Logic dictates that there is a God!

[hrryflashman]

logic dictates flibble wibble

[Napoleon Ier]

Religion is in no way the only institution that has claimed its a bad idea to kill.

Likewise with society as developed as it is right now, you could certainly not have a single experience in a religious arena and know its not acceptable to kill individuals.

This is broadly irrelevant I'm afraid. We're asking at the philosophical level, "what can I say is right or wrong?", not, "is religion the only institiution to condemn murder?"

[got tonkaed]

This is broadly irrelevant I'm afraid. We're asking at the philosophical level, "what can I say is right or wrong?", not, "is religion the only institiution to condemn murder?"

no it is certainly relavant....because people do not live in philosophical vaccums they live in societies. Frankly the government says a lot more about killing being wrong than any religion i can think of.

[hrryflashman]

killings fun

[MelonanadeMaster]

In which case you admit there's nothing wrong about the holocaust, rape, paedophilia or infanticide, just that it is societally inconvieniant.

So, tell me, what for example, is wrong with killing off people in Africa because the world population is too large? It benefits society...

I can't understand why you would miss the point.
Societial convenience needs to be also applied to everyone equally. It's just plain wrong to choose one group of people over the other. Killing people because they are different is fucking stupid because they are not less than anyone else.
I think noone can make a good case for killing someone, so therefore it's wrong.

The rights of humans aren't god-given, but in a sense they are absolute because they apply to everyone. And those rights are made because that is what a reasonable person would like for himself. A person doesn't want to get raped, killed or discriminated against, so the only solution that is fair is appyling it to everyone.

I'm sorry, but he isn't missing the point. You're saying that because you can't prove certain people are greater than others, everyone is equal, yet that would be assuming you're right which would require objectivity, since you believe everything is equal, your statement is instead subjective. Thus your argument crumbles into a logical paradox.

[comic boy]

A 12 week old embryo is not a person,that is the difference.

I'm sorry, are you following the debate a all or are you just trying to display your imbecility again?

Do you have any idea what an embryo is (cos I can tell you at 8 weks it isn't an embryo)?

Does this look inhuman to you?

Yes my mistake at 12 weeks it is of course a fetus .
Calling me names and displaying graphic images however does not alter the fact that at 12 weeks it is not considered a living being and its termination is not therefore murder. On the subject of imbecility the worship of invisible supernatural beings hardly indicates an advanced grasp of logic.

[hrryflashman]

kill kill kill

[got tonkaed]

melonade....if we assume that there is not yet a objective set of moral behavior outside of religious expression, which is in the arena of the subjective....do we not have to attempt to make the best use of the tools that are current available?

If we take a look at perhaps some of the societal constructs that we use in our own societies, ie the right of living beings to continue to persist as a hallmark of a free society, should that right not be granted equally. Shouldnt that alone be a qualifier for condeming large scale murders and genocidal efforts?

[Napoleon Ier]

at 12 weeks it is not considered a living being

1/No, but it should be.

2/Your comment about "supernatural beings" does only do you discredit. Obviously you find people like Einstein, Lemaître, Francis Collins and many others lacking in logical capability do you? That comment is frankly disturbingly base and cras.

[demon7896]

Then again some people believe in sky daddy so go figure.

Doesn't Backglass have a copyright on that word?

I do.

Skydaddy® - A registered trademark of Backglass Industries.

what is your alternate theory?

Jay believes that all gay people just woke up one day and chose to be attracted to the same sex, live a life of ridicule and often be ostracized by their own family. He also thinks they should just simply choose to be "not gay" and then everything would be OK.

***Steps up to the mic to speak for himself***


Jay believes that there are CAUSES for homosexuality, not that it is a condition people are born with nor "wake up" having. Bottom line is, and this is my opinion, that homosexuality may be demonic. In other words, a demon enters an individual influencing that persons choices. I'm sure you have heard of the spirit of "gluttony", "wrath/anger", maybe even "homosexuality". I believe the Bible when it says, "We fight not against flesh and bone but against powers and principalities"."

i'm trusting that your "demon" is a metaphor Furthermore, there might be a gene for homosexuality, maybe that guy's brain is wired like that. I don't believe it's that guy's fault, whenever a guy is mentally retarded, it's usually his genes. There are some external forces to, though, for example, there is a theory that bullies are the result of neglectfulness.

[comic boy]

at 12 weeks it is not considered a living being

1/No, but it should be.

2/Your comment about "supernatural beings" does only do you discredit. Obviously you find people like Einstein, Lemaître, Francis Collins and many others lacking in logical capability do you? That comment is frankly disturbingly base and cras.

1) Your view is not supported by the vast majority of medical practioners or biologists.
2) The comment is accurate and yes in this respect their logical facilities went walkabout.
3) You may believe in whatever fables and fairy stories you wish but expecting others to abide by such dictates is disturbing and crass my dear boy.

[Beastly]

It's funny that everyone was at 12 weeks at one time. We all have evolved, from tiny to large.

That 12 week fetus has no-one to stand for them. How could anyone kill a person just because they are small.

[Dancing Mustard]

It's funny that everyone was at 12 weeks at one time. We all have evolved, from tiny to large.

That 12 week fetus has no-one to stand for them. How could anyone kill a person just because they are small.

Because they're not yet a person?

Is it wrong for me to mastrubate into a wad of kleenex while watching 2 girls one cup? After all, we all have evolved from tiny sperm to large humans. Am I killing several million 'persons' just because they're small whenever I crank one out to fetishistic internet porn?

[Napoleon Ier]

Ok comicboy. Find me biological evidence (remember, if you're wrong, then we have been killing innocents, so the burden of proof is upon you) that the foetus is not sentient. You'll find in truth, most biologists either don't know or do assert it is a life, increasingly, medical evidence points to this. I have already said how the diversity of legal limits illustrates my point.
Secondly, I would also like to illustrate the flaw in your third comment (the second is simply risible, you call me stupid for believeing in God and then by extension imply everything I argue about will accordingly be stupid, and imply that no theist is intelligent), which says I can't impose my religious beliefs.
Well, I'm trying to impose my beliefs. Yes. The fact I am Christian is not however sufficient for intolerant bigots like you (yes, I can use those words as well) to dismiss us out of hand. Wilberforce argued against slavery from Christian principles. I consider the pro-life lobby to be his successor, we argue against those seeking to falsely de-humanize people and cruelly deny them their right to life or freedom.

[unriggable]

So you guys just don't trust science do you...

The scientific findings began in 1991 when Simon LeVay, working at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, found subtle differences in the post-mortem brains of heterosexual and homosexual young men. (The majority of homosexual men also happened to have died from AIDS.) The cluster of neurons known as INAH 3 in the hypothalamus were reduced in size in homosexual men, much to the same degree that the same group of neurons is reduced in women. This region of the hypothalamus is also commonly thought of as participating in “the regulation of male-typical sexual behavior”

...

The most important paper that reported the ‘gay gene’ was from Hamer et al., a team of geneticists working for the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Dr. Dean Hamer and his colleagues reported in 1993 that, using DNA from homosexual siblings and their pedigrees, a gene for homosexuality seemed to be maternally linked and found on the Xq28 stretch of the X chromosome. He chose 40 pairs of homosexual brothers and found that 33 of them shared a set of five markers on the long arm of the X chromosome. In the July 19, 1993 edition of Science, Hamer reported that the linkage translated to a “99.5% certainty that there is a gene (or genes) in this area of the X chromosome that predisposes a male to become a heterosexual”.

[unriggable]

Napoleon, if it is alive then surely it should be able to survive on its own.

[Napoleon Ier]

Napoleon, if it is alive then surely it should be able to survive on its own.

Surely you realise how stupid that comment is?

*no personal insult intended, that comment I'll assume was "speed-posted" Im only "flaming" arrogant ignorami like dm and cb today*

[Napoleon Ier]

It's funny that everyone was at 12 weeks at one time. We all have evolved, from tiny to large.

That 12 week fetus has no-one to stand for them. How could anyone kill a person just because they are small.

Because they're not yet a person?

Is it wrong for me to mastrubate into a wad of kleenex while watching 2 girls one cup? After all, we all have evolved from tiny sperm to large humans. Am I killing several million 'persons' just because they're small whenever I crank one out to fetishistic internet porn?

he result of the union of thehuman sperm (orm the human male) and the human egg (from the human female is the human zygote. The genus and species of the human zygote is Homo Sapiens. Allowed to grow and develop in its proper environment, after nine months, this entity will be born. During those nine months the while the size, shape and physiology of the entity may change, the genetic make-up remains the same. The same DNA information in that single cell at the moment of fertilization is the same as the being during the nine months of gestation and throughout the being's life. There is only definition that will adequately describe this entity - human being.

[Frigidus]

at 12 weeks it is not considered a living being

1/No, but it should be.

2/Your comment about "supernatural beings" does only do you discredit. Obviously you find people like Einstein, Lemaître, Francis Collins and many others lacking in logical capability do you? That comment is frankly disturbingly base and cras.

You can actually make a case for #1, and I think that a thread on the topic would be appropriate if we wanted to argue it. In response to #2, yes, they clearly aren't looking at facts. I'm going to go on a rant now.

When the concept of god/gods came into being it was because they couldn't explain the sun, rain, and various other phenomena. They declared these things supernatural and over time they came up with legends that explained them and various other things (the creation of the earth being one of them). Religion became more complicated and ingrained in culture over time, and their explanations were taken as literal truth. The sun was a god, and he existed. Heck, just look up. Looking back these people look pretty stupid, but they simply couldn't understand something because they did not have any scientific explanation. Slowly pagan religions focusing on nature have died out (and are now known to be absolutely incorrect). However, several religions branched off from simply explaining nature. They explained how humans came into being, what happens to your "soul" when you die, and various other things we couldn't scientifically understand. Those are still around, mainly because we still don't have an answer to many of these questions.

Considering all of the above, how can you possibly believe? Religion is nothing short of mass hysteria. Relating to this thread, the above makes the idea of proving god appear laughable. About a month ago I and a friend of mine went up to a group of people on the street babbling about how we would burn forever if we weren't born again and asked them their take on this. My friend brought up some of the arguments made in the documentary Zeitgeist, which was recently posted on the forums. Although the poor guy tried his hardest to defend his delusion he eventually fell back on the "Satan is trying to sway our beliefs" line of thought. This isn't an uncommon argument among some groups of theists: God's evil counterpart is planting evidence that makes his existence appear doubtful. I don't buy that. You can't prove your faith is true by citing your faith.

I don't usually mention this among my theistic friends, since they can frankly believe what they want. But if someone comes up to me and tells me that I'm going to burn in hell or tells me that my beliefs make me inherently immoral and acts indignant when I question him about his claims I tend to get a bit preachy myself.

That all said, I have a few points I'd like to make.

• 1) There is no logic to theism. All but the most hardcore religious people agree that it takes a leap of faith
  
  2) Morals aren't inherently a part of religion. Religion is inherently a part of religion.
  
  3) Morals are far from universal. Slavery, treatment of gays, race and sex equality (or lack thereof) are proof of this.

Sorry about the tl;dr but this thread is getting more and more annoying.

[Dancing Mustard]

he result of the union of thehuman sperm (orm the human male) and the human egg (from the human female is the human zygote. The genus and species of the human zygote is Homo Sapiens. Allowed to grow and develop in its proper environment, after nine months, this entity will be born. During those nine months the while the size, shape and physiology of the entity may change, the genetic make-up remains the same. The same DNA information in that single cell at the moment of fertilization is the same as the being during the nine months of gestation and throughout the being's life.

Mmmm, I love the smell of patronising in the morning...

Oh hey, aren't you that guy who was whinging about 'arrogance' earlier. How immensely ironic.

There is only definition that will adequately describe this entity - human being.

Nah, the potential for human life does not make something a human being. "But its DNA and genetic make-up remains the same!", who cares? If a zygote suffers a genetic mutation while in the womb does that suddenly mean that the zygote was non-human before that mutation occured?
"But it's destined to turn into a human if you leave it be!", who cares? Is a sperm headed directly for an egg a 'human being'... I don't think so.

I appreciate that you don't like abortion, and that the lines are hard to draw. But lumps of flesh that will eventually become humans, just aren't humans yet. Without the capacity to survive independently, and the ability to conduct independent rational thought it's bizarre to consider them as full fledged human beings.

Suck 'em out, and flush 'em away... it's the way of the future.

[comic boy]

Ok comicboy. Find me biological evidence (remember, if you're wrong, then we have been killing innocents, so the burden of proof is upon you) that the foetus is not sentient. You'll find in truth, most biologists either don't know or do assert it is a life, increasingly, medical evidence points to this. I have already said how the diversity of legal limits illustrates my point.
Secondly, I would also like to illustrate the flaw in your third comment (the second is simply risible, you call me stupid for believeing in God and then by extension imply everything I argue about will accordingly be stupid, and imply that no theist is intelligent), which says I can't impose my religious beliefs.
Well, I'm trying to impose my beliefs. Yes. The fact I am Christian is not however sufficient for intolerant bigots like you (yes, I can use those words as well) to dismiss us out of hand. Wilberforce argued against slavery from Christian principles. I consider the pro-life lobby to be his successor, we argue against those seeking to falsely de-humanize people and cruelly deny them their right to life or freedom.

I have absolutely no problem with you attempting to impose your personal beliefs on others, I have absolutely no problem with anyboys personal religious conviction. What I am utterly intolerant of is the proposition that religion is logical and therefore should be used as a basis for constructing legislation of any kind. Abortion is unpleasant and I certainly wouldnt condone its use as a contraceptive but there were sound reasons for legalisation and it should not be outlawed simply because some people find it offensive. You may find some of my thoughts risable , many find a lack of faith risable but there is no more evidence of a God than there is of an Easter bunny or a tooth fairy. To believe one exists but not the other is pure speculation and has nothing to do with logical deduction, otherwise inteligent people can be deluded in this respect obviously.

[Napoleon Ier]

Ok comicboy. Find me biological evidence (remember, if you're wrong, then we have been killing innocents, so the burden of proof is upon you) that the foetus is not sentient. You'll find in truth, most biologists either don't know or do assert it is a life, increasingly, medical evidence points to this. I have already said how the diversity of legal limits illustrates my point.
Secondly, I would also like to illustrate the flaw in your third comment (the second is simply risible, you call me stupid for believeing in God and then by extension imply everything I argue about will accordingly be stupid, and imply that no theist is intelligent), which says I can't impose my religious beliefs.
Well, I'm trying to impose my beliefs. Yes. The fact I am Christian is not however sufficient for intolerant bigots like you (yes, I can use those words as well) to dismiss us out of hand. Wilberforce argued against slavery from Christian principles. I consider the pro-life lobby to be his successor, we argue against those seeking to falsely de-humanize people and cruelly deny them their right to life or freedom.

I have absolutely no problem with you attempting to impose your personal beliefs on others, I have absolutely no problem with anyboys personal religious conviction. What I am utterly intolerant of is the proposition that religion is logical and therefore should be used as a basis for constructing legislation of any kind. Abortion is unpleasant and I certainly wouldnt condone its use as a contraceptive but there were sound reasons for legalisation and it should not be outlawed simply because some people find it offensive. You may find some of my thoughts risable , many find a lack of faith risable but there is no more evidence of a God than there is of an Easter bunny or a tooth fairy. To believe one exists but not the other is pure speculation and has nothing to do with logical deduction, otherwise inteligent people can be deluded in this respect obviously.

Cosmological argument?
Historical evidence for Jesus and His Resurrection?
Goldilock's Enigma?

Oh, and its not just that I find abortion "offensive".
Its that Abortion is Murder.

[Napoleon Ier]

[
Nah, the potential for human life does not make something a human being. "But its DNA and genetic make-up remains the same!", who cares? If a zygote suffers a genetic mutation while in the womb does that suddenly mean that the zygote was non-human before that mutation occured?
"But it's destined to turn into a human if you leave it be!", who cares? Is a sperm headed directly for an egg a 'human being'... I don't think so.

I appreciate that you don't like abortion, and that the lines are hard to draw. But lumps of flesh that will eventually become humans, just aren't humans yet. Without the capacity to survive independently, and the ability to conduct independent rational thought it's bizarre to consider them as full fledged human beings.

Its not for you to just judge where the line between human and not human lies. What you have when an egg is fertilised is a homo sapiens, maybe not yet rational, but that is biologically what it is.

is it right to you to pull the plug, without consent, on someone on alife machine about to resuscitate in 9 months?

[Dancing Mustard]

Its not for you to just judge where the line between human and not human lies.

Oh right. That's your job is it?

So if it's simple genetic material that makes something homo-sapiens (regardless of its ability to conduct indepent thought or action) then I suppose it's mass homicide when I cut my fingernails, pick off scabs, and have nosebleeds?

is it right to you to pull the plug, without consent, on someone on alife machine about to resuscitate in 9 months?

Clearly not, the victim retains the status of 'human' which they had when they entered the coma; unlike a foetus, which has not yet gained such status and is thus green-lighted for termination.

Seriously, grind 'em down and use 'em for stem-cells. Their squishy flesh can save us all.

[demon7896]

geez, how the frick did this get to abortion?