Oh that's right you just cry "Ambiguities... " You do understand that the table can, just as easily, be turn around on you too. Whatever you "claim" is the explanation, one can just say it is easily explained with some other means. So HOW do you KNOW for certain that your reasoning is valid?
*rest chin on fists.
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteYou are saying if there were things spelled out in the stars that you would believe. Hogwash. We see lions, scorpions, crabs et al. I don't see you halting your resistance to Him for that. You would explain it away to FIT your worldview.
Pvb, "Boo hoo, if only I saw the hand of God in the stars"
Dan, "Erm...Pulsar B1509"
Pvb, "No that is not God, that is mere gasses and stars arranged in such a way to appear to look like something familiar. Its not actually God doing that"
Dan, ">.<"
Its absurd for you to say if God would spell something in English to you then you would be convinced. God speaks to you in a universal language and you still will not even acknowledge that language itself even exists because of Him. Mathematics, and universal laws, are there for you to know Him. He gave you the language that you are using to judge His existence. Its absurd.
Don't be a moron, Dan...this "universal language" is ambiguous as hell. Tell me, what is it about this "universal language" that points you to the bible's god?
ReplyDeleteYou are the one being absurd. Then again, that's what this "presuppositional" bullshit does to one's reasoning abilities.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteP1: If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about past events such as conversations with Freddies Dead.
Ok, care to show just how YOUR god has done that, please? It can't be the through what you see in nature or the bible because, guess what?
You need your senses to see and read them in the first place!
Get the problem yet?
Dan:
ReplyDeleteHuman play "connect the dots" to imagine the structure of lions, scorpions, bears, flies. However, absent a guide, I can't tell which collection of stars is supposed to be the constellation. You show me in the sky a crab that I can see without you or anyone else needing to connect the dots for me, and I will be convinced that some entity is there. The example that I gave on my blog also covers wanting me to believe the bible. A crab does not.
Now, Pulsar B1509 is impressive. It strongly suggests that is was deliberately made. But it is not bible-specific. Perhaps it is an indication that Zeus is there.
To wrap up this derailment, here's my updated reply to Voxytoad.
ReplyDeleteAnd here's an act of hypocrisy about this mess by JD Curis.
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
>>You already have and not once did you describe how it was revealed to you that your senses and reasoning were valid. Not really a surprise.
A simple syllogism should suffice. Its your turn next.
We'll see if yours is valid first...
True premises, valid deductive form, valid conclusion = sound proof
QED.
I can agree to that...
P1: If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about past events such as conversations with Freddies Dead.
I see a problem already. How is this revelation taking place? Is it coming through the senses that you say we can't trust or is it bypassing them entirely? If it's the former then your claim is self refuting, if it's the latter then I want to know how.
P2: God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make the determination that I was online having conversations with Freddies Dead.
Just asserting that it has happened isn't the same thing as demonstrating that it has. You're going to have to back up this premise with something far more substantial.
P3. I used the senses memory and reasoning which have been validated through God’s revelation to determine that I was online having conversations with Freddies Dead.
But your earlier premises have yet to be substantiated...
C. Therefore I was online having conversations with Freddies Dead.
QED
Your conclusion - although it is correct that we've been conversing online - isn't supported by the premises.
>> I don't suddenly have information I can't explain the source of.
Oh that's right you just cry "Ambiguities... " You do understand that the table can, just as easily, be turn around on you too. Whatever you "claim" is the explanation, one can just say it is easily explained with some other means. So HOW do you KNOW for certain that your reasoning is valid?
I don't claim to know for certain, especially not that extra special "absolute certainty" you insist we should have. I accept my reasoning as valid because I have experienced instances of my reasoning which produce the expected outcome. You don't seem to like me using past experience to predict future outcomes but that's just the way it is. You, on the other hand, claim to have had your reasoning validated by an omnimax deity. That's an extraordinary claim and I'd like some pretty damned good evidence to support it. Unfortunately all you seem to have is a word - revelation - there's no attempt to explain how you came by the "special" revelation and all the "general" revelations you talk about require you to first perceive them through the very senses you say can't be trusted until they're validated by God.
Pvblivs said...
ReplyDeleteYou may be making a bad analogy. In The Matrix, the red pill awakens one to a reality that is bizarre and may even seem ridiculous to outsiders. Dan is arguing for the bizarre. We are arguing for the mundane. If reality is indeed masked by such an illusion, then we are the "blue-pillers." Fair is fair.
I take your point - most (if not all) analogies are bad and mine was pretty poor when looked at with any degree of scrutiny - but I was simply arguing for reality (blue pill) which, even though it is mundane, seems preferable to the fantasy (red pill) that Dan is reluctant to give up.
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDelete>>How is this revelation taking place?
The revelation is not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation. This just reminded me of something Bahnsen said.
"Man was created as the image of God (Gen. 1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps. 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom. 1:21)—the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (Kindle Locations 602-609). Covenant Media Press. Kindle Edition.
In other words, you know He exists and by crying "where is the evidence" is denying your own existence. Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.
Ohhh Daddy likes that one. All the glory to God for giving me those words. Bank on that one being used again in the future.
Dan, all you've done is post a bunch of other idiots who make the same presup claim that you do, with no evidence to back it up. Again, what is it in nature that points to biblegod?
ReplyDeleteHuh? How in fuck are we denying our own existence? Jesus, those people you like so much really are that fucking stupid eh?
ReplyDeleteWe can see, feel, taste, etc ourselves. We can do NONE of that in regards to your god.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteAssuming that the Bible is not evidence for God, because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
>>We can see, feel, taste, etc ourselves.
You taste yourself? Anyway, I might not be able to taste God but we sure do see, and feel, Him.
You can cry up and down there is, "still no evidence". But we ALL know better.
"Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation."
ReplyDeleteYou say the only way anyone can trust the reliability of their senses is through revelation. Then as examples of revelation are the Bible and the natural world. Both are observed through your senses. That means you must trust the reliability of your senses before receiving the revelation.
Listen carefully Dan, YOU are the one who's question begging....you are blindly assuming that the bible is the word of this "god" of yours.
ReplyDeleteNow, you claim to be able to see and feel him?
What does he look like? Also, look at what MaxFF has just said: You need to have made use of your senses before you could "see" or "feel" anything in the first place.
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
>>How is this revelation taking place?
The revelation is not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation.
But your "special" revelation (the Bible) is perceived through the very senses you claim can't be trusted until they are validated by a "special" revelation. Thanks for refuting your own claim Dan.
This just reminded me of something Bahnsen said.
"Man was created as the image of God (Gen. 1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps. 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom. 1:21)—the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (Kindle Locations 602-609). Covenant Media Press. Kindle Edition.
I notice Bahnsen never explains how he received the revelation needed to validate his senses and reasoning either...
In other words, you know He exists and by crying "where is the evidence" is denying your own existence.
Lol.
Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.
Dan sets up to run away...
Ohhh Daddy likes that one. All the glory to God for giving me those words. Bank on that one being used again in the future.
...and thinks his set up is so good he'll be using it to run away from many more conversations in the future. Genius.
D.A.N. said... (to Reynold)
ReplyDeleteAssuming that the Bible is not evidence for God, because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
And assuming that the Bible is evidence for God, because you do believe God exists, is also question begging.
Dan:
ReplyDeletePeople correctly state that the bible is not evidence for your god because it could be written by the people of the day to serve their own interests (as it was) with or without your god. Are you capable of honesty anymore?
Reynold, Max, et al., >>You need to have made use of your senses before you could "see" or "feel" anything in the first place.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe all knowledge gathered by the senses only? If so, which sense did you use to realize that? Granted your reasoning stinks though.
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDelete>>And assuming that the Bible is evidence for God, because you do believe God exists, is also question begging.
I agree if that were the case, but unfortunately that is a mere straw man.
Remember we get this knowledge through God's natural and special revelations. God revealed that Scripture is reliable and true. It is not viciously circular as, for example, your reasoning. I am sure you would acknowledge that if such a God did exist, He would have the power to give His Creation knowledge that we can be certain about.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>People correctly state that the bible is not evidence for your god because it could be written by the people of the day to serve their own interests (as it was) with or without your god.
Could be? Are you certain that it actually is or are you saying that its "possible"? Mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Its possible that you are a hermaphrodite transvestite. Does that mean that you are?
I am certain you are "capable" of honesty. As you were created in God's image. Whether you choose to do so is an entirely different subject. :7p
"Do you believe all knowledge gathered by the senses only? If so, which sense did you use to realize that?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you are deliberately being being difficult, or if you really are retarded. You are, possibly deliberately, confusing observations with conclusions. Since every observation I have ever made has been through my senses, I come to the conclusion that my senses are the only way to gather information. All you or your God has to do is project a message directly into my mind, bypassing the senses, and it will prove information can be received in other ways.
And I remind you that your examples of revelation were the Bible and the natural world. Are you saying you didn't read the Bible, and it directly entered your brain, or were you relying on your senses to read it?
ReplyDeleteD.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteReynold, Max, et al., >>You need to have made use of your senses before you could "see" or "feel" anything in the first place.
Do you believe all knowledge gathered by the senses only? If so, which sense did you use to realize that? Granted your reasoning stinks though.
Hey Dan, how's about dealing with the problem we brought up?
Max,
ReplyDelete>>I don't know if you are deliberately being being difficult, or if you really are retarded.
Irony meter just pegged. So you complain about my reasoning by using a false dilemma fallacy?
>> You are, possibly deliberately, confusing observations with conclusions. Since every observation I have ever made has been through my senses, I come to the conclusion that my senses are the only way to gather information.
So your view here is anti-nature. Because you have completely discounted instinct and intuition in your reasoning.
>>All you or your God has to do is project a message directly into my mind, bypassing the senses, and it will prove information can be received in other ways.
Done. We humans call it a conscience. Ready to repent?
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
>>And assuming that the Bible is evidence for God, because you do believe God exists, is also question begging.
I agree if that were the case, but unfortunately that is a mere straw man. Remember we get this knowledge through God's natural and special revelations.
How? The only things you've given so far (Bible, nature etc...) can only be perceived through the senses you say we can't trust. If there's some other way, then please, present it. Until you do my claim accurately represents your argument and isn't the strawman you say that it is.
God revealed that Scripture is reliable and true.
How? All you've given us so far is the Bible - which is allegedly the word of God because it claims to be the word of God - and nature which is apparently evidence of God because you claim it's evidence of God. You've presented no argument to support either claim. No demonstration of divine guidance. No proof of an extant deity responsible for creating nature etc...
It is not viciously circular as, for example, your reasoning.
And yet I've demonstrated that my reasoning isn't viciously circular - your continued assertion that it is, is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
I am sure you would acknowledge that if such a God did exist, He would have the power to give His Creation knowledge that we can be certain about.
I have acknowledged that. Your God could grant you omniscience such that you could be certain. Are you omniscient Dan? If you are please give us a demonstration. If not I ask once more how you can be certain about either the source of veracity of the claimed revelation.
D.A.N. said... (to Max)
ReplyDeleteSo your view here is anti-nature. Because you have completely discounted instinct and intuition in your reasoning.
Please demonstrate how one can gather information through 'instinct' and justify any belief you have come by via intuition.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x)."
And yet you keep using Presuppositional Baloney in which you ask people to concede the mere logical possibility that your god "could reveal things to you in [an unspecified way] that [you] can be certain." However, I was not asserting the fact that people could write the bible without your god as proof that they did so (although I believe they did.) I am asserting that the mundane explanation means that the bible, in itself, is not evidence for your god.
"Irony meter just pegged. So you complain about my reasoning by using a false dilemma fallacy?"
ReplyDeleteThe actual complaint about your reasoning is in the next sentence. You confused observations with conclusions, was it a deliberate obfuscation on your part, or was it the result of mental deficiency. If its a false dilemma just go ahead and suggest another alternative that explains your behavior.
"So your view here is anti-nature. Because you have completely discounted instinct and intuition in your reasoning."
Instinct does not gather information, it is programmed behavior that reacts to observations of the senses. Like a moth observes a candle with its senses, and then flies into into out of instinct. No new information is being gained by instinct, it is simply acting on the information of its senses.
Intuition is basically a guess. If you have inadequate information you can make a guess based on intuition, but it is sometimes wrong, you don't gain information, in fact intuition is built upon years of experience. Professional baseball players can see a ball in the air, and intuit approximately where it is going to land, but this was not something they were born with, it took years of playing before they have the experience to make that judgement. Intuition is at best a guess or approximation, but with out experience its worthless.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>And yet you keep using Presuppositional Baloney in which you ask people to concede the mere logical possibility that your god "could reveal things to you in [an unspecified way] that [you] can be certain."
Strawman. All evidence was specified, and for your benefit I will do it again in a minute.
>>I am asserting that the mundane explanation means that the bible, in itself, is not evidence for your god.
Nice straw man, hasty generalization(?), and Too Narrow fallacy, all in one! I never injected that it was merely the ONLY evidence that God reveled himself to us. We have always been talking about a plethora of natural and special revelations here. Jesus Christ is a special revelation, The Bible another. You are focusing on one, to find a way to discount the one, so you can throw that baby out with the bathwater. You're being dishonest with your intellect.
"There is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on."
You see, plenty of evidence for God. The Bible may be ONE but not the ONLY as you're trying to inject here. God is the Creator of all. You must, in order to deny God's existence, deny your own existence. Does that sound absurd? Because it is. Its time to repent of that failed worldview of yours.
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDeleteIt is not viciously circular as, for example, your reasoning.
And yet I've demonstrated that my reasoning isn't viciously circular - your continued assertion that it is, is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
OK, my mistake, please point to it or restate it so I can examine this "evidence".
Max,
ReplyDeleteYour handwaving stopped short of addressing what was being said. You said before:
>>All you or your God has to do is project a message directly into my mind, bypassing the senses, and it will prove information can be received in other ways.
I said, Done. We humans call it a conscience. Ready to repent?
I am pressing this point of this issue because you clarified what was required and I provided that evidence you were seeking. You have NO other avenue at this point. Or will you wiggle one in, after the fact? Now, my intuit tells me what might happen but I will refrain from sharing until the evidence speaks for itself, though it probably will be justified by your response. *rests chin on fists
I don't know why you expected me to address that issue, we already talked about it in the comments of another post. Humans have a conscience, as a result of evolution, it gives them survival advantage, because it predisposes them to cooperate. You'll deny that cooperation has any advantage, despite relying on it every day of your life, and the conversation will go nowhere.
ReplyDeleteAlso Dan, any idea why God decided not to give consciences to sociopaths, and do sociopaths go to hell for their crimes despite having no basis for making moral decisions?
ReplyDelete>>Also Dan, any idea why God decided not to give consciences to sociopaths, and do sociopaths go to hell for their crimes despite having no basis for making moral decisions?
ReplyDeleteI reject the premise of the question, they knew they are doing wrong. That is why John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Scott Peterson, and the rest, buried their victims. The whole "sociopath" is a man made construct.
I read a book that was extremely interesting that is called "The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through The Madness Industry" and it makes the good case that most CEOs and politicians exhibit the same characteristics of psychopaths.
In fact, most of the Atheists here would fail, thus confirming, that test given in that book on how to detect a psychopath!
In fact, now that I think about it, the case could be made that most of you are sociopaths. Where are those straight jackets? :7)
Dan quoting someone else:
ReplyDelete>>All you or your God has to do is project a message directly into my mind, bypassing the senses, and it will prove information can be received in other ways.
Done. We humans call it a conscience. Ready to repent?
Assuming that's the case, then why is this "conscience" so malleable? Different societies found different things to be acceptable than other societies. Aztecs for instance. Need I say more? Yeah, real clear "message" there.
As far as "sociopaths" go Dan, you're the one who, whenever is caught lying says that he's just "joking", you're the one who has no problem with kids being killed so long as biblegod commands it...need I go on? How's this for an example?
Some Calvinist fuckhead.
God is the only one who possesses intrinsic worth, and if he decides that the existence of evil will ultimately serve to glorify him, then the decree is by definition good and justified. One who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteOK, my mistake, please point to it or restate it so I can examine this "evidence".
There was a series of comments near the bginning of this conversation. I finished with this comment
And you moved on with your presupp script about revelation validating your reasoning without disputing my explanation.
You did continue to claim my explanation is viciously circular however, although all you've really done is ignored my responses and continue to repeat the "you use your reasoning to reason about" semantic game.
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
ReplyDelete>>And yet I've demonstrated that my reasoning isn't viciously circular - your continued assertion that it is, is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
OK, my mistake, please point to it or restate it so I can examine this "evidence".
>>The outcome of an instance of reasoning is an experience...
Did you use your reasoning to reason that the outcome of an instance of reasoning is an experience? Obviously you have, and how is that NOT Viciously Circular?
>>My worldview doesn't require perfect reasoning.
Do you use your reasoning when you reason about your worldview doesn't require perfect reasoning? Uh oh... Viciously Circular.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Strawman. All evidence was specified, and for your benefit I will do it again in a minute."
It might be useful if you read what I wrote before responding. Not that I think that you gave any evidence either, but every time you use the presup line the "how" of your god revealing things to you is left out. Even when, on different occassions, you try to claim a "method of revelation," you list things that exist with or without your god.
Oh, by the way Dan, in your terminology, Freddie's reasoning is "circular but not viciously circular."
ReplyDeleteFetuses are not babies. They are not people. They are growing, developing humans. They are not aware of pain, capable of thought, or any other defining factor of personhood that makes killing a person tragic. To compare the killing of a fetus with the killing of a person is to make murder insignificant. To compare abortion in the United States with the holocaust is to make genocide trivial.
ReplyDeleteMaking these kinds of arguments only shows how weak your case is. It makes you look desperate and unable to grasp basic facts.
Transgene,
ReplyDelete>>Fetuses are not babies. They are not people. They are growing, developing humans.
Are you absolutely certain they are not people? If so, how are you certain?
>>It makes you look desperate and unable to grasp basic facts.
Speaking of which, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
>>Are you absolutely certain they are not people? If so, how are you certain?
ReplyDeleteI said so here:
"They are not aware of pain, capable of thought, or any other defining factor of personhood that makes killing a person tragic."
A person has those quintessential traits that make them capable of feeling, understanding, and acquiring experience. A fetus is not developed sufficiently to have these traits. Like anything in biology, fetuses develop in stages, especially their brains and other major organs. They have no senses, no awareness, they are human but non-persons.
>>Speaking of which, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
Because, unlike a religious person, I base my beliefs on facts which are external to me. In other words I adhere to objective reality, not the voices in my head.
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
>>And yet I've demonstrated that my reasoning isn't viciously circular - your continued assertion that it is, is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
OK, my mistake, please point to it or restate it so I can examine this "evidence".
Already done.
>>The outcome of an instance of reasoning is an experience...
Did you use your reasoning to reason that the outcome of an instance of reasoning is an experience?
Why the pathetic semantics Dan? Are you suggesting that experiences don't happen as a result of instances of reasoning? I find that an odd claim as I have 39 years of experiences - many of which happened as a result of me reasoning. I take the information gathered through tose experiences and use it to inform future acts of reasoning etc... etc...
Obviously you have, and how is that NOT Viciously Circular?
As I keep pointng out, obviously I haven't, so it's not viciously circular.
>>My worldview doesn't require perfect reasoning.
Do you use your reasoning when you reason about your worldview doesn't require perfect reasoning? Uh oh... Viciously Circular.
And back to the pathetic - and incorrect - semantics. No Dan, experience tells me that I do not require perfect reasoning. By your logic, if I needed perfect reasoning, then the very first time I reasoned incorrectly I'd be dead. But I've experienced the result of imperfect reasoning and I'm still here to tell the tale - perfect reasoning isn't required.
Transgene,
ReplyDelete>>I said so here:
So you barely asserted it "there" so what?
>>A person has those quintessential traits that make them capable of feeling, understanding, and acquiring experience.
HOW are you absolutely CERTAIN about this?
>>A fetus is not developed sufficiently to have these traits.
This is a perfect example of a knowledge claim for us to examine. You speak as if you are certain that you are a fetus is not developed sufficiently. Are you?
>>Like anything in biology, fetuses develop in stages, especially their brains and other major organs.
There's another knowledge claim. Are you certain that fetuses develop in stages?
>>They have no senses, no awareness, they are human but non-persons.
I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?
>> In other words I adhere to objective reality, not the voices in my head.
The entire atheistic worldview is necessarily based upon a relativistic worldview, and due to that, they must necessarily deny the existence of absolutes. These obviously ridiculous claims stem from the fact that they do not believe in a universal, abstract higher authority that has defined absolutes.
Yeah, "absolutes" like child-killing is wrong, unless of course, biblegod commands it.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't "absolutes" be, I don't know....consistent??
Dan...how do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid?
ReplyDeleteTransgene:
ReplyDeleteThese "fetuses," when exposed to stimuli that would be xpected to be painful exhibit a response that looks like a pain response. Indeed, you have made the comparison to the holocaust appropriate -- by using the argument of the perpetrators. They too claimed that their victims didn't really experience pain, thought, or anything that would qualify them as people. Perhaps you would also deny personhood to newborns. If you apply your stated criteria consistently, you certainly would.
You have essentially stated that to compare the killing of a person to a killing of a person trivializes murder. I disagree. It is you who wish to trivialize certain classes of murder done on the most helpless people.
>>So you barely asserted it "there" so what?
ReplyDeleteI also elaborated upon it. Care to address it then?
>>HOW are you absolutely CERTAIN about this?
I experience these traits and can discuss them with other humans to determine how common they are. We are genetically related, which means that the base traits I possess and they possess must exist in some form across the human population.
Thanks to developments in the biological sciences and behavioral sciences we know that the brain takes decades to fully develop, and that the earliest months of a human being's development is primordial, nothing like a toddler or child, or adult.
>>This is a perfect example of a knowledge claim for us to examine. You speak as if you are certain that you are a fetus is not developed sufficiently. Are you?
It is an obvious fact. The major organs like eyes, ears, nose, heart and brain take months to develop. You cannot have a developed consciousness if you cannot sense or feel anything. In the later stages of pregnancy the organs begin to mature, and the fetus can experience pain in some form then. This is usually around the third trimester, and very few abortions even occur at this point anyway.
>>There's another knowledge claim. Are you certain that fetuses develop in stages?
You're joking, right? Do you really believe that a pregnant woman has a baby in her belly who just sits there, fully developed the entire time, until it is "ready" to come out?
>>I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?
Like I said, I base my judgements and knowledge on external facts, not intuition.
The only way I could be wrong is if the facts are wrong, or do not fit my reasoning. This would require consciousness to manifest itself before the apparatus which produces it is complete, for example. Gross violations in basic physical law.
>>The entire atheistic worldview is necessarily based upon a relativistic worldview
Not really. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Anything else you attempt to pin to it means you are discussing philosophy, not atheism.
Gods are not the basis of absolutes. Absolutes exist by themselves, otherwise they would not be absolutes, but conditional.
>>and due to that, they must necessarily deny the existence of absolutes
ATHEISTS, not atheism, are not required to deny absolutes.
>>These obviously ridiculous claims stem from the fact that they do not believe in a universal, abstract higher authority that has defined absolutes
Absolutes are self-existing. They could not be absolutes otherwise. They do not require a god or magic to define them, because this would contradict their absolute nature. They would then not be absolute, but contingent upon an external device.
>>These "fetuses," when exposed to stimuli that would be xpected to be painful exhibit a response that looks like a pain response.
ReplyDeleteOnly in the third trimester can fetuses respond to pain, and then it is academic how much pain they sense, or if it is mostly a programmed response. Remember we are dealing with a human in the most primordial stages of development, which means their brain must be very simple at this point too.
>>Indeed, you have made the comparison to the holocaust appropriate -- by using the argument of the perpetrators
It does not matter what you intuit about the relationship between abortion and the holocaust. What matters is fact, and the facts are that most abortions occur before the third trimester, and post-third-trimester abortions are debatable with respect to how much and in what capacity the fetus feels pain.
>>They too claimed that their victims didn't really experience pain, thought, or anything that would qualify them as people
Thank goodness we don't base science on what people CLAIM, but what we verify. I can make these claims about fetuses because the facts are verified.
>>Perhaps you would also deny personhood to newborns. If you apply your stated criteria consistently, you certainly would
Newborns are granted personhood freely because they are independent in the sense that they do not need to live in the body of another person.
>>You have essentially stated that to compare the killing of a person to a killing of a person trivializes murder
No, I said that to compare the killing of a non-person to the killing of a person is to trivialize murder. Killing a fetus, even a third-trimester fetus, is incomparable to taking the life of a grown individual. A fetus has no identity, no sense of the world, it is the closest a living thing can be to experiencing death. To rob a person of his life is to destroy his experiences, his capacity to feel emotions, his dreams. A fetus has none of these.
>>It is you who wish to trivialize certain classes of murder done on the most helpless people
A fetus isn't a person. It is a human in development. If you cannot grasp what makes us people, what business do you have preaching on this subject?
Transgene:
ReplyDeleteA "fetus" is a person. But history is filled with instances of whole classes of people being declared "un-persons" so that their murder could be seen as more palatable. I have heard your declaration that a "fetus" is an "un-person." I am not impressed. But again, if you are true to your stated beliefs, then you must be okay with the killing of newborns too. After all, it's "incomparable to taking the life of a grown individual." Children (after birth) are also humans in development.
True enough, Pvblivs. As the OT shows, one of the ways that such a thing can be done is if an entire people is declared "wicked", etc, and deserving of "capital punishment".
ReplyDeleteRight, Dan?
I myself am pro-life, which is why Dan's and indeed, any religious person's double-mindedness about this repels me.
I will say one thing in favour of transgene's argument, kind of. In the early stages of development, fetuses don't have nervous systems or brains to enable them to feel pain in the first place. So in that stage, they rather are "unpersons".
That's not something the Nazis could have legitimately claimed about their victims.
That by the way, is the difference between a fetus and a baby. A baby does have all the parts (ie. brains, nervous system, etc), even if not fully developed yet. A fetus does not until later in it's development.
ReplyDeleteThat's where your analogy fails at the end of your comment to transgene.
>>A "fetus" is a person.
ReplyDeleteYou keep asserting this with no argument. Are animals people too? What about bacteria? Plants? If you can assert that something is a person with no argument, why can't PETA? Why can't I?
>>But history is filled with instances of whole classes of people being declared "un-persons" so that their murder could be seen as more palatable.
Using a conclusion to justify itself is tautological. Your conclusion is that fetuses are people. You justify this with a (non-factual, but emotional) spiel about people, not fetuses.
One can use your precise argument template to argue that it is morally wrong to kill animals, plants and bacteria. After all, they are people, right (because I asserted that they are, just like you did with fetuses)? People, like animals, plants and bacteria have been declared as non-persons to justify their murder, etc.
>>I have heard your declaration that a "fetus" is an "un-person." I am not impressed.
To which you have yet to refute effectively. You cannot justify assertions with feeling or consequences. It does not matter if you think mass murder is wrong, and fetuses being treated like they aren't people is comparable because it feels wrong to you and the consequences seem applicable. What you feel isn't fact, it is intuition. You support intuition with facts. You have made no argument that fetuses are people, you simply substituted how we should feel about the consequences for an argument.
>>But again, if you are true to your stated beliefs, then you must be okay with the killing of newborns too.
Again, an argument from consequences rather than fact.
The facts are that a newborn is not dependent on a host body, which is the raison d'être of abortion. Your argument has no justification.
>>After all, it's "incomparable to taking the life of a grown individual." Children (after birth) are also humans in development.
See the above.
Transgene:
ReplyDeleteYou keep asserting this with no argument."
You can see that a "fetus" is a person by sight. Your claim to the contrary is a denial of the obvious. I also offer no argument to support the obious claims that grass is green, water is wet, or (if I produce a dog) that it is a dog.
"Using a conclusion to justify itself is tautological. Your conclusion is that fetuses are people. You justify this with a (non-factual, but emotional) spiel about people, not fetuses."
I am stating a historical fact. Throughout history, people have classified verious groups of people as "un-persons" and noted some characteristic common to the people in question to "justify" the claim. What you have done in declaring "fetuses" not to be people is no different. I am rejecting your "argument" that "fetuses are not people" by showing that it is the same (with a different appropriate fill-in-the-blank) as the other historical classification of humans as "un-persons."
"Again, an argument from consequences rather than fact"
Again, not true. I am stating that you do not really believe your argument. Your "argument" applies equally well to newborn children. I am making the assumption that you reject the conclusion, and therefore the argument, when so applied. If you actually believed your argument, your response would have been "yeah, children aren't people either, so?" But, let's look at my reasoning:
Transgene claims that being a "developing human" disqualifies one from being a person in his argument that "fetuses" are not people.
The argument applies equally well to children after birth (and for several years.) Children are also developing humans. On the stated criterion they are disqualified as people.
Transgene rejects the argument as applied to children after birth.
Conclusion: Transgene does not really believe that being a "human in development" disqualifies one as a person. He is, instead, looking for a plausible set of premises that would carve out "fetuses" and "fetuses" alone as an exception to personhood without making "fetuses are not people" the direct premise.
"The facts are that a newborn is not dependent on a host body,"
How long do you think an abandoned newborn will live? And it is not the raison d'etre of abortion. It is the excuse for abortion. Mothers have abortions for the same reason that they abandon their children in dumpsters. They (the ones that do this) don't want the responsibility of raising their child.
I just thought of something, Dan, do you apply the same logic in this post, to capital punishment by the government?
ReplyDeleteAre you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the person is guilty of the crimes they were convicted of? Unless you pretend that the justice system is perfect and they have never convicted an innocent person, the answer is "no you are not certain." If you're not certain then, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution and abolish capital punishment?
Max,
ReplyDeleteYou do not think our Judiciary, especially these days of DNA testing, can convict a murderer without certainty? Yes, we can be certain of things, including murder.
My conscious would have been quite clear if Casey Anthony was convicted and sentenced to death. This is evidence though that, we err on the side of caution often. Insert MJ and OJ examples here.
Also, people are murdering babies daily and without repentance they surely will be greatly punished for doing so, in a very permanent manner. That I am absolutely certain about.
Right, it's all baby murder unless biblegod orders it, eh? You double-minded son of a bitch. Then it's "captial punishment". Right...those midianite babies sure had it coming eh, those fuckers.
ReplyDeleteFuck, religious "morality" is disgusting.
"You do not think our Judiciary, especially these days of DNA testing, can convict a murderer without certainty?"
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that DNA is not a requirement to convict, all it takes is a jury to be convinced that they are guilty. Persuasiveness of lawyers and witnesses as well as the temperament of the jury are the most important factors. Eye witness testimony is enough to sentence a person death if it is convincing to a jury, and eye witness testimony can be wrong. Certainty is not a requirement for conviction.
>>You can see that a "fetus" is a person by sight. Your claim to the contrary is a denial of the obvious.
ReplyDeleteIs this Jesus then?
http://legacy-cdn.smosh.com/smosh-pit/072010/jesus-12.jpg
You'll have to make a better argument than "A fetus is a person because it looks like one."
That is a purely subjective argument. I think this looks like a person:
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/pub/libs/images/usr/4984.jpg
But this does not:
http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/fetus.jpg
>>What you have done in declaring "fetuses" not to be people is no different.
Prove it, using actual arguments and not "you're wrong because it's obvious."
>>I am rejecting your "argument" that "fetuses are not people" by showing that it is the same (with a different appropriate fill-in-the-blank) as the other historical classification of humans as "un-persons."
You are using an emotional argument in lieu of fact. This argument is about facts, not emotion. We're not discussing a favorite song, a best painting. We are discussing the medical and biological knowledge about fetuses and abortion.
>>Again, not true. I am stating that you do not really believe your argument. Your "argument" applies equally well to newborn children.
Did you read this bit:
"The facts are that a newborn is not dependent on a host body, which is the raison d'être of abortion. Your argument has no justification."
>>I am making the assumption that you reject the conclusion, and therefore the argument, when so applied. If you actually believed your argument, your response would have been "yeah, children aren't people either, so?"
What is an abortion? It is an operation or treatment designed to kill the developing embryo or fetus and flush it out of the body of a host.
What is a newborn? It is an offspring independent of a host body.
Therefore, how can the rationale of a mother having control over her own body's functions, including reproduction, apply to an offspring which is not within her body?
You pick and choose which portions of an argument suit you.
>>Conclusion: Transgene does not really believe that being a "human in development" disqualifies one as a person. He is, instead, looking for a plausible set of premises that would carve out "fetuses" and "fetuses" alone as an exception to personhood without making "fetuses are not people" the direct premise.
If you bothered to read my argument completely you would know that my basis for determining the ethics of abortion is that fetuses are not people, and that fetuses depend on a host body. Because newborns do not depend on a host body, and because they are capable of gaining experiences, they do not fit my criteria.
>>How long do you think an abandoned newborn will live?
A newborn is not living inside a host, therefore it is not dependent upon a host body. That is the difference between "requiring care" and "requiring a host."
"And it is not the raison d'etre of abortion."
Abortion exists solely because the woman has a fetus inside of her. If the fetus was external, abortion would not exist.
>>Mothers have abortions for the same reason that they abandon their children in dumpsters. They (the ones that do this) don't want the responsibility of raising their child.
You seem to think that it is better an impressionable child be raised by a mother who would have dumped him into a garbage bin or aborted him. Sometimes it's better for society that people are not born.
>>You do not think our Judiciary, especially these days of DNA testing, can convict a murderer without certainty? Yes, we can be certain of things, including murder.
ReplyDeleteDNA testing is not ABSOLUTELY reliable. There is around a one in several billion chance of duplicate results, not to mention fallible humans operating the laboratory equipment. Remember these are scientists and technicians, the same people who are completely unreliable when it comes to global warming and evolution. How could you trust the same people who developed "goo to you" when it comes to sentencing people to death?
Tranny,
ReplyDelete>>Did you read this bit: "The facts are that a newborn is not dependent on a host body, which is the raison d'être of abortion. Your argument has no justification."
So by your own argument, its a human at 21 weeks then. Since the youngest premature that survived was at that age. Well that is a start.
And eradicating a human, after its a human at 21 weeks as per your definition, is MURDER. Thanks for admitting to that.
>>So by your own argument, its a human at 21 weeks then. Since the youngest premature that survived was at that age. Well that is a start.
ReplyDeleteIt is a human once it becomes an embryo. Humanhood isn't in dispute, personhood is. It is a person once it is birthed, and can sustain itself sufficiently (I.E. not attached to life support, or in a womb).
>>And eradicating a human, after its a human at 21 weeks as per your definition, is MURDER. Thanks for admitting to that.
It is infanticide, not murder, if a born fetus that can sustain itself is killed intentionally.
Transgene:
ReplyDeleteHumanhood is a sufficient condition for personhood. As alternate sentiences may come to exist, I will not call it a necessary condition. Oh, and infanticide is recognized as a subset of murder, as is fratricide and patricide.
"If you bothered to read my argument completely you would know that my basis for determining the ethics of abortion is that fetuses are not people, and that fetuses depend on a host body."
Except that you added that bit after I called you on the fact that your argument applied to children.
Dan
ReplyDeleteAnd eradicating a human, after its a human at 21 weeks as per your definition, is MURDER. Thanks for admitting to that.
Unless of course, biblegod commands it, or does it himself through miscarriages, then it's "capital punishment".
Fuck Dan, why do you religious types keep pretending to be pro-life? You fucking aren't. Double-minded yes, but not pro-life. Or at the very best, not consistently so.
So if we ignore your double-mindedness for now, what should the penalty be for this "MURDER", Dan?
Transgene,
ReplyDelete>>It is infanticide, not murder, if a born fetus that can sustain itself is killed intentionally.
Just wow! That is like saying "it is homicide, not murder" Uber Scary.
>> It is a person once it is birthed, and can sustain itself sufficiently (I.E. not attached to life support, or in a womb).
Ah, redefined and categorized again, now places people in coma's, or even kidney dialysis, as non-persons. Uber Scary Deux.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>So if we ignore your double-mindedness for now, what should the penalty be for this "MURDER", Dan?
If its illegal? At this point I am leaning to the Rush method. Get it? Exodus 21:12
>>Just wow! That is like saying "it is homicide, not murder" Uber Scary.
ReplyDeleteInfanticide is less serious than homicide. I believe this to be rational.
>>Ah, redefined and categorized again, now places people in coma's, or even kidney dialysis, as non-persons. Uber Scary Deux.
People with permanent brain damage that would make them unable to recover should lose their personhood. We presently find this an ethical grey area, but I believe that eventually our understanding of the brain will cause laws to reflect this more rational definition, or our medicine will become advanced enough that no brain injury is permanent.